Jump to content

Talk:International response to Hurricane Katrina

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

Cuba?

[edit]

Cuba?

Are they seriously offering help? --CFIF 01:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, according to U.S. State Department, see list of "Potential Donors" in this article. My take on it is that it is more about helping the poor than it is about helping the White House, and political opportunism may also play a part.--Tsaddik Dervish 02:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actual funds used?

[edit]

This section is woefully not NPOV. Furthermore, a pledge is not the same thing as money in the bank. Lots of countries pledged millions of dollars for the '04 tsunami but only delivered a small percentage of what was offered.

Not exactly. Read the article. It went uncollected. In other words the US decided not to accept. Mortyman (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge / Deletion

[edit]

Whoever flagged this page for deletion doesn't seem to be aware that somebody suggested that this page be merged with Hurricane Katrina disaster relief, and that everybody who commented on the suggested merge suggested against it. Moreover, they have begun merging the articles AND flagged this article for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Katrina_disaster_relief

Something wrong with this picture? Lantoka 03:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly disagree with a speedy deletion. Why would the page be deleted??? It doesn't meet any of the criteria listed on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and it provides good information that can't be found in other articles. --Tsaddik Dervish 03:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened, but I think we got this sorted out. Both articles look good now. Lantoka 03:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was on Hurricane Katrina , please merge in here

[edit]

...and much of it duplicates information on this page, please merge. Lexor|Talk 15:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The following states and foreign organizations announced their intention to provide financial or logistical assistance:

  • Germany: "I asked my ministers to investigate what help Germany could offer to the United States" (Gerhard Schröder). "The German government is ready to give any help or support to bring this terrible natural disaster and its consequences under control." (Joschka Fischer).
  • Saudi Arabia: Says it's ready to increase its petroleum output to balance the decrease in international oil/petrol production caused by the cyclone. King Abdallah ben Abdel Aziz declared "Bring all that which should contribute to decrease the consequences of the cyclone."

* Afghanistan: US$130,000. * Australia: Send security teams and financial help of AS$10 million.

* Canada: Some military equipment embedded in boats.

  • European Union: "Everything they ask for, we will give them, petrol reserve [...] and everything else they will need" (Javier Solana).
  • France: 8 planes, 2 boats, 600 tents and 1,000 cots, "one detachment from the Sécurité civile of 35 people (including 11 cyclone specialists) should immediately be ready from Guadeloupe and Martinique" according to the adjoint spokesman of the Foreign Office Minister, Denis Simonneau, one detachment for airborne catastrophe intervention including 60 people, 60 electrical generators, 3 water pumps, 3 water treatment stations, 1,000 tarps . For the Defense Ministry: 2 planes yet near the disaster site and other six from European continent, two navy boats (one with an embedded helicopter) and one cyclone module of 20 military personnel specialized in medical support. To help French people, one support mission for crisis situation of five people, including two doctors, is sent to help the Consulate General of New Orleans.
  • Great Britain: It is ready to help in reconstruction efforts in devastated area.

* Japan: US$500,000 (€403,000) of urgent help, consisting of $200,000 (€161,000) for the American Red Cross, and $300,000 of urgent items, including tents, tarps and generators. * The Netherlands: Navy vessel with aid goods

  • Russia: 2 planes, some first-aid providers, and two helicopters.
  • South Korea: "We will provide whatever the U.S. needs and wants, including medical supplies and rescue operations" -- Wi Sung-lac, minister in charge of political affairs at the South Korean embassy in the United States.

* Taiwan: NT$2 million.

  • United Nations: One team for evaluation and coordination.
What I have crossed over is/was merged. --Tsaddik Dervish 04:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added more prose, needs to be merged

[edit]

Moved some detail from Hurricane Katrina disaster relief, som duplications probably need to be removed. Lexor|Talk 15:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

This merge complete. The above merge still needs to be done. Lexor|Talk 15:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The NHL

[edit]

Despite their name, the NHL has teams in 2 countries, players from dozens of countries, and has fans across the world. I think they count as "International". Karmafist 14:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

France

[edit]

I think that there are some inaccuracies about the French part:

  • The BATRAL based in the Caraibs is usually the Champlain, not the Francis Garnier
  • I am not certain that the Guadeloupe harbours a naval base (Fort de France (Martinique) and Degrad des Cannes (Guyane) do, but Guadeloupe ?)
  • There is no such thing as "hospital ships" in the French navy (some support or landing ships have full-grade hospitals of course, but this is not their only function)

So it's not like this is all wrong, of course, but it might have to be taken with a grain of salt, and sourced appropriately, from officil French sources if possible. Rama 15:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I put in the information which primarily comes from this CNN article. It is likely, I guess, that CNN didn’t thoroughly fact check their sources because they were in a hurry to publish their report, and that I didn’t either. My French isn’t as good as it once was, if anyone with the language skills would check official sites for accurate information, it would be appreciated. To identify the two (or three) ships, etc.
What about removing Martinique and Guadeloupe and simply use Caribbean? The article mentions the French Antilles which, for some reason, doesn't have a Wiki article, would the Lesser Antilles be better? --Tsaddik Dervish 17:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to by to categoric about this, thouth: the Francis Garnier used to be based in the Carribbean before being replaced by the Champlain, so it might well be that she is currently there; as for the rest, another ship with hospital capabilities could be anchored in Guadeloupe at the moment... you never know.
"Antilles" is just the French word for Caribbean, so that'll just fine, I think. Cheers ! Rama 20:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's good to get the details right (and I, personally, find it interesting). This French DOD site says the that Champlain is based in Antilles-Guyane so it seems you are indeed correct about that. If I read the site correctly(?) Francis Garnier is based in Fort de France, Martinique. With no "hospital ship", maybe the three ships mentioned in articles are Ventôse, Champlain and Francis Garnier? Cheers! --Tsaddik Dervish 00:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm not exactly :p The text reads:
Le Batral Champlain est affecté en zone Antilles-Guyane pour remplacer le Francis Garnier en 2000. Il est basé à Fort de France (Martinique).
wich translates into
The BATRAL Champlain is attached to the Antilles-Guyane zone as a remplacement for the Francis Garnier from 2000 on. She is based in Fort de France (Martinique).
This is actually what made me wonder about this; but it is very possible that further moves might have been made since 2000, or even that one ship could be cruising or dispatched to this zone at the moment.
The BATRAL are just landing ships, and the Ventôse is a "monitoring frigate"; I would not be surprised if the Ventôse had non-negligeable hospital capabilities, but this would still hardly make it is "hospital ship", especially since the hospital ship seems to be mentionned as a third one. I wonder whether they are not alluding to larger landing vessel which have larger hospital capabilities, like the Mistral, for instance; she is based in Toulon now, but but cross over within a few days and would be quite well-suited for this purpose. But well, I am not the Admiral ! :) Rama 07:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My French really is terrible. :-) Maybe the reporter from bloomberg.com, who wrote this article is also lacking in language skills, and misquoted the spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry. Could it be that the mysterious 'third ship' is just a myth?
Another thing that would be interesting to find out is just how close to NOLA the French were/are - if they had their ships in the Gulf of Mexico or if they stayed put around Saint-Martin, Fort-de-France, or Dégrad des Cannes. Someone ought to get Hans Blix to find the answers. :-) --Tsaddik Dervish 02:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The web site of the French Navy does not give information, but the Minitry of Foreign Affairs has some official statements [1] :

  • On the 1st, the Ministre of Foreign Affairs stated that France was willing to mobilise materiel and personel to help, and had sent offers to the US government
    • A 35-man team of the Sécurité civile (Civil defence) was ready to bet set from Guadeloupe and Martinique. A 60-man "catastrophe intervention" aeromobile detachement could be ferried from mainland in a short time. (these teams are under order of the Minstry of the Interior)
    • The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a (permanent) Humanitarian help delegation in the Martinique, which has 600 tents, around 1000 beds, 60 electrogen groups, 3 pumps, 3 water purification stations, 1000 folding jerricanes and other miscanlenous matériel
    • The Ministry of Defence offers 2 planes which are already in the zone and 6 more from mainland France, and two ship of the French Navy, one with a helicopter (so probably the BATRAL and the Ventôse, they did not specify the names) and a 20-man medical team specialised in emergencies.
    • The Non-governmental organisation Télécoms sans frontières and the company Véolia environnement have offered their respective abilities in communications and hydrolic problems.
  • On the 4th, they said that the US government had accepted the French offers; this was followed by an immediate meeting of the groupe opérationnel de l’aide humanitaire d’urgence ("operational group for emergency humanitarian assistance") with a representent of the US embassy and the French Red Cross.
    • They putstocks pre-positioned in the Martinique at the disposal of the USA, which are commony used in such circumstances (tents, blankets, kitchen sets, beds etc., basically camping equipment :p); the first personels would be leaving Fort-de-France within 24 hours and the rest be on scene within 48 (so by now everything should be on stage)
    • The French Red Cross has put 12 logisiticians at the disposal of the US Red Cross
    • The company Veolia offered water transport trucks based in Houston
  • On the 5th [2], the Ministre for Foreign Affairs stated that
    • a Beluga would be fliying from Toulouse on the 6th to bring additional matériel located in the UK.(10 tonnes of matérial, notably 9 tents (25m2 each), 50 tents (4x4m each), 40 cover rollers and 170 8x12m covers, 300 folding jerricanes, kitchen sets.
    • 2 Casa airplanes will ferry tents, covers and 1000 rations of food for 24 hours from Martinique.

The planes (Beluga and Casa) will take off as soon as US authorities will have given informations as to where they wish them to land; this information had been requested by French authorities for 24 hours; the French ambassador is insisting in Washington that these informations be given as soon as possible. Rama 09:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted offers

[edit]

How many of these offers have been accepted thus far? I don't see much mention of accepted offers in the article.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 01:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the money offers are donated through the American Red Cross and I think that “gets accepted” by default. Canada had some help/aid on standby for a while, while some was accepted - don’t know how much (if any) offers of assistance the U.S. has yet to accept from Canada.
The EU has received a formal request for 500,000 ready meals, first aid kits, etc. Germany and the UK has sent food. Singapore helicopters are used. I think the Netherlands might have some people on the ground in NOLA. I think the (initial) Russia offer has officially been declined, where as many other are still ”being examined”.
Money and oil aside, an extremely uneducated guess would be that the Bush Administration has so far accepted help from 10% of the countries on the list - that the U.S. has accepted maybe 1% of the total aid (assistance, supplies, etc) offered by the 50-60 or so countries.
The Canadian Heavy Urban Search and Rescue started their mission on September 3, prior to that I don’t believe any foreign teams (exception Singapore) were utilized. --Tsaddik Dervish 03:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Allies and "Others"

[edit]

I find this article by the NY Times highly divisive. At this time, when countries are trying to help, why split them into two groups, ie, them and us. They don't mention the split. But I guess the allies include Britain, Israel and Canada, and the others include Switzerland, Cuba and New Zealand. Leistung 06:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that by "others", they are referring to Cuba and Venezuela, which certainly aren't allies to the United States. The New York Times is a quality newspaper in my opinion, however, our mission here is not to analyse the state of the Fourth Estate. --Tsaddik Dervish 06:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meal Ready to Eat (MRE)

[edit]

I am afraid that we have a problem of the general term "Meal Ready to Eat" colliding with the specific US-issued "MRE". I have strong doubts that the European Union and Sweden would be issuing "self-contained meal in lightweight packaging produced by the United States of America for its soldiers in the battlefield", as the present linking pattern seems to suggest.

for the present time, pointing these links to Combat ration rather than MRE would seem apriopriate. Rama 07:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's called EPA in Europe. By the way, the german EPAs have been declined, officially because of BSE. Now they want to "proof" but it looks not like that. In the meantime the EPAs are back in their magazines. --Saperaud 07:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EPAs from Germany, Great Britain and Russia were officially rejected because of BSE. However the German EPAs are certified by NATO to be BSE free and are eaten by US Soldiers in Afghanistan. Article (in german, translate it with google:) http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,374093,00.html --82.83.72.155 14:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why so many daughter articles?

[edit]

Why do we have so many daughter articles about this? (France, Russia, Singapore, et al.) This is getting ridiculous. Why not merge any important information into this article? There really is no need for so many daughters. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we can just write: "Katrina happened, people died, countries helped". --Vizcarra 19:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sure would make things a lot shorter. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking the same thing, but it seems the general view is that they want the other articles. Maybe in a few months when this begins to drop from the front pages, some condensing could be done. Donovan Ravenhull 20:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I really hate the fact that the littlest things (and I'm not saying this is little) that are currently in the news get so much coverage here on Wikipedia. Current events are generally longer and generally more POV. It is my opinion that there should have been at most 4 articles about Hurricane Katrina. One about the hurricane itself. One about the long-lasting effects. One about the criticisms of the response. And maybe one about international aid. Although, really these could probably be put into one article, Hurricane Katrina. Oh well. I guess we just wait it out. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I don't think this will ever get down to four, but it does seem to be getting out of hand. I think part of the problem is that during times like this, Wikipedia morphs in to a low grade blog until the event passes, and then things get editted down. That said, maybe this is not entirely a bad thing, for it seems we tend to be a good clearing house of information. Donovan Ravenhull 20:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. This will never get down to four, and WP is a great resource. I'm committed to the fact that a bunch of "crappy" articles will appease the masses more than a few well-written articles. But the amount of information that people count as "notable" is far too high. I wonder if WP will be around in, say, 20 years. Now that would be notable. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note. If your idea of a good encyclopaedia is 'a few well-written articles' I suggest that you look into Encyclopædia Britannica, they have a 7-day free trial, and if you would decide to subscribe it's only $11.95 a month. --Tsaddik Dervish 23:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, delete/merge all daughter articles. Let's start with Vietnam war operations such as: Operation Chopper, Operation Ranch Hand, Operation Starlite, Operation Hastings, Operation Deckhouse Five, Operation Pegasus, Operation Ivory Coast, and Operation Frequent Wind.
If they contain any important information, it could merged into Vietnam War. I don't see why the global population that Wikipedia aims for, should have to suffer through too many pages about an American military conflict in the 1960s.
When those, and other articles written with an Americacentric perspective are rewritten/deleted, then we'll talk. Until then, we should stay focused on countering the systemic bias in Wikipedia, and also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. --Tsaddik Dervish 23:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Americacentric well yes I never have seen such a number of articles about one single event (more than 20?). Difficult to organize but not a real problem I think. --Saperaud 08:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!

[edit]

I've never seen an article that's so, well, "stuck in time..." I mean, this is written like it was a press release written during the actual storm! Wow! I don't know where to start! 24.8.162.216Max J

That's because it was. — jdorje (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at fixing it. I changed the tense, but it does suffer from the flaw of assuming all offers were follwed through, which I'm sure they weren't. Iorek85 05:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were these offers of assistance actually carried thru with? After the tsunami of two years ago, many countries pledged relief, but most did not provide what was promised. August 30, 2006

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International response to 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) 02:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International response to 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) 12:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on International response to 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) 23:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International response to 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) 22:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina&oldid=1211230363"