Jump to content

Talk:Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attribution

[edit]

An article was originally created at this title, but was later moved to Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina; however, much of the original content addressed matters unrelated to these criticisms. I have moved such material back to this title, leaving a separate article dealing solely with criticisms, per the title of the article following the move. The edit history of this article is now somewhat scattered between this article's pre-move edit history, the later article's edit history, and the edit history of sections that were originally moved to one or the other from the main Hurricane Katrina article. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- BD2412 talk 16:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some material in this article was moved from a different article on alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrine. Complete edit history of the latter can be found at Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Alternative theories page history. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of effects.

[edit]

Given their closeness in time and location, it strikes me that it will soon become difficult to separate the respective economic, political, and social effects of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. How would my fellow editors feel about moving the articles covering these aspects to Economic effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Political effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and Social effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season? -- BD2412 talk 00:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of "Political effects of population displacement"

[edit]

1) Most of the hyperlinks in this section are broken.
2) Editorials are not reliable sources of fact.
3) You cannot see into the future nor read the minds of evacuees, so I see no point in making unfounded speculation about electoral politics this early in the game.
4) What about the people who will have to fill the jobs once NO is running at 100% again? I haven't heard of any mass influx of conservative whites into the area, have you?
<BIAS>In fact, I've heard from relatives down there the complete opposite - that many hispanics are moving in to fill these jobs. Given the rather low wages, I doubt we will see this influx. And the idea of building McMansions in the heart of one of America's busiest ports is absurd. Yet the show must go on and NO is still the best location for import/exports and all points north on the mississippi. Given the rather negative view most hispanics take on the current issue-de-joure for the conservatives, "immigration reform", I wouldn't exactly count on their vote. You are also assuming that everyone in Louisana who voted for W in 2004 will vote the party line in 2006 and 2008. You are aware that not everyone voted for W because of moral/social issues, many (rightly or wrongly) found the conservatives more credible on the security issue. When polled now, post-Katrina, the majority have lost complete confidence in conservative government keeping them safe (of course the true believers still love him).</BIAS> So whatever your viewpoint, this section needs some definite NPOV/factual clean up and I'm way too biased to do it.--130.127.121.232 00:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed an outdated note on this section because the last paragraph is very much out of date, and it is not clear what timeframe this specific district predictions are on. If these predictions were only about the 2006 election, they've all been proved false and we might as well delete them. If however the sourced predictions about seats changing parties were actually meaning they think these seats will change hands by the 2010 election, it can stay but needs more clearly stated. Jon 19:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed my own tag; fairly quickly after I placed that request another editor removed the out of date material in that section. What's there now as up to date as can be. It will need to be periodically looked at whenever new population studies come out, but that is too slow a process to place current tags on. Jon 17:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contract awards

[edit]

1 - Someone should do research and clarification. Many of the contracts, namley Shaw's and the DOD contracts were Pre-qualified Federal Contracts, not NO-Bid Cost plus. That is completely wrong. Plus the ability to "miss use" federal funds in a cost plus environment is very difficult under Sarbanes-Oxley legilation. The cost plus is an Itemized bill with multiple auditors.

2 - The awards went to Haliburton, Brown and Root, Fluor, Shaw, and Bechtel. That a who's who of major American EPC Contractors with the skill & resources to do the scope and scale of hurricane relief. Plus Shaw is based in Baton Rouge, no one could respond faster.

Linkspam removed

[edit]

I've removed the katrina coverage page from the external links section of this article. (a) the site is a blog and (b) the most recent entry on the blog dates back to March 20, 2006, so it's no even current. The link also was added with a description to, "over 1000 heavily -tagged [1] posts on the politics of the disaster." But when I bring up this so-called tags page, every one of their 'tags' results in a '404 not found'. Dr. Cash 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'd suggest being careful about calling something "linkspam".
2. The 404 issue was a temporary problem which has been corrected.
3. KC was in the External Links section from October 4, 2005 until the external links were "cleaned up" by Dr. Cash on April 14, 2006.
4. KC was on one of the other Katrina pages before October.
5. Whether it's currently being updated is immaterial. It has over 1000 posts on the topic categorized by over 400 tags and more raw data and original source material than all WP Katrina entries combined. And, I've cached much of the material which I only quoted at the site; my cache folder is 123 Megs, and I might be putting that online at some point.
For a tangible example, I don't find anything in the entry about Henry Waxman. Yet, at that tag you'll find three posts concerning his response, including an excerpt from a letter he sent. Nothing about that here.
Maybe you should use the site as a resource instead of deleting the link. LonewackoDotCom
Sorry, I still don't accept these reasons. The site is nothing more than a blog. It is worthless as a resource on this topic. Dr. Cash 07:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the reader look around the site and make up their own mind. Anyone else have any comments?
I'm not sure who left the above unsigned comment, but it should also be pointed out the site in question also contains many copyright violations ... most of it's 'blog entries' were in fact, lifted from other sources, such as the Washington Post & AP. This is unacceptable and wikipedia should not accept copyright infringement and plagiarism like this. Most of the blog entries have very few comments associated with it, as well. Therefore, I highly doubt that this site is even remotely notable as it is. Furthermore, anything even remotely connected to the lonewacko blog ought to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt,... Dr. Cash 02:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm already dealing with this issue through Wikipedia and I don't want to escalate the issue here. However, it needs to be pointed out that:
1. KC abides by all relevant copyright laws.
2. The charge of plagiarism is completely false.
I demand a retraction of those statements. I also suggest that Dr. Cash contacts legal counsel regarding his statements above as well as before making any future statements. User:LonewackoDotCom

Don't make legal threats, that is strongly discouraged.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my original accusations of plagarism were a bit off. Looking at the site in further detail, I don't see blatant copying of material from published sources. That being said, I don't appreciate your legal threats. I still stand behind my decision to remove 'katrinacoverage.com' from the external links section of this page, however. If this site is so important, and has such great information on hurricane katrina, then why has (a) the site not been updated since March, 2005, and (b) does the site have next to zero responses posted to it's articles by users/visitors. In fact, it appears to me that the site has dwindled to very little traffic in the past six months, and those that run the site are attempting to stir up traffic by adding more links to their site, especially considering the one-year anniversary of Katrina is right around the corner. Let's face reality; katrinacoverage.com is virtually dead. Don't try and resurrect it and just let it go,...
It should also be pointed out that you are in violation of WP:EL by adding a link to your own site (a site that you own/maintain). Dr. Cash 18:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the debate on this page but for the sake of completion can both parties concerned please restate their opinions here. This way, we can end the mediation case quickly. Thanks. Jsw663 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I don't have time for this shiat, so I've put the link back. There's really only 3 links on the page anyway, so it's not like we have a problem with linkspam to begin with. Still think the site is really pushing the boundaries of notability, but who cares? Dr. Cash 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please can the parties concern review the following section concerning reliable sources: [2]. According to that, the Katrina website would be of dubious credibility as it would come under the "Bulletin boards" section. This is not only because of the nature of the site itself, but also because the poster is also the webmaster of the site, and does NOT come under the exception to the Bulletin Boards rule (ie not an expert in the field). I would thus recommend the link be removed. If any party is still dissatisfied they can always appeal to an administrator, although I would advise parties only to resort to this if they think a GRAVE injustice has been committed, as administrators only have a limited amount of time to deal with their huge volume of cases. Jsw663 05:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Speculation" section does not meet standards of objectivity

[edit]

The section of this page titled "Speculation for the cause of Hurricane Katrina" appears to have an axe to grind, arguing against the possibility of climate change as an exacerbating factor in the unprecedented intensity and destructiveness of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. The author makes the bold claim that "[m]ost global climate experts concur that global warming is not responsible for the increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes during the 1990s and 2000s," without citation, and then goes on to say "This then is completely ignored..." before giving examples of public debate on the subject.

Can the editors please make some correction to this blatant propagandizing, or at least flag this section for its lack of an objective tone? Thanks--JBT 

            I agree with the above comment. It's not even well-written. Either take it down or make it not so childish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.195.245 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.45.48 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Deletion

[edit]

After careful review of this page, in comparison with the guidelines as to what the standards of a Wikipedia page should be, I think that it would be best if this page were deleted. My reasoning for this: The amount of dead links, the amount of links to op-eds that are purported to be fact, and finally because most of this information can be found on the main Hurricane Katrina page. I would like to have some feedback on why or why not this page should not be nominated for deletion. --Kschmidt831 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reasons given would be cause to improve the article, not delete it per WP:DEL and WP:AFD. Your last suggestion of merging it with the Hurricane Katrina article may work, though said article is quite long now. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 00:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fix it, don't mix it. The reason we have a whole series of Katrina articles is because there is too much to cover in a single article. There is no question that Katrina had political effects, and that those effects continue to reverberate - President Obama visited Katrina victims again just this past week, and the coming census count will indicate the degree of continuing population displacement, which will effect apportionment of legislative districts, and perhaps even electoral votes. bd2412 T 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006

[edit]

Any reason why the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 is not referenced? It was passed as a result of actions taken during the aftermath of Katrina. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 02:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina&oldid=1211230983"