Talk:2016 Louisiana floods

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

Untitled[edit]

Both the March and the August 2016 floods need to be discussed. Yes most people think of the August 2016 flood bc it was a 1,000 year flood but the March flood affected different parishes. In all a total of 51 of Louisiana’s 64 parishes flooded in 2016.

Insurance/economic impact[edit]

PBS reports, "Louisiana’s insurance commissioner estimates 75 percent of those affected by the flooding do not have flood insurance.". Is there state or federal funding? Once this has calmed down, we should add a paragraph about the economic impact of the flood.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zigzig20s:I agree that a section titled economic impact would be relevant to the topic. I will look for more sources right now and keep an eye out for more in the next 2 days or so. If there isn't sufficient info for a full section on economic impact we can create a more general section called aftermath. I'll read up on this some more though I think I recall hearing that homeowners living in areas not considered "flood risk areas" that still had flooding are going to be compensated by FEMA or something similar. Williamcasey (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Aftermath. I see you've added referenced info about the Red Cross. Are there other non-profit organizations on the ground? This being the South, possibly church groups?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more, including the Church of Scientology.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: Should we added something about snakes? Apparently they have come out with the floods.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: Doesn't seem very important. Where there is water in the Louisiana there are snakes. Williamcasey (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: Fair enough. Another thing I have been wondering is, were specific companies impacted?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: I don't think any notable companies were impacted bad enough to be included, though I did find this article about Wal-mart and UPS staying up and running through the disaster that might be useful for the aftermath section: Louisiana floods, but Wal-Mart, UPS keep trucks running. William Casey (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: Also possibly Entergy, see this.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: Well of course Entergy was affected. Even though they are a corporation they're still a public utility, so it's still different from most companies. Despite that we can still add info about how many homes lost power during the floods. I think before some areas flooded they turned off many areas' power grids for safety. Though power was out in some areas, loss of power in homes hasn't seemed to be one of the largest problems as it wasn't a tropical storm with many trees and power lines down. I've been all over East Baton Rouge Parish this week and everywhere I've been has had power, though obviously that still doesn't mean much. William Casey (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Were their stocks hurt by this? (The Wikimedia Foundation should negotiate an agreement so we can have free access to all Wall Street Journal articles...)Zigzig20s (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we could find the names of the main insurance companies as well, that could be useful. Just in case anyone can find reliable sources about this. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reference as it's just a Fox Business clip, but the impact on small businesses is worth looking into. So much of the financial press is paywalled, so it's a bit tricky to find sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff page for weather system?[edit]

I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but I know that it will be visible here: Where is the best place to mention the events related to the inclement weather which caused the Louisiana floods? I was going to make a subsection on this article but the article is clearly only about the flooding in eastern Louisiana. There is at least one notable event coming out of it – a record daily rainfall total in South Bend, Indiana, accompanied by its own flooding (local NWS report, newspaper article) – but there was also a long-lived tornado elsewhere in Indiana as well as severe weather warnings in Pennsylvania and New York, and the moisture retrograded into east Texas, though I can't find anything that says that extreme effects came from that. Mapsax (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mapsax:I would say that it defiantly isn't notable enough for it's own article. I really don't know much about meteorology, though I can understand that many are interested in the weather system itself. If you are completely confident that they are related and have a few reliable sources about this weather system having notable affects outside of the Louisiana, then I think you can make note of it in this article under meteorological history. This article a few days ago had been merged with 2016 American Northeast heat wave, though I helped to split them into two separate articles as I couldn't see most readers thinking of those two events as one big event, even if they were somehow related in meteorological terms. Williamcasey (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parishes affected[edit]

A Whitehouse.gov blog post mentions Acadia, Ascension, Avoyelles, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Iberia, Iberville, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, St. Helena, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Vermilion, Washington and West Feliciana as eligible for federal aid, many more than are shown in File:2016 Louisiana floods map of affected parishes.png. @Williamcasey: does this merit modification of the map?

User:Erutuon: I just saw this and you were right, though I just uploaded an updated map showing these parishes so the problem is solved. The new map: File:2016 Louisiana floods map of parishes declared federal disaster areas.png. Thanks for pointing this out. Williamcasey (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is only counting 21 parishes in the August flood. There were 51 parishes that flooded in Louisiana in the year 2016. Mistie325 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama is playing golf in Martha's Vineyard.[edit]

This should be in the lede. User:NewsAndEventsGuy has reverted it. There are at least three references (we could find more), with comparisons to President Bush's initial handling of Hurricane Katrina.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot more than three, but it isn't really relevant to what text belongs in the WP:LEAD section. In the reverted text, the noun is the president. The discussion is about the president's whereabouts. Now we're doing presidential comparison to GW. None of that has a focus on the flood, which is what the article is about and in my view the lead should focus on what the article is about. Today's big news with a lot more references is the deafening silence nationwide which is bigger than the president's vacation. I'm fine with adding text such as "According to so-and-so, flood recovery is hampered by a relative silence from the rest of the country". That keeps the focus on an aspect of the article topic (flood recovery), rather than focusing attention to beat up on any individuals or organizations. It's about the flood.... causes, event play by play, recovery. Keep the nouns and verbs focused on that, and I'll probably click "thank you". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The silence starts with the President, who is playing golf while people are drowning. This is what the reliable third-party sources all say. They don't talk about a "nationwide silence", unless you can find other references. I think we should stick to the sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your emphasis on the PRESIDENT instead of the FLOOD suggests you have the wrong article. Meanwhile RSs along these lines are abundant (try Google Louisiana Flood Silence). A couple top hits on my search were
Finally, you flatly ignored the meat of my objection.... pick nouns and verbs that are about the FLOOD and we should be good. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you have this requirement. It sounds arbitrary.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Manual of Style expects lead sections to stick to the topic. Notice that one of the sources you want to use and have us follow says "That's why Obama won't break off his vacation in Martha's Vineyard — or stop playing golf on said vacation — to travel to Louisiana. Because he believes he can monitor the situation as well — or better — from where he is. And that the sole reason to go to Louisiana is for the theatrical piece of politics". If we put in your apparent slant that Prez "is playing golf while people are drowning." then per WP:Neutrality and WP:BLP we have to attribute that view to the people who hold it and also put in other peoples political views such as that part of the RSs that I just quoted. That's all stuff that belongs in articles about politics and politicians. See WP:OFFTOPIC. That said, I don't mind a passing reference to the both sides of the dispute in the text, just not in the lead. (Revised) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think The Washington Post may be referring to the Obama doctrine (Leading from behind). In any case, I don't think it is off topic to say in the lede that he is on a golf vacation in Martha's Vineyard while people are drowning. It is a simple description of the current situation. It might be deemed recentist--but then again, this flood is happening right now, so it would be. I also don't see President Obama as a politician (he's not running for office), but as the head of state (he represents the people who are drowning on the global stage). Can you offer another sentence that you'd like better please?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I thought he this merited mention in the lead - which I don't - I would still decline to invest the energy floating something to make you happy until we agree in principle that the nouns and verbs should be about the flood rather than the man. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to start an RFC?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Have to"? No of course not. See
We have already agreed that there are many good RSs about the divergent views of what the president is doing, and you haven't acknowledge my RSs about the media's relative silence. I have already agreed that some of this can be discussed with nouns and verbs making the text be about the flood instead of the man. Apparently, for you tne nouns must be about the man instead of the flood. I reviewed the AE case earlier this year in which your political views were frequently discussed, and the DS alert for US politics you erased Note that I already sent one to myself, there's no shame in getting those. This isn't a forum for bashing any government officials. If you're adamant about pushing this to be about the MAN on the article about the FLOOD.... good luck with that.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, and focus on content, not the editors. I don't appreciate you digging into the archives of my talkpage to shame me; that's borderline harassment. The third-party sources talk about "the man", Obama. That's not me, that's the sources. I don't see why the lede shouldn't parallel the sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you wanted to impose a chilling effect on my editing by creeping me out. Mission accomplished.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy: You do not own this article. What exactly needs to be "clarified"? Nothing. We are not going to do original research here. It is not your job to clarify anything. The press reports that Obama has been criticized for playing golf while Americans are drowning in Louisiana. We report it. That's it. I also object to your redaction of Trump's visit. It has been widely reported by the press; we should relay the information here, as User:ShadowDragon343 did.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy & User:Zigzig20s: I have completely rewritten the aftermath section. I combined everything that was there, along with new information, into a few paragraphs that flow well together. I have included information regarding Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump in the most neutral way I could. If either of you have any feedback please respond. Williamcasey (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, but 1) can you re-insert the comparison to GWB's initial response to Katrina 2) I would rephrase the end a little bit to stress that Trump was the first one to visit the area and talk to the first responders; both Obama and Clinton don't really seem to care?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@William, Thanks. The entire section would be vastly improved if it was all cast in terms of flood response/recovery, such as "Disaster aide has been slow in coming. Various commentators such as XYZ attribute this to the lack of media coverage due to air time competing with the presidential election, the olympics, and so-called disaster fatigue. Visits from candidates Trump and Clinton resulted in XYZ help. From Aug __ to ___ Obama was doing ABC from Martha's Vineyard. So and so said this was insufficient and the Prez should visit because a Prez visit would help recovery by doing _____. The prez has scheduled a visit Aug ___ which is hoped to produce Y results, according to WH sources" Or some such. That's all about the FLOOD rather than just a celebrity diary, although that strong language doesn't adequately express my appreciation for William's new effort at neutrality. Thanks, good improvement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: In my opinion it seems neutral enough. I can add the part back about GWB, but the response by GWB to Katrina was a little more extreme. I know there are politics behind major natural disasters, but can we please try to make this as bipartisan as possible? I don't want to get into any sort of argument and I respect your work on the article, but saying that Obama and Clinton don't seem to care is a partisan opinion. I'll tell you what: I'll mention that Trump was the first to visit and that Obama's response was reminiscent of GWB's response. Does anyone else have any other thoughts on this subject? Williamcasey (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: Yes, if you could make those two edits (this is Obama's Katrina; Trump was the first to visit), that would be fair.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: I added the part about GWB, but I realized the part about Trump was already inferred. I really appreciated that Trump came and showed support for the Louisiana, but it seems I'm only adding that to make him seem better and it is already neutral enough. Thanks for everything, but when trying to fit it in, it just seemed unnecessary. Williamcasey (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: I disagree. He came and comforted the people before the president; that's not nothing. It would be anti-Trump bias not to say that.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: John Bel Edwards was right: Obama coming to the Louisiana would only distract first responders from rescue efforts. The part about Trump is inferred. I respect all you have done for this article and hope we can keep working on it, but this is only distracting us from focusing on the important parts of the article. If you want to add unnecessary filler text about Donald Trump go ahead. It's Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. End of story. Williamcasey (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: No, we shouldn't take sides. There's Edwards's suggestion, and then there's Obama's Katrina. Two sides. Wikipedia editors are neutral, so we don't pick a side.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: No hard feelings through any of this. Your edits you just made are fine and the article is still neutral. I think it has gotten a lot better today and is starting to look pretty good. Thanks for helping with it. Williamcasey (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: Happy to help. What I'd like to find out is if any/how many historic buildings on the National Register of Historic Places were damaged, possibly destroyed...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy: I understand what you mean when you want to be about just flood, but the controversy surrounding the response still is very important. That is why there are different sections looking at these events from different perspectives. The last disaster similar to this in the Louisiana was Hurricane Katrina, and that article requires information about the event itself and then also information about the impact and response to make it complete. Thanks for helping with the article. Williamcasey (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy is only relevant to this article in terms of the impact on actual response/recovery. What we should report is how the actions of these celebs made a difference on the ground (or not). The rest belongs on their bio page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not "celebs". They are the President of the United States and future president. We currently have a five-line paragraph; that is perfectly fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy: This is POV. You're trying to make Trump look bad, even though he was the first to comfort the people. My earlier version was NPOV. Meanwhile, where is Hillary hiding?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy: Mediaite is an entertainment blog. I don't think it's a reliable source.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy: I have trimmed your POV editing as there is no consensus to add the sentence about Mediaite. We can add another sentence if Hillary ever tours the area. Please do not turn this into a smear campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A. Incessant pings are gratuitous...I've got the page watchlisted
B. I didn't use Mediaite as a source for what Trump did. Instead, I used the RS Western Journalism to support text that according to Mediaite Trump did those things.
C. I'm going on a vacation of my own right now. Bye all.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damaged structures on National Register of Historic Places[edit]

User:Zigzig20s: I'm not totally sure where we could find that information. I don't recall seeing any articles in the news that have said that any historic places have been flooded, though I seems likely some have been. I'll try to look around some. If anyone else has any information on this please say something. Williamcasey (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to disasterassistance.gov[edit]

User:Epicgenius: Even though this article isn't the first place somebody would probably look for help, I think including the link to disasterassistance.gov is still useful and relevant information. If it doesn't belong in a paragraph I think it should at least be in external links. Williamcasey (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article view stats[edit]

"The Washington Post noted that the "no-name storm" dumped three times as much rain on Louisiana as Hurricane Katrina."
Doesn't that lead to misleading comparison? The primary damage from Katrina was the hurricane winds and the breaching of the levee.98.166.3.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Hurricane Katrina is receiving more traffic than this one, even though the flood is ongoing while Katrina happened 11 years ago. Weird. -- GreenC 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green Cardamom: I guess this event reminds people of Hurricane Katrina? The comparison between the two: tools.wmflabs.org. Williamcasey (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this article has started to get a larger number of page views in the last couple days. The comparison between the two: tools.wmflabs.org. William Casey (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: This article has started to receive even more traffic with 20,657 page views on August 23, 2016. See it here: tools.wmflabs.org. William Casey (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how it's possible to quantify public awareness of the flood. Around August 20 it finally came into its own. -- GreenC 02:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Green Cardamom: I would attribute the spike on August 23 to Obama's visit, which received a fair amount of media attention. Despite that, it still seems like a lot more than expected, as on the day of Donald Trump's visit (August 19) it looks like it didn't spike at all, though it's hard to judge since the article is so new. It seems to me that the media coverage both days were about the same on their visits; maybe that shows just how much of an impact the president can have on public awareness. William Casey (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Green Cardamom: Page views for August 24 just came out; at around 15,000, there down about 5,000 from yesterday. William Casey (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
William Casey - Unless something else happens, looks like it hit a high water mark with Obama's visit. I wonder, if Obama had not gone it may have kept rising, he calmed public anxiety. Or the event may have had a natural media cycle (short attention span). -- GreenC 12:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the Floods: Change it to "August 2016" or is that too vague?[edit]

The flooding started unexpectedly on Friday August 12, but how do we determine when the floods are "over"? The recovery will take over a year or more and there is still flood water in parts of the state. I don't want the date to be vague, but I also don't want an inaccurate representation of the length of the floods, as the majority of the flooding happened between August 12-15. It seems complicated as there are multiple perspectives to look at: the storm itself, the floods, and the recovery. Does anyone have thoughts on how to determine the date or duration of the floods? William Casey (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is primarily about the actual flood event, I suggest a date range from when the flooding started to when the great majority of the water has drained (about Aug 12 - 16 or 17). Mid to long term recovery should be included in it's own section of the article. Sario528 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The date at which water level went below flood stage varies depending on location, if you look at NOAA hydrographs. Unfortunately, I can only see a graph of current levels, not levels beyond about five days ago. Perhaps someone else can figure out how to create a graph from August 10 to today, to show how river levels changed from the beginning of the rain event. The Amite River at Denham Springs seems to have fallen below minor flood stage around August 17, while French Settlement downstream is reaching that point only at 4 pm today (August 22). Probably it would be best to see if news articles comment on the duration of flooding, since looking directly at hydrographs (primary sources) is probably inappropriate. — Eru·tuon 21:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The date I put into the lead (August 10–17) was the duration of the rain event, though in Baton Rouge at least there was a lull on August 14 and 15 (looking at the NOAA data). — Eru·tuon 22:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Erutuon: I think in the lead it is OK to be more vague with the date and just say August 2016. If the reader wants something more specific, they can look in the infobox. I think we should put August 12-17 in the infobox for duration of flooding. There wasn't really media coverage on the floods before August 12, so that seems like the safest bet. Do you or anyone else have a differing opinion? William Casey (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
William Casey: I think it would be more accurate to extend the end date to today, August 22, because water levels at French Settlement have not dropped below flood stage yet. Obviously not all areas are still flooded, but if some are, then the flood is still happening. I also just looked at a map of river gauges, and the Vermilion River at Lafayette is still in major flood stage (!). — Eru·tuon 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Erutuon: I know practically nothing about meteorology; I used August 17 because you did earlier. If you say August 22, then August 22 it is. I'll change it now. William Casey (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
William Casey: I don't know that much either. The August 17 date was ill-conceived on my part, since it was just the end of the rainfall, not the end of the flooding. Probably the infobox should continue to say August 12-present, until flooding actually ends. — Eru·tuon 01:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Erutuon: I'll change it back to "August 12 - present". We'll reevaluate in a couple days if the floods have ended and update accordingly. William Casey (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Erutuon: I would say the floods are defiantly over by now. Despite that Louisiana will still be in the cleanup phase for the next year and it is far from over for those affected. Though for now I'm changing the ending date to August 22. It might not be the date some will agree on 100%, though saying to the present by now is vague and misleading. Do you or anyone else have other thoughts? William Casey (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@William Casey: Do what you think is right, but keep in mind that while the flooding is certainly over in the eastern portion of the flooded area, the Vermilion River at Lafayette, Mermentau at Mermentau, and Calcasieu at Old Town Bay are at moderate, minor, and minor flood stage, so the flood is not over for all locations affected. Not sure how this is being reported on in the news. — Eru·tuon 21:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title says floods, that is plural. Both the March and August floods need to be included or the title changed to flood and a separate page created for March. Both were catastrophic. Mistie325 (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schools[edit]

User:Williamcasey: Are they only public schools, or are private schools affected as well?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zigzig20s: I have seen private schools affected by the flooding with my own eyes; I just need to find a source that says just how many. Since private schools aren't part of a larger district, there isn't nearly as much media coverage since each one usually represents only a few hundred students. The student count out of school included Catholic schools, but not other private schools. I'll look for a source and try to add some info about it. William Casey (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March Floods[edit]

Since the article is about the "2016" floods, not just "August 2016", I wonder if we should include the flooding the happened in March. [[1]] Many of the areas that got flooded this time also got water back in March, particularly the area between Baton Rouge and Hammond. Thoughts? Sario528 (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sario528: This article is referring to one event. Making it about two events will only cause confusion. There was flooding in March though it wasn't near the level the Louisiana has seen this month. Though they happened in the same year, the flooding in March and the flooding in August were two isolated events (at least in terms of weather, not climate). Anytime in the future when people think to Google the "2016 Louisiana floods", they will be expecting the event that happened this month. This puts us in a weird situation, as the March floods probably don't deserve their own article, though we can't mention it in detail in this one. I also advise against renaming the article to "August 2016 Louisiana floods"; it isn't as concise and doesn't flow well. At most we can mention in meteorological history or in flooding that some areas flooded in March, though that could still be hurt. Maybe that isn't a full solution, but it seems that making it about two events is the fastest way to make this article confusing. Do you have any other thoughts? William Casey (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, article should be renamed something like "August 2016 Louisiana floods", so as to be clear it is not about all floods in Louisiana during the year 2016. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many houses, people flooded in Louisiana?[edit]

How many houses, people flooded in Louisiana? By Drew Broach, NOLA.com, The Times-Picayune, August 22, 2016.

The above article is worth looking at for information. Paul H. (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that source. I try to add some of this info into the article if needed. William Casey (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In total 51 of Louisiana’s 64 parishes flooded in 2016. This includes the flood in March. Mistie325 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change[edit]

User:Zigzig20s: One possible paragraph, or maybe even section, we can add is the relation to this flood and Climate Change. Bill Nye has said that the cause of this flood is a result of climate change and I bet more sources will report similar claims. I'll watch for information similar to this in the coming days. Do you or anyone else have other thoughts on this? William Casey (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly counsel against this. You'll have countless critics on the right saying that's not the case. Let's not turn this article into a partisan battle, please!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can cite the most reliable scientific sources on scientific topics. Political commentary by partisan pundits are not appropriate on science topics. -- GreenC 02:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all scientists believe in global warming. This article is about the floods, not politics. No need to go on a tangent.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: I said nothing about politics. I was simply mentioning that this topic could be something more news sources will report on. Several large news outlets reported on what Bill Nye said and I thought it was worth noting. There is a general consensus in the scientific community that climate change / global warming does exist, though obviously there will always be some scientists that say otherwise. But currently I don't think there is enough information to add this topic into the article anyway, so we can wait for now. As always I'm not trying to start any arguments- my only goal is to make this article better. If this topic starts to develop more in the media then we can have a civil discussion here about what to add or what not to add based on facts from multiple different perspectives. William Casey (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All kinds of people have all kinds of opinions. Tony Perkins is blaming the LGBTQ community for the floods apparently. Ridiculous.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: That is one of the funniest things I've seen lately. The Family Research Council is such a joke. If we ever add anything about climate change to this article we will be sure to tie it to facts. William Casey (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read a blog post linked in a comment from another blog post, about the possibility of "rain bombs" fueled by the Gulf being 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) above 1880s temperatures, greater evaporation, and more water in the sky. Oddly, it was posted three days before the flooding. It was kind of prophetic. Not sure if it would qualify as a source, both because it's a blog post and because it doesn't specifically connect "rain bombs" to the flood (being posted before it happened). But it does give a possible search term to look for, "rain bombs". — Eru·tuon 21:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understood "rain bomb" as a euphemism for a microburst like this video. -- GreenC 02:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The closest background research that I can find in terms of Holocene climatic change for this part of the world is Climate Change and Human History in the Mississippi River Valley, Geoarchaeology Lab at Washington University. The same graph is found in Basin-scale reconstruction of the geological context of human settlement: an example from the lower Mississippi Valley, USA by Tristram R. Kidder, Katherine A. Adelsberger, Lee J. Arco, and Timothy M. Schilling, Quaternary Science Reviews 27 (2008) 1255– 1270. Paul H. (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just heard that Antonia Juhasz argues the marshes on the coastline were destroyed by oil drilling, which aggravated the floods. Not sure if there is any truth to it.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the flooding started, occurred, and travelled from north to south well north of the coastline where the marshes are, that argument makes no sense at all and lacks any basis in reality from what I can tell. It definitely needs independent conformation from accredited experts. Paul H. (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind mentioning the frequency of 500 year flooding at the end of the Flooding section is poor. It doesn't matter if we have many 1 in 500 year events in various places across the country or world if we don't know the average number of 1 in 500 year events we're supposed to have per year. It would be noteworthy if a single location experienced a supposed 1 in 500 year event far too often, but even that might only indicate that the 1 in 500 estimate is badly wrong not that climate change is involved. If someone wants to insert climate change activism into this article, they need to do a better job of it. Just because 4 difference sources made the same stupid argument doesn't mean it's any less stupid. Of course, this doesn't mean climate change isn't happening, it just means a single isolated event says nothing about it and information about climate change should be contained to articles that are actually about that subject.

Speaking of climate change and the Louisiana flooding, this came out today: Climate change increased chances of record rains in Louisiana by at least 40 percent: NOAA and partners conduct rapid assessment of devastating August rains. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, September 7, 2006.
The paper is: van der Wiel, K., S. B. Kapnick, G. Jan van Oldenborgh, K. Whan, S. Philip, G. A. Vecchi, R. K. Singh, J. Arrighi, and H. Cullen (2016) Rapid attribution of the August 2016 flood-inducing extreme precipitation in south Louisiana to climate change. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. Discuss., doi:10.5194/hess-2016-448, in review, 2016. Paul H. (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times today put out an article on climate change and the floods in the Louisiana: Scientists See Push From Climate Change in Louisiana Flooding. Does anyone have any thoughts on if or what we should add? William Casey (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Impact on Education" section[edit]

User:Zigzig20s & anyone else: The 3rd paragraph in the aftermath section, the one about schools, is getting large. Should we create a new section for it? Possibly Impact on education, Impact on schools, or Impact on education system. I think the last one seems fit if we create the section. Also if we do create it, should we reorder the sections within "Aftermath"? William Casey (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Contributing Factors" section[edit]

A793b4 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Hurricane Katrina damaged New Orleans, and two very significant contributing factors were the failed levy system and the fact that they diverted the river from the "sinking" peninsula a hundred years ago. Thus the river no longer deposited sediment in New Orleans, and since it is sinking, much New Orleans is now significantly below sea level.[reply]

In this current event, the only listed contributing factor is the storm, but there are vague indications (in the story) that levies failed. When a levy is built along a river, it makes the river "deeper" during a flood event, and if people plant houses in the flood plain, this is what we expect (flooded flood plains). It happened during the late 1980s when cities all along the Mississippi flooded after the storms and melt-water swelled the rivers. My point is, someone should investigate and report on the levy system and other factors as possible contributing factors in this event. If a common contributing factor to a flood is not relevant to this event, then that should also be reported as in "The levy system along the rivers worked as designed, were all well-funded and maintained, and did not fail. Thus the levy systems were not a contributing factor in this flood event." Of course, there would have to be valid sources to such an assertion.

The Comite, Amite, Tangipahoa, and other rivers involved in the flooding are too small to have levees on them. Levee systems were not a contributing factor in this flood event because there are not any levee systems to fail. The matter of controversy is if the unfinished Comite River Diversion Project would have moderated some of the flooding. Paul H. (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of news articles that discuss the unfinished Comite River Diversion Project and possible contribution to flooding are Official: Unfinished Comite River canal could have saved damaged homes in Zachary, Baker, Central by Steve Hardy, The Advocate (Baton Rouge), August 16, 2016 and Planned, forgotten: Unfinished projects could've spared thousands from Louisiana flood by Steve Hardy, The Advocate (Baton Rouge), August 22, 2016. Paul H. (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:A793b4 & User:Paul H.: I second what Paul said. Though there was some controversy surrounding the river levels, the floods were caused mainly by the storm. People often think of the flooding in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina as an engineering disaster rather than a natural occurring event. Also unlike Katrina, the flooding during this storm was spread out over a much larger and wasn't all due to levees in one general location breaking. William Casey (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the Katrina history [and the flooding in the late 1980s along the Mississippi due specifically to poor flood-wall design], some mention in this article that contributing factors to the flood were NOT failing infrastructure (except possibly the unfinished river diversion project) or public funding, etc., perhaps should then be included? Thank you. A793b4 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map Issue[edit]

I do not know how to change the error, but the parish map at the top of the page has an issue. St. Martin Parish is unique in that it is cut in half by Iberia Parish. The souther portion of St. Martin Parish was not highlighted in the image. I hope this issue can be resolved by someone else since I do not know how to edit it myself. Thanks!!! 2620:105:B00B:4125:ADC1:A05E:F30C:AF0A (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2620:105:B00B:4125:ADC1:A05E:F30C:AF0A: Thanks for pointing that out; I'll fix the map right now. That is hard to notice. William Casey (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Response Neutrality[edit]

User:Zigzig20s: Why did you take a quote from Obama's speech out, take a sentence about Hillary Clinton's reaction on social media out, and add a new negative sentence about Hillary Clinton in place of it in your latest revisions? I don't care about the negative statement you added about Hillary Clinton but taking out the quote from Obama and Hillary Clinton's reactions on social media is complete and obvious bias. Your first edit summary from these edits is as follows: "trimmed. Trump posted an emotional video of a supporter after his visit on social media. Are we going to mention that? No, this is not news.". Must you make this about politics and make unnecessary, unproductive opinion-based statements here on Wikipedia. I completely understand and respect the right for you to have your own opinions but the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia isn't the place for you to push forward your political beliefs onto others. You are a great editor: devoted and heavily experienced, and I only want to make friendship and peace between us so we can continue to make Wikipedia a better place. I could start an edit war between us over this, but I believe in civility and compromise. Here's my proposed compromise: I'm advocating to add back the the quote from Obama and Hillary Clinton's reaction on social media, as both statements were factual, cited, and were not opinion-based. The simple presence of positive statements about politicians you don't like isn't grounds for deleting them. If we further dispute this topic and can't seem to bury the hatchet our selves, I will request a third opinion so this dispute can end. William Casey (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Williamcasey: If we're going to mention Hillary's reaction on social media, we'll have to mention Trump's reaction on social media too. That seems unnecessary. I guess you could add Obama's quote back, but it sounded like he was criticizing Trump for visiting before he did, didn't it? In other words, it sounded like Obama's opinion, as opposed to facts.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I am not interested in more drama, and I won't waste my time or energy on this. It's not about political beliefs; it's about equal treatment of both candidates, and NPOV coverage (Obama's opinion is POV). I really don't like your inability to assume good faith; and I wouldn't say I don't like Hillary or Obama, please don't put words in my mouth. I am already about to stop editing Wikipedia completely, so please no drama.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to add the part about Hillary Clinton because the article currently gives the impression that she didn't say anything, even though she reached out on social media, making it inaccurate. It is a fact that Obama said that statement in his speech, even if what he said was opinion-based. That's Obama's POV not the article's. That's simply what a quote is. I've been trying to assume good faith, but since the start of this article there have been numerous attempts by you to change neutral information seemingly in support of Trump. I know you want to stop this and so do I, so can we just make this compromise? William Casey (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your ridiculous accusations right here. Sure, if you want to add Obama's POV quote, go ahead. It is not fact-based, and it is undue, but whatever. As for Hillary's social media message, we could add it back, but then we also need to add Trump's social media message. Right now we do have something about Hillary by the way--she said one thing, that she wouldn't visit. That was her choice.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps after Trump's visit we could add, "Trump later posted an emotional video of a supporter thanking him for his visit. Meanwhile, Clinton asked her supporters to make a donation to [insert charity]. She added that she would not visit in the near future." Is that what you want? It has to be chronological, which is why adding it after Trump's visit would make more sense. (It's already a bit weird to mention Obama before Trump, as it's not chronological--unless we take into account the pecking order.)Zigzig20s (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand. What is WP:POV about quoting the President? I don't see anything on the policy page that says that you have to remove a quote from someone who belongs to one party if you don't have a quote from someone in the other party. — Eru·tuon 21:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the equivalency is for social media. Obviously if we mention Hillary's social media response, we have to add Trump's social media response too. Social media is manned by campaign staff and I'm in favor of leaving it out, but if you want to include it, it has to be FAIR. As for Obama, the quote was a dig at Trump, criticizing him for visiting Louisiana as a "photo op". His statement was POV. But he's the president, so if he wants to be opinionated, he can. I worry that the quote makes Obama look bad though.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Erutuon: User:Zigzig20s is saying that having this statement about Obama's speech is adding POV to the article: "In his [Obama's] speech he said that the floods were not a photo op issue and that 'after the TV cameras leave, the whole country is going to continue to support' the Louisiana.". These are the revisions that were made by User:Zigzig20s and I responded by creating this section, as I find them to be nonconstructive and to exhibit bias. What do you think we should do? I proposed a compromise, but we still seem to be disagreeing. We could really use a third opinion. William Casey (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, stop trying to turn this into a big effing drama! I said you can add Obama's quote back if you want, but he sounds opinionated and petty/trivial. But since he wanted to use this as an opportunity to criticize Trump, that was his prerogative and you can add it back, sure. I don't think this quote is important. If it's important to you, add it back.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Obama also takes a dig at Donald Trump, saying ‘this is not a photo op issue’ .".Zigzig20s (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: I don't understand why you are being so dramatic. It really is turning me off Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: I think your new edits are fine. Are you going to leave it at that? If so, I will probably unwatch this article because I don't need more drama.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want anymore drama either. I thought we had already closed this discussion before today and didn't want to change your edits without addressing our disagreements to prevent edit warring. We are going to leave it at that; I didn't mean for anything to go out of control. If I didn't handle this the right way, I'm sorry. I'm a new editor and I'm still learning how to deal with things like this, on Wikipedia and off. I wasn't trying to overkill this and I don't have any hard feelings, and if you do I understand as it is hard to show and see tone on the internet. William Casey (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: I guess I didn't see Obama's comment as an attack on Trump, just saying that Louisiana will still need more support even after the floods end. But if it was an attack (and the Guardian link you post certainly says that), then I suppose it makes sense that you would prefer not to mention it.
@William Casey: I don't have much experience editing in areas with controversy, but I think you acted unwisely by presuming, in your first post in this thread, that you knew Zigzig20s motives rather than asking for the reasoning behind the edit. The reason was not bias against Obama and Clinton, according to Zigzig20s's own statements, and it is rather hurtful that you accused him/her of inappropriate motivations, rather than assuming good faith. Your impression was probably based on the edit summary, but still. — Eru·tuon 22:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. This is exhausting. I guess we could close this topic as we're done now.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To say that we have to include Trump's social media response if we include Clinton's rather misses the point. What's important is that reliable secondary sources find their response notable enough to report. However, I think it is better to include Clinton's official statement calling for a "national response", (see [2][3][4]). FallingGravity 02:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State politics affected?[edit]

I noticed that since the flooding affected Baton Rouge, if there was any affect on the state's politics at the time as a result. Did they have to stop conducting state business for a while? Was state business done elsewhere? Did the flood have no affect on how the state operated during this time? I find it weird that there is no mention of how/if the flood affected how the state was run.

65.214.67.173 (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Louisiana_floods&oldid=1196711096"