Talk:Ray Nagin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Opening commentary

Sometimes things just snowball. As a moderate I didn't intend for this to become a "hit piece" on Nagin or Blanco. I didn't intend for this to be a compendium of Nagin's incompetence. I intended to have just a few lines that describes the criticism surrounding Nagin was not one way in the interest of balance and a neutral POV. That is the way the paragraph on criticism of Nagin started. At that time the left even denied there was any criticism of Nagin. With the repeated demands to source this and source that, describe this and describe that, the section has gotten ever longer. There are still demands for still more sourcing from political interests. Judging by a quick scan through other Wikipedia articles, the "Dualing Criticism" section is one of the most sourced Wikipedia sections ever. If I were to shorten the section to a length I feel is reasonable I'm sure the cycle would resume all over again and cause it to grow as it has grown to this point. I have no idea how to break the cycle. -- Long John Silver 12.74.187.152 22:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as though you're the only one that supports this highly questionable interpretation of the Posse Comitataus Act, I don't think things "snowballed," nor do you acknowledge your numerous factual errors. When confronted with requests to further substantiate edits you've made, you're making the claim now that you were trying to provide "balanced" criticism and a neutral POV? And stop talking about section length like it has anything to do with this discussion. If you can't "source this" or that, what you're doing amounts to slander.

I would further point out that you probably meant to use the words "dueling" and "criticismS" in the phrase "Dualing Criticism". --Jentizzle 22:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Only one? Dont be foolish. It's tautology. The military cannot be used as law enforcement without special ecception. Here is from Reuters:

"The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, enacted during the post-Civil War reconstruction period, prohibits federal military personnel from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050903/us_nm/military_role_dc_2

Do you have any link to any request by Governor Blanco for the President to suspend Posse Comitatus before her letter on September 2nd? -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.93 23:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism from Nagin of others and criticism of Nagin by others is proper here, just as criticism by and criticism of is proper in all bios. Anything less is a violation of Wiki's NPOV requirement. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.82 19:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Correcting Revision by 168.20.196.197 made w/o comment here on the discussion page. As always, if you want to make a change explain why you have made the change on this page and with comment in the edit summary. Reverted to previous correct version. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.88 00:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Needed to restore the previous version six times. 168.20.196.197's bad ettiquate of not explaining changes here is bordering on bad faith. His statement Nagin "was not afraid to tell the truth" is very POV. His statement "a better leader" was not only POV, it was out of place in this article on Nagin. Just the facts on Nagin, 168.20.196.197. Thanks. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.88 01:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Added the criticism of Nagin's performance, or lack thereof, in his responsibility to keep local order and properly equip and staff his designated evacuation centers. Just as his criticism of others is worthy of inclusion the criticism of the mayor is equally worthy of inclusion. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.87 23:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Long John Silver (and 168.20.196.197) please read WP:3RR --Kennyisinvisible 02:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This guy is awesome. He tells it like it is. I like that he cuts through all the B.S. of the government and focuses on people. Bush is saying the results aren't acceptable, Nagin is experiencing this forst hand. As mayor of the city he needs to lead and I think he's doing a great job. People are dying and government organizations keep telling people it will be a few more days.User: 205.142.176.20

awesome? the guy dropped the ball bigtime, he did absolutely nothing in the runup to this and there definately was some advance warning. Yet he prepared nothing, absolutely nothing. --82.156.49.1 00:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia ought to ashamed for having the audacity to say that Mayor Nagin is alienating himself by SPEAKING THE TRUTH about the slowness and absolute ridiculousness with reference to the time it is taking to get some relief in New Orleans. Get a grip! Then to have the nerve to compare him to Rudy Guliani during 9/11. The President was in New York almost immediatley following the World-Trade center Disaster and you did not see people sitting and waiting for help to arrive for days, help came immediatley. It is totally unacceptable that we have armed forces train to set up shop in the middle of the jungle if neccessary to provide communication, temporary hospitals and basic needs, yet right here in an American city it has taken a least a week! To make matters worst, 9/11 was not anticipated, Katrina however and the vulnerablility of New Orleans was talked about days before the storm took place. THERE WAS TIME TO PREPARE and the American governmnet is failing miserably. Government officials are trying to politically correct and saying what they feel people want to hear and Nagin, not being a lifelong politician is being upfront and honest and I guess that offends some people. He is passionate because this is his hometown, his people and this is in fact UNACCEPTABLE! There is no reason that FEMA should ot have had officials on site in the Superdome and Convention Center with several bottles of water, food, medical staff, and a seperate room to place dead bodies. I have always felt that I could count on Wikipedia for factual information however, the bias in the last few paragraphs of Ray Nagin's bio is so obvious and that personal opinion has no place on the site.User:65.1.210.92

Umm, not that any of this is too relevant to the article... but, the president is Commander in Chief. He can take military action against agressors (as he did in tracking down WTC attackers), he can't exactly do anything of the same nature becuase of natural disasters. We have FEMA for a reason. Also, it is easier to bring help into NYC than an underwater New Orleans. I personally think there are many people who have been alienated for speaking the truth, but that has nothing to do with neutrality. If this is your political views then that is fine, however, if you are trying to make them into wikipedia article writing policy I suggest... that you don't. gren グレン 16:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd swear I'm the only person on the planet who remembers this, but on September 11 Bush was cowering away in Louisiana and Nebraska getting whisked to safety, just occasionally popping his head onto the tv screen to say "We'll get the bad guys", while Pataki and Giuliani actually stayed on the scene and directed the emergency response. I'm no supporter of either of those two politically, but they did prove their worth that day. Bush cut a sorry figure by comparison. (Sorry, this is increasingly irrelevant to Ray Nagin!) QuartierLatin 1968 19:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you are not, the GWB 'chickenrun' on the day of 9/11 has been mentioned several times in left wing blogs. This time it was much harder to cover up the staying on vacation for 2 days and then heading off to give McCain a birthday cake (probably killing McCain's chances of the 2008 nomination in the process). But the comparison to Giuliani is not entirely irrelevant here, Giuliani was anoying in many ways but he was exceptionally competent in the area of emergency planning. Before 9/11 he was ridiculed for spending a huge amount of money on his emergency response center, in the event the response center was destroyed in the attack (this was predicted as likely by several people including me but the counter-argument was that any site close enough to be effective would have risked destruction). NYC struck lucky with Giuliani, Nagin is clearly out of his depth, but the fact is that 95% of city majors in the US would be out of their depth here. Relying on local efforts to respond to an emergency of this size is not realistic. --Gorgonzilla 23:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering what the Posse Comitaus Act has do with anything, considering that there's a dearth of articles that include Governor Blanco's formal request for federal assistance and admittance that recovery efforts were beyond the ability of the state government on 8/27. Also, the quote included from President Bush, is stated to to be "returning Nagin's criticism". I think this is unsubstantiated, and no mainstream media which covered the president's speech implies that President Bush in any blamed the state government of New Orleans. In fact, most write it as though the president conceded that federal relief efforts were not enough. Lastly, I don't see why the ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim about the Nagin not using schoolbuses to save people is still here, supported by a picture, of all things, of schoolbuses that don't even belong to the city. --Jentizzle 18:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If you had read the linked article on the Posse Comitatus Act you would have seen the National Guard is under the Governor's control until the Governor, Kathleen Blanco in this case, releases them. Under the Governor's control the National Guard and the city's first responders could not put down the lawlessness that kept FEMA, Red Cross and Salvation Army at bay. Once Blanco released the National Guard to General Honore on September 2nd the lawlessness was put down. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 18:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to make an absurdly generalized statement like "the lawlessness was put down" on September 2nd when many news anchorpeople and eyewitnesses reporting the same day claim the opposite. The Posse Comitaus Act is still COMPLETELY irrelevant, since Governor Blanco formally requested federal assistance August 27, and furthermore, you cannot produce a source which supports the claim that she kept "FEMA, Red Cross and Salvation Army at bay". Until you do, none of this belongs in the article. --Jentizzle 19:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The Posse Comitaus Act is still COMPLETELY irrelevant, since Governor Blanco formally requested federal assistance August 27

Wrong. Under the Act the Governor MUST specifically request the military come into her state. Requesting "assistance" without outlining what assistance is required isn't close to satisfying that requirement. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.82 04:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

you cannot produce a source which supports the claim that she kept "FEMA, Red Cross and Salvation Army at bay"

Wrong yet again. Are you ever right? The Red Cross has said this many times. In fact the situation is even worse than I described. The State Homeland Security Department under Blanco as influenced by Nagin still won't allow Red Cross to provide relief. Here's the Red Cross' statement:

From: http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html#4524

"The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.82 04:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Does Mike Brown Belong in Nagin's Bio?

Can we agree the paragraph about Mike Brown doesn't belong in Ray Nagin's bio? If yes, it can be deleted and we can get beyond the lack of understanding of posse comitatus in at least that section. Assuming we can dispense with it I'm deleting it. Someone can always reinsert it. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.99 01:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Furious

The article keeps saying he is making "furious" remarks. I think some of these remarks should be quoted, like the legendary "Pardon my French, but I'm pissed" comment. Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to add a link to the audio (provided by WWL 870) of host Garland Robinette's interview with Mayor Nagin, but it seems to have been expunged. The link I inserted was obtained from WWL's Audio Blog. Was this considered POV, or was the edit not accepted because the page is under POV review? While CNN's transcript includes his words, the audio, if deemed an acceptable/legal link communicates quite a bit more emotional content, which is factual, is it not? Ddabbs 20:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Facts vs. Judgements

This article sucks now and was much better yesterday. What happened? The timeline abruptly ends on the 28th? It didn't before. The Hurricane Katrina sure didn't end there. If I find the version I like I'm restoring it. -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.43 15:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Folks,

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a compendium of facts. Please do not make value judgements, even via implication, and especially not of current events, within entries. (That's what the discussion area is for.) The devastation and aftermath of Hurrciane Katrina is not the same as the devastation and aftermath of 9/11. When the towers fell, that was the worst of the damage, and as bad as it was, it got no worse. At the time of this writing, conditions in New Orleans have grown steadily worse in the (four?) days since Katrina hit. Comparisons to Rudolph Juliani are not helpful. Let's review Nagin's actions and words later, when we're not so close to the actual crisis.

That said, have some mercy on Mayor Nagin and his comments. Bear in mind that he's very, very tired and extremely frustrated at what has to be at this point one of the hardest jobs in the country right now. He knows that no matter what happens, he will get blamed for it; nonetheless he's refusing to give up the lives of those people still stranded. Imagine if you were in his shoes, how would you react? How would you bear up under that kind of pressure? On a matter of principle, I loathe nearly all politicians, but this guy's really starting to grow on me.

FYI, I've stripped out that last, overtly political nasty paragraph. If someone cares to replace it with today's *facts* about Nagin, feel free.

67.34.192.152 20:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact is Nagin made these comments. It is not a value judgement to report the statement he made. It is a statement of fact. Similarly, reporting criticism of the mayor is also a statement of fact. Suppression of relevant facts in an attempt to provide a neutral judgement is improper. Should the article on Hitler be rewritten because he was under strain? I don't think so. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.87 23:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

There have been more details added since I deleted the incendiary paragraph. These are factual in nature, I can't dispute them. I won't dispute that he's made angry comments; he most certainly did. The portions that I deleted made political, editorial comment, comparing Nagin post Katrina to Juliani post 9/11. That's not the function of an encyclopedia, that's the function of a news magazine, or more hopefully, for serious study. Save it for your blog. If the facts of history are clear enough, judgements should be straightforward, viewed through the lens of passing time. This brings me to your Hitler comment; it's a rather cogent point, but there's a big distinction. There's no new information about Hitler lately; if there were, I would certainly support changes to his article.

Let me make things a little clearer. I would likewise and for the same reason be disturbed if the article stated how wonderful a job he is doing down there. I personally think he's doing a good job, but to include such a value judgement in a factual, encylopedic entry, would be irresponsible. I'd delete it if I saw it. There are different types of writing for different purposes; while the nature of Wikipedia allows on-the-fly changes to reflect real world events, it would be a mistake to believe that this makes it either a news site, and especially not a soap box for popular (or even not so popular) opinion. Does that make sense? Thanks for the response. 68.158.160.176 06:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and we seem to be in agreement with what should be included in this article. I didn't see the section comparing Giuliani's post 9/11 response to Nagin's but acknowledge it would be difficult to write such a section without injecting POV. The statement 'Nagin has been criticized over no MRE's or anti-biotics at the Superdome' is fact. The statement 'Nagin is incompetent for his poor disaster planning reflected at the Superdome and elsewhere' is analysis and opinion. You won't see any of the latter type statement from me nomatter how correct I hold it to be. -- Long John Silver 12.74.187.122 17:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I would really like to see sources which support the claim that the federal assistance was only requested on September 2. There's really nothing that backs it up, and there are certainly a lot of newspaper articles out there from August 28 that state that both the governor and mayor requested federal assistance that very day.--Jentizzle 08:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Found a source for the opposing claim, that federal assistance was requested well before September 2nd. A press release from Governor Blanco's site dated August 27, 2005 includes the full text of her request to president, asking him not only to declare a state of emergency in Louisiana, but to provide federal assistance as she believed the incident to be of "such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments" [1]. --Jentizzle 10:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No you didn't. You found an article that has Blanco requesting President Bush declare an "expedited disaster zone" ahead of the storm. This term has no meaning under law. But President Bush did declare Louisiana a "disaster zone" ahead of the storm and pre-position supplies that could not be distributed until Blanco made her formal request under the Posse Comitatus Act. She made that request on September 2nd. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 19:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Reference, please. No sources of any journalistic credibility have been supplied which state that either the governor or the mayor of New Orleans requested federal assistance as late as September 2. --Jentizzle 19:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Here you go, from Blanco's own website where she makes here specific request of President Bush on September 2, 2005. [2] Your extreme partisanship is transparant. The letter reads:

"Date: 9/2/2005

Contact:Denise Bottcher or Roderick Hawkins at 225-342-9037

Letter from Governor Blanco to President Bush

September 2, 2005

The President The White House Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

Let me first thank you for your leadership during this unprecedented natural disaster. Your pledge of assistance for the initial and long-term recovery efforts is reflective of the tremendous outpouring of support by the citizens of our great country. Although we have been dealt a devastating blow, I can assure you Louisiana will recover, rebuild, and restore our communities.

Based on our initial assessment, I have previously requested significant federal support to include: an additional 40,000 troops; trailers of water, ice and food; commercial buses; base camps; staging areas; amphibious personnel carriers; deployable morgues; urban search and rescue teams; airlift; temporary housing; and communications systems. Even if these initial requests had been fully honored, these assets would not be sufficient to address our critical, immediate needs. Additional assistance requirements for the federal government are outlined below. As we continue to assess our needs, I will ensure you receive our updated requirements.

I request the expeditious return of the Headquarters of the 256th Brigade Combat Team as they have completed their mission in the Iraqi theatre of operations and they are urgently needed here at home. I request that you remission this unit to Louisiana where they will become part of the recovery efforts in their home state. As the remainder of the Brigade returns, I request that they be missioned by the Department of Defense to assist civil authorities in Hurricane Katrina recovery operations in Louisiana.

To increase the responsiveness of our humanitarian relief operations, FEMA should establish a second Operational Staging Base (OSB) in Baton Rouge. Currently we have only one OSB in Pineville. Establishment of a second OSB will cut in half the response time to our most affected parishes. This will raise our local distribution points from 21 to 35, significantly increasing our support to the neediest citizens. Our current requirement for water, ice and MREs is 100 trucks of each per day; our requirement will increase to 200 trucks of each per day when we increase local distribution points.

Our communications grid was devastated and we need significant assistance in restoring governmental communications. The reestablishment of cell phone coverage and public safety networks is necessary to establish communications among governmental officials at all levels and among response agencies. The radio system that is currently operational in the greater New Orleans area was designed to support 800 users; there are currently 2500 users. To address the radio communications requirements, we need additional frequencies: 25 800-MHz trunking repeaters, tower crews, 1000 portable radios, three hundred-foot tower trailers, and additional BellSouth and Motorola staff. I also require additional staffed mobile command centers that provide satellite uplink to support additional voice and data needs at public safety and governmental sites.

I want aerial and ground firefighting support to address the growing danger of fire. This support should include both equipment and trained personnel.

A critical element of our military response is equipment, particularly vehicles. As military units are flown in to assist us in our recovery efforts, I request a fleet of military vehicles that will remain in the affected areas. Therefore, I am requesting access to military trucks, HMMWVs and other vehicles. Fort Polk, Louisiana, has a prepositioned fleet of military vehicles that could be accessed very quickly; however, there may be other sources that may be available quicker.

I request 175 generators to enable the parishes to provide electricity for critical local operations and state offices to better support affected citizens. As I review this requirement with our parishes, this number will undoubtedly increase. I need additional diesel fuel supplies.

Preventative health is a priority to prevent the spread of disease. Our state medical team is currently assessing these requirements; I need considerable personnel, equipment, drugs, vaccines and other medical supplies.

We have experienced a significant loss of life and as we transition from our initial emphasis on search and rescue, we require assistance with mortuary affairs. It is my pledge to the citizens of Louisiana that we will conduct this task with as much dignity as possible; to accomplish this I need federal assets to work closely with state and local officials.

Livestock and other animals were also victims of this tragic storm. I need assistance to deal with injured animals and also with animal remains.

Mr. President, only your personal involvement will ensure the immediate delivery of federal assets needed to save lives that are in jeopardy hour by hour. I know you will take the actions necessary to make this happen. As the recovery efforts continue, I will provide you a reassessment of needs. Again, thank you for your support of the citizens of Louisiana.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Babineaux Blanco Governor State of Louisiana"

How does this take precedence as a "formal request" for federal assistance over the governor's request on August 27? Perhaps I'm actually woefully misinformed, and SOMEONE can explain how the request made August 27 restricted federal efforts? Keeping FEMA "at bay"? Since you bothered to bold the sentence where the 256th Brigade Combat Team is called for, I assume you take this to be something other than a request for ADDITIONAL assistance. --Jentizzle 19:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How is this letter of request to the President from the Governor outlining specifics and requesting her national guard be placed under the control of the Department of Defense as required under the Posse Comitatus Act anything but a formal request? Can you show us where else the Governess requested the President place her National Guard under DoD control as required under Federal Law? Can you tell us where else she requested any specific other than the non-existant (under law) "expedited disaster zone" that had already been accomplished? Can you show us how the Nagin and Blanco had brought civil order to a state where FEMA could deliver services before the Governess turned over control of her National Guard to the DoD? As to your question, you apparantly still have your head in the sand over the Posse Comitatus Act. All you need to is follow the link I've provided numerous times to correct that. --Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 20:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How is your comment "correcting partisan lies" anything more than questions in response to questions? Furthermore, I've already apologized for the accidental (may have been intentional on your part) edits regarding the Posse Comitataus Act which resulted out the fact that you and I were making edits to the article at the same time. If I indeed removed it, it was accidental.

However, you ARE NOT ANSWERING my above question about how the request made September 2nd is anything but a request for additional assistance. I never disputed whether or not this second request was formal, and I have no idea why you bothered to pick up on that. By "taking precedence" over the first request, I meant that you implied that the first request was NOT formal, and restricted FEMA and/or other federal authorities in some way. Otherwise I don't understand why you keep removing information about this request being sent to President Bush, in addition to a later request for additional support September 2.

With regard to your irrelevant remarks about the governor of mayor of New Orleans bringing "civil order," I would only ask why supplies could not have been airlifted. And I could care less that you believe yourself a "moderate". --Jentizzle 20:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding. Have you read the Posse Comitatus Act article? The President can't move troops into a state without the Governor's request. Period. FEMA cannot deliver relief without civil order. Period. The first request was a formal request for a non-existant entity under law. Hence the request is invalid. It would be like my asking you for a one-eyed one eared flying purple people eater. I could make that request formal in a letter, but the request would be moot since there is no such thing. The only real request President Bush ever received from Blanco was delivered on September 2, 2005. As for "airlifting" supplies I refer you to news reports August 31, 2005 describing on looters shooting at helicopters attempting to land near the Superdome. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 20:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Who cares...what the heck has that got to do with Ray Nagin? Now do you really think that the "SOS" voiced by Nagin on 8/31 wasn't enough to get the President to move his sorry keister and get on with it? You may be looking at formalities and that is exactly what Nagin said...that due to some "weird laws" his city was sinking deeper into anarchy. Your continuance in sticking Blanco rhetoric in this article is besides the point...the article isn't about her...it is about him and his actions. Your utilization of a foreign newspaper which dwelves into opinion and third party hearsay is not notable in any way I can see.--MONGO 20:47, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it several times now, seen it referenced in several news articles, and the resounding point is that the President can't move troops into a state without CONGRESSIONAL approval. How my asking you to supply sources characterizes me as an "extremist" is utterly baffling. Slate/MSN cites instances in which federal troops were moved into states without congressional approval, and not in violation of Posse Comitataus, because those troops did not "supplant local leaders". [3]

Back to your discussion of the FEMA's ability to deliver supplies without proper security - citing one instance of shooters lamentably firing at helicopters evacuating people, proves that FEMA was well, evacuating people. What resulted was a suspension of those evacuation operations, why this prevented FEMA from supplying people with food and water (which could be dropped), is another question. --Jentizzle 20:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well put.--MONGO 20:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

"The city had not sent police or other vehicles through the poorest neighborhoods with evacuation announcements prior to the storm."

I removed this from the article because it's a serious allegation which (I think) NEEDS to be sourced.

There are several sources in the article. If you have any sources that suggest their were street by street evacuation announcements? -- Long Jon Silver 12.74.187.152 22:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"Additionally, the city stored the school buses on low ground where they were flooded and then not available for evacuation."

I don't understand why this keeps reappearing in the article, supported only by a photo of flooded schoolbuses. This doesn't support the statement that the city either controlled where the school buses were stored or how they came to the decision not to use them, if they were in a position to do so. --Jentizzle 21:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The city and especially the mayor is responsible for the school busses. The picture and caption are clear to all but the most partisan. It stays. -- Long John Silver 12.74.187.152 22:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, no. The picture and capture do nothing to prove that "the city and especially the mayor" ARE responsible for the "school busses". It doesn't stay. --Jentizzle 03:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact it proves rather the opposite. The school busses are under water but only up to the axle line. The busses are still in nice neat rows demonstrating that the water did not get higher than the 2-3 ft which is sufficient to move a vehicle. Buses are heavier than cars but they are also much bigger and they float. If you look at the picture the buses do not have silt lines on them so the picture is high watermark. The flooding of the busses is in any case utterly irrelevant since that happened AFTER the levy broke, the relevant fact here was the failure to evacuate. The school buses were utterly unsuitable for the evacuation of the superdome, if you have limited drivers you want to use full size motorcoaches, not school buses.--Gorgonzilla 04:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What in the world? Again, the bit about Governor Blanco's FIRST request, before September 2 has been removed, under the pretense of "fixing incorrect info". Whether or not you thought it was was useless, it still NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST MENTIONED in the article. --Jentizzle 22:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

First request? You still haven't answered the question what did she request beside an "expedited disaster zone" which dosen't exist but the President did declare an emergency ahead of the storm. -- Long John Silver 12.74.187.152 22:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, here is President Bush's honoring Blanco's nonsense even 1 day ahead of her "request."

From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary August 27, 2005

Statement on Federal Emergency Assistance for Louisiana

The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing.

The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the parishes of Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Caldwell, Claiborne, Catahoula, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Jackson, LaSalle, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Pointe Coupee, Ouachita, Rapides, Red River, Richland, Sabine, St. Helena, St. Landry, Tensas, Union, Vernon, Webster, West Carroll, West Feliciana, and Winn.

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent Federal funding.

Representing FEMA, Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, named William Lokey as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FEMA (202) 646-4600.

-- Long John Silver 12.74.187.152 22:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Malarky! As an undergraduate university student EVEN I can tell you that you really have no clue how to reference sources, the importance of which you have severely underestimated, I might add. This whitehouse statement is in RESPONSE to the governor's request. I would add that she made this request on the 27th [4] (although there is a .PDF floating out there which specifies the 28th) according to a press release on her site and NOLA [5] --Jentizzle 23:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Telling it like it is

You gotta give the guy credit for being truthful. I really get the impression that he is working as hard as he can on this issue at this time. It would be good to have more politicians like this.

If he were honest he would have explained why as mayor he failed to equip his designated evacuation point with cots, MRE's, water or medication. Cheers. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.88 02:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

the Superdome in fact was stocked with MREs, and Water. --66.92.144.73 02:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Controversial?

"...Nagin continued his controversial criticism of authorities"

I haven't heard any controversy over his statements. Most people seem to think he's pissed off and rightly so. --Kennyisinvisible 22:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem that, like you, few people have heard the other side of this story - criticism of the mayor - is why I added the facts about his problems in equipping his designated evacuation center and keeping local order. Cheers. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.87 23:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Source for last paragraph?

Could someone give us a source for that last paragraph? All we have is a jpeg file of... something.

I've pasted the paragraph below, and am moving it to this talk page till we can get some sort of backing for this.

This is an amalgam of criticism of the mayor in the NY Post, by the FEMA director, by Rep. Billy Tauzan(R-LA) and by the New Orleans Times-Picayune. There is also a great deal of criticism of the Governor but it doen't belong here. It belongs in the article on Blanco. I'm re-adding the paragraph. The last image is a link that came from the Associated Press and is available with a caption here http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015 . The link has been changed to the version with caption for those who will not see. -- Long John Silver 12.74.187.122 16:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but a source was what I'm looking for. If you can find a link to the New York Post article, the New Orleans Picayune article, or quotes from the FEMA director or Tauzan, great. Until then, I'm removing the paragraph. Otherwise, it's just weasel words.

Lt Gen Russel Honore, Commander Joint Katrina Task Force, FoxNews 13:43 Eastern Time September 3, 2005 Just reconfirmed all that was here including the lack of radios. I'm re-adding the paragraph. If you want the transcript I'm sure Burrell's will sell it to you. -- Long John Silver 12.74.187.122 17:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Burrell's? What or who is Burrell's?

Anyhow, as I see it, this needs to be sourced. Just one link is all I really need to be satisfied. Then the paragraph could be retooled to avoid the weasel words issue. These are serious allegations, and they need to be backed up by more than just your word. Sorry, but I'm removing it again.--220.238.233.226 17:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Long John Silver, you still don't understand the problem here. All criticism needs to be cited to a specific source or group; if a Fox anchorman has accused Nagin of something, then you can only add that accusition to Wikipedia in the form "Fox anchorman X has accused Nagin of Y." You can't just add criticism without saying who's making it. Reporting who has criticized Nagin and what they have said is fine; reporting criticism without saying who said it is not. Aquillion 16:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

All you need to do is look at any article on conditions at the Superdome to know there were no MRE's and no stored water. If you do a little searching you'll find articles describing how there were no drugs stored at the evacuation center and how there were even medical personnel left because they did not feel secure. Of course, these are serious charges. But the criticism is a fact whether the content of the criticism can be explained away or not. As yet no one has disproved any element within the series. Can you prove, for example, the New Orleans Police force and other New Orleans first responders has adequate radio communications? Can you provide any other evidence any element of criticism was baseless? If you can your evidence should be added to the article. You shouldn't try to suppress the fact he mayor has been criticized. -- Long John Silver 12.74.187.122 18:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm just trying to make sure serious criticisms can be backed up. Have a look at the "weasel words" link I put up earlier. All that is needed is a link. If it's easily searched for, it shouldn't be too much to ask.

Personally, I have doubts. In such situations, (given only a couple of days to prepare), I would expect responsibility for delivering such services to fall under some agency higher than the city government. I expect that delivery probably ran into complications as things progressed. However, I have no objections to putting in criticism if you can find SOMETHING to back it up. Even if it's total bullshit, at least we can say we got it from somewhere. If you can't find it in a reputable article, I'll even settle for a blog post. SOMETHING. --220.238.233.226 18:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I am disputing the fact that the mayor has been criticized. So far, you have not provided a single source directly criticizing the mayor within the article; the logical conclusion is that you're making it up. If you want to prove otherwise, you must add statements to the Criticism section stating where each criticism came from. If you can do that, I'd be happy to accept it; but until then, it appears to simply be your own POV commentary. Aquillion 16:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you in a news blackout? Did you watch Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff's news conference that just ended? Again the criticism of the failure of local government first responders was reiterated. Nagin didn't have only a couple days to prepare, BTW. He had since his election in 2002. As the leder New Orleans' first responders it was Nagin's responsibility, along with whatever city commission New Orleans has, to equip the evacuation centers. It was Nagin's responsibility along with the police, fire and EMT commissioners to ensure proper backup communications were secured. FEMA always follows as relief to the first responders. They are not and cannot be the primary tool. They need to mobilize. Local emergency services are mobilized and on scene. No one know New Orleans like New Orleaneans. No one knows Miami like Miamians. No one knows New York like New Yorkers. Need I remind you who the first responders were on 9/11? You'll find a memorial to many of them at Ground Zero. But I'd like to say Nagin is not alone in culpability in the failure of the first responders. LA's Gov Blanco, for example, had only 3000 of the available 8000 Louisiana National Guard troops standing at ready[6]. However, that fact belongs in the article on Blanco, not Nagin. -- Long John Silver 12.74.187.122 18:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. You'll have to excuse those who don't always have the television on.

If you can find the speech, great. I'm sure a transcript would be up soon. BTW, have you looked at the weasel words link? Because once the transcript is available, the paragraph's going to have to be altered to fit.

Including the transcript would make this article that is supposed to be a biography, not a compendium of Nagin's incompetence, ridiculously long. It's quite clear you have your head in the sand on the first responder failures and would not have listened had you even heard Chertoff's criticism. Former LA Senator Livingstone just expanded the criticism of Nagin and Blanco by saying he pleaded with them to declare martial law at the same time Mississippi's Governor did - Monday. They didn't declare it until Thursday well after the looting, raping and murdering had been well underway. I'm sure you didn't hear that either. If you ever release the article from your edit conflict lock you'll get yet several more links. They will make the bio look foolishly long and lopsided but that's what you foolishly demamded. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.91 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Nagin's performance in the Hurricane Katrina crisis has been criticized as well and Nagin has been accused of deflection. As mayor he was responsible for establishing evacuation centers and keeping local order. Yet apparantly there were no meals ready to eat (MRE's) stored at his designated evacuation center - the Superdome. There was no water purification equipment on site, no chemical toilets, anti-biotics or anti-diarrheals stored for a crisis. The mayor had not designated any medical staff to work the evacuation center. The city had not established a secure sick bay within the Superdome. The city had not sent police or other vehicles through the poorest neighborhoods with evacuation announcements prior to the storm. Additionally, the city stored the school buses on low ground where they were flooded and then not available for evacuation. [7]

The quote "Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco lost whatever fragile authority they ever had over New Orleans early Monday, as the waters still rose." from the City Journal [8] is being used out of context. The article tries to establish that the pre-existing crime problem in New Orleans and not the desperation of the victims was the main cause for the looting and lawlessness in the wake of hurricane Katrina. I believe the point of the quote in the article was that the mayor and the governor lost their authority in the city because the police was unable to perform their duties due to the flood waters and the loss of communications. The way it was used in the wikipedia article makes it appear that the City Journal made all the criticisms in the last paragraph.129.67.54.135 04:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Not true. The Mayor and Governor have been responsible for crime control in New Orleans all along. That they failed in their responsibility before Katrina and that made the situation more difficult does not absolve them of their failures during the storm. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 16:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The quote from Mayor Nagin in [9] cannot be used to support the criticisms that there were no emergency provisions in the Superdome, for the simple reason that the convention center isn't the same thing as the Superdome.129.67.54.135 04:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

None of the above hair-splitting matters. It's clear the mayor is responsible for the planning and preparation of evacuation centers. The mayor is responsible for leading local order. The mayor is responsible for the performance of the first responders. Mayors have always been responsible for the order in their cities nomatter how much certain partisan interests would like to pin lawlessness in New Orleans on the President. The paragraph discusses the criticism of Nagin, not the criticism of the use of the Superdome. Nagin's criticism of others is as valid in this article as the criticism of Nagin. The paragraph got too lopsided against Nagin with the justifications some with a politcal motivation wanted to see, however, so I've truncated it. But that being said, Nagin has criticized others, others have criticized Nagin - both belong in this encapsulated bio of Nagin. Facts are facts as unplesant as they may e for certain people with partisan interests. That's just the way it is. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.85 04:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with placing criticisms of Nagin in the wikipedia. I'm only saying that the links do not support the paragraph. There are other links that do provide quotes that criticize the mayor, such as these [10][11][12] . Using these links instead may defuse some (but not all) of the controversy of the last paragraph. The first one is cached in google though, I can't find the original article anymore.129.67.54.135 04:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, the third one wasn't very convincing. You can use the first two, though. It's better to provide adequate sources to back up your edits, so others would not be so quick to dismiss them. Everybody's happier that way.129.67.54.135 05:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's a non-cached link to the first article: [13]. 129.67.54.135 06:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You mentioned Nagin and Blanco waiting until Thursday to declare martial law but Nagin said in the radio interview that he had already tried to declare it and that he did not know if Blanco was going to declare it or not. Also, FEMA trucks being there before the hurricane would have done nothing. If that had been the case you'd just have a bunch of FEMA trucks under water along with everything else. And if someone is willing to call Nagin incompetent (which they have right to do) you must also ask why the federal government was so slow to recognize the incomptence and instead sit on their hands because "technically" Bush needed Blanco to say pretty please with sugar on top.

Nagin does/did not have authority to declare martial law under the Posse Comitatus Act. Blanco failed him, but he failed the city in lashing out in his flail against the federal government instead of pinning the blame where it belonged. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 16:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Temporarily moved the paragraph below until the link provided actually supports the statements made in the paragraph. I can't seem to find any mention of a request for federal aid in [14]129.67.54.135 22:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

On the morning of Friday September 2, 2005, Nagin continued his criticism of authorities--particularly those on the federal level--for referred to on September 1, 2005 as "the biggest goddamn crisis in the history of this country" yet the formal request for federal assistance came only that afternoon of September 2, 2005 in a meeting called by President George W Bush on Air Force 1 held at the New Orleans Louis Armstrong International Airport in Kenner, Louisiana.[15] Upon the Federal takeover one day later persuant to the governor's request under the Posse Comitatus Act September 3, 2005 the lawlessness was put down and relief supplies were delivered to the city's starving.

Also moving this paragraph since it doesn't really belong to this article. Perhaps it should go here.129.67.54.135 22:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

FEMA director Michael D. Brown said that he had only officially learned about the Convention Center situation, thousands of people without food or water for 3-4 days, on Friday, September 2, 2005. He said trucks were on the way and should be there "soon". The media had reported the situation days before but without a request for assistance from the Governor federal officials were powerless to act under the Posse Comitatus Act.

The governor requested help 2 days before the storm hit. Posse Comitatus allows the federal government to act in a natural disaster like this. And Michael Brown is full of shit. --130.95.106.154 03:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Fox News is the one and only one in major news coverage to place the blame on both Nagin and Blanco. Fox News failed to mention about the responsiblity of Alabama and Mississippi's governors failure of saving their states. You realize that Louisiana's governor is Democrat and New Orleans mayor is now a Democrat. Fox seems to lack their coverage of how many people are still trapped in the city. Fox News has not ever had the pleasure of interviewing Nagin or Blanco. I guess they knew that Fox News was going to entertain their conservative audience by placing blame on those who carry less power than the people at Washington. So now that Fox knows what going on at the local and state level, they need to go after the neighboring states. Of course, Nagin is in a crisis, Blanco is in a crisis, and Bush is in DC trying to make more a publiciity by giving money to these states. Of course, other countries are trying to help and Bush is refusing most of them! Fox News failed to state that the late response time from FEMA, the Bush Administration's role, and of course, the refugee and looters comments, alongside Alabama and Mississippi's non-stop crisis, too! I'm not too thrilled with Fox News coverage. LILVOKA 2005 September 7 13:35

NPOV-check

I would like to nominate this article to be reviewed for compliance with the NPOV standard. I am worried that the tone of the last paragraph, especially its last sentence, is excessively angry. Perhaps someone can think of a way to reword it or add more useful information. Optimusnauta 04:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

As of now the last paragraph's last sentence is:

"The media had reported the situation days before but without a request for assistance from the Governor federal officials were powerless to act under the Posse Comitatus Act."

This article has undergone several revisions given that left wing forces are trying to blame's the mayor's and Governor's poor planning on President Bush. Is this the sentence you were referring to? If yes, do you have relevant facts that absolve the Governor from her requirements under the Posse Comitatus Act? Or, do you have evidence she satisfied those requirements well before the reported meeing on Friday? Or, do you have some facts that suggest Brown would have been acting within his authority if he violated the Law and provided assistance prior to the incompetent Governor's request? It's clear the Governor failed mayor Nagin in not formally requesting help. It's also clear Nagin also failed his city by not demanding that request for federal help from the Governor. - -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 16:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

For the heck of it, I'm going to second on the fact this needs to have a NPOV check. It seems like certain people are pushing an agenda with their writing. Those that are, need to post that in a blog somewhere else. I agree it's not easy to try to write something neutral, but if it's not kept that way, Wikipedia will turn into a mess. (Davidpdx)

Agreed, if it should be there at all it should be in its own section of criticisms, but as of now there isn't any real need to make a rebuttal against, the rest of the page doesn't have any real positive spin, the timeline merely states what he has done. The entire paragraph obvious tries to lay blame of the entire disaster on Nagin. It should be deleted as it tries to editorialize. (64.142.28.90)

Why he would let his own people die in New Orleans, is only a true fact about him, he already admitted to evacuate the entire city. He admits the Superdome was unsafe, if he did nothing could get him in trouble, but he insists he has no doubt about the people dying in New Orleans. I know how many black people (only poor) now blame the mayor.

Regards, (65.54.xxx.xxx)

Hit piece on the mayor

This article is relatively NPOV, considering he has become famous overnight, but I'm not sure why anyone would want to critize Nagin's mayoral efforts or his blunt commentary...I think the man is rightfully pissed off. Here are facts from someone that knows about logistics:

• No one anticipated that the Superdome would be needed for anything other than to weather out the storm and for those that did, no one expected the Federal Government would take 5 damn days to get food and water there.

Then the mayor didn't plan for a broken levee when they've known there could be a levee problem for years? That's even greater incompetence than I've charged -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 18:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely hate it when people break up comments like you have done so I'll ahve to respond likewise....THE FEDS took away the funding to make the levees withstand a Cat 5 Hurricane long before Nagin was Mayor...Nagin tried to get it back and was unsuccessful.--MONGO 19:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I think that Nagin is angry and rightfully so.

His greatest anger should be self anger -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 18:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

He should be mad at himself...why? Because even though he pleaded and sent out a desperate SOS on 8/31 and all the major networks had already well advertised that there were tens of thousands of people at the Superdome and Convention Center, they still took another 48 hours to get one drop of water there....The Superdome was expected to just be a 12 to 24 hour location to weather the storm...the dome had, of course, some supplies there, as well as a small contingent of police to maintain order...but they got reassigned due to the looting and shootings which broke out.--MONGO 19:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• The flooding didn't commence until well after the worst of the Hurricane had passed.

This absolves the mayor from his poor planning how? -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 18:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Where was the FEDS planning at...I know logistics and there is no damn excuse why they couldn't sling load by helicopter all the water and MRE's those people at the dome and convention center would have needed...that is what Nagin was complaining about...everyone knew those people had been there for 3 to 5 days waiting for water and food. How the heck is that Nagin's fault? --MONGO 19:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• The federal government is used to supplying tens of thousands of soldiers and firefighters fighting western wildfires with all the food and equipment they need to get the job done...I remember vividly being in the middle of nowhere in Northern Idaho on a forest fire and having the army bring us cooked steaks, mashed potatos, peach cobbler and cubies (2.5 gallon cardboard boxed, plastic lined water contaniners) amounting to 5 gallons a day for water and to clean ourselves up...and they did it by helicopter and there would oftentimes be ten thousand firefigthers working all at the same time...but it was all hot and ready to eat...not to mention boxed lunches, MRE's and equipment, including water pumps. Once the news made it clear that there were 10's of thousands of people stranded at the Superdome and the Convention Center the Fed's could have sling loaded that stuff in there to at least hold those people over and saved some lives. Nagin pleaded with them to get moving and the Fed's lollygagged.

The federal government helps in crisis only after posse comitatus requirements are satisfied by an official request from the governor. The federal government does act on their own property in National Parks and etc. Are you faulting them for not saving the New Orleans post office? -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 18:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Once the Fed's finally sent in the buses, what do they then do in their infinite wisdom...send them in empty...just a driver...I haven't heard that any food or water went inbounds with the buses except what would be needed for those getting on the bus. They could have put 12 National Guard troops on each bus and each one could have carried a crate of bottled water and a crate of MRE's and drop themselves and the supplies off and helped to provide these supplies as well as speeded up some of the needed security improvements and medical needs of the people.

The list is endless, but I really don't see much evidence of Nagin being very much a part of the problem. So long as the article remains NPOV report it all, the good, the bad and the ugly.--MONGO 04:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've now added the NPOV tag to this article.--MONGO 04:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think you can't say it's non-NPOV, because it's quotation. If you follow the rule,that putting quotation is non-NPOV you will end up with conclusion, that all quotations in wikipedia must be deleted because they are non-NPOV. Krakers

No, the use of reputable sources is in question here such as one Australian tourist relaying info to his Dad who then passes it on to a foreign newspaper...that is not NPOV...it is purely POV and unsubstantiated.--MONGO 17:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The fact there is criticism, is well justified by the huge volume of links here all with the same takeaway point. Nagin wasn't prepared despite warnings and his 3 years in office. Your singling out one of a dozen links is a diversion. That criticism is balanced by Nagin's criticism of President Bush. The balance provides neutrality. NPOV is not deserved. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 18:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

To quote Nagin...That's B.S.! This isn't about quid pro quo...it's about establishing facts, not using sourcing from some foreign newspaper based on third party "evidence" you keep pushing. The rest of your links aren't telling us anything.--MONGO 19:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Missing the point

The fact of the matter is government at all levels horribly failed the people affected by hurricane Katrina. 4+ days for suitable reinforcements? No matter what side of the fence one stands that response is flat out inexcusable and shameful.

Ndog

Repeated removals of direct quotes and links to relevant official documents, substitution of POV statements re Posse Comitatus Act

Jentizzle and 209.247.222.81 keep removing (1) Governor Blanco's August 28 letter to President Bush requesting extensive federal relief, [16]; (2) this quote from Bush's 8/27 declaration of a state of emergency [17]: The president's "action authorize[d] the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts . . . ."; (3) this link and quote from the Department of Homeland Security website: "In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility . . . for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort." [18]; (4) this quote from, and link to, the National Response Plan issued by the Department of Homeland Security in December 2004, which states, on page 43, under the "Guiding Principles for Proactive Federal Response," that "Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude." [19]

In place of all of this, 209.247.222.81 adds POV (his/her unsupported legal opinions) regarding the purported insufficiency, under the Posse Comitatus Act, of Gov. Blanco's request. I will leave this alone for now lest I run afoul of the 3RR rule, but this substitution of the user's POV for fact is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy. Krakatoa 19:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Tht's because this Anon poster (Long John Silver) is pushing his POV which is apparently anti- Nagin.--MONGO 19:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that I didn't direct any of my changes at the information above. Rather, I addressed other POV issues in the article. In the midst of editing the page, 209.247.222.81 was also editing the page, and I assume, removed the above information. --Jentizzle 19:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

My comparison of the 18:08 version (the last by me) and the 18:33 version (after four edits by you) indicates that you deleted:

"On Saturday August 27, President Bush "declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing." [20] The president's "action authorize[d] the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts . . . ." The Department of Homeland Security's website states that, "In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility . . . for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort." [21] Page 43 of the National Response Plan issued by the Department of Homeland Security in December 2004 states, under the "Guiding Principles for Proactive Federal Response," that "Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude." [22]"

Bovineone in his reversion at 19:09 characterized your edits as "unexplained and unsubstantiated mass vandalism by Jentizzle." Krakatoa 19:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Then it was completely unintentional, and I apologize. This is, of course, in reference to those edits alone. There were at least two incidents, however, in which Long John Silver reinserted information about city schoolbuses which supposedly could have been used to evacuate people, and supported this with a jpeg of schoolbuses belonging to some entity other than the city, underwater. We were in the midst of editing the article at the same time, probably making opposing edits (whatever) that means with regard to the schoolbuses and other POV statements. --Jentizzle 20:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted (from Jentizzle; Long John Silver is quite another story). I've gotten confused by those conflicting edit things, too. Krakatoa 20:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

209.247.222.81 (aka Long John Silver) is at it again -- deleting factual statements and supporting links and substituting his unsupported Posse Commitatus crap. This is a flagrant violation of the NPOV policy. I'm sure he has also massively violated the 3RR rule. This guy should be banned. Krakatoa 20:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted out his edits again. The removal of large quantities of direct quotes couples with insertion of personal Posse Comatatus theories is POV. I am not sure whether the NPOV warning should remain, I just reverted. --Gorgonzilla 20:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This one sentence of Posse Commitatus B.S. is still in the article: "Nagin's demand for federal assistance ran counter to requirements the request be issued by the Governor under the Posse Comitatus Act." If that's removed, IMO the NPOV warning could be removed. Krakatoa 21:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Not any more there isn't. I think the NPOV can go as well. I do not see any substantiation of the point in talk. --Gorgonzilla 21:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Long John's at it again. Massive vandalism and reinsertion of Posse Comitatus junk by Anon 12.74.187.152, described as "Fixing incorrect info on Blanco's request." Krakatoa 22:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it's him was right. Long John Silver posted from the 12.74.187.152 number above, in his comment under "Facts and Judgements." Krakatoa 22:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Some anti Nagin points

I think the criticism of Nagin's reaction to the hurricane is unfair, city mayors are not chosen for their ability to react to this type of crisis. It is very clear that no amount of reaction by the local authorities could have changed matters much. Even with the benefit of hindsight.

The planning for the huricane season is an entirely different issue. The plan for evacuating people without cars was to make a DVD to tell them they were on their own. [23]

City, state and federal emergency officials are preparing to give the poorest of New Orleans' poor a historically blunt message: In the event of a major hurricane, you're on your own. In scripted appearances being recorded now, officials such as Mayor Ray Nagin, local Red Cross Executive Director Kay Wilkins and City Council President Oliver Thomas drive home the word that the city does not have the resources to move out of harm's way an estimated 134,000 people without transportation.

--Gorgonzilla 21:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

More criticism that seems justified. Claims that the CIA are trying to kill him [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46134], lack of planning [24]

--Gorgonzilla 21:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The first one is a WorldNetDaily article. They run articles on things like the image of Jesus in burritos and the face of the devil in WTC dust. Aquillion 00:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I was looking for confirmation elsewhere and did not find it so it looks like you are right the first one is a hoax. It would not suprise me if he had gone nuts given the stress he must be under, not that such suspicions would necessarily be unfounded. The article on planning from the picayune does seem credible and is from a pretty credible source. There have certainly been many criticisms of Nagin's lack of planning for evacuation of people without cars. --Gorgonzilla 01:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's entirely a hoax in the sense that they made what he said up (although I wouldn't put that past them)... It looks to me more like they took some jokes which he made and tried to turn them into an issue. Certainly, if he had said those things on the air in a serious context they would be turning up in places other than WorldNetDaily.

Maybe they're not good jokes, but the guy's under a lot of pressure right now. Aquillion 01:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So you're talking to yourself about a source no one used? Amazing. The Mayor has always been responsible for civil order in his city. New Orleans isn't the President's city it's Nagin's. That's just the way it is. I have no sockpuppets, BTW. Apparantly you're wrong yet again. That's getting to be a habit with you, isn't it?-- Long John Silver209.247.222.99 01:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Posse Comatatus

The Posse Comatatus reasoning that LJS keeps trying to insert is idiotic. IF there was an issue there the federal authorities still have the responsibility for explaining how to get the request made in the correct form. The President can in any case waive Posse Comitatus so the blame would appear to be on Bush rather than Nagin if Posse Comitatus did in fact prevent aid. --Gorgonzilla 22:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

A search for "Posse Comitatus blanco" returns only one hit on Google News. [25] With Nagin only one hit as well. with Katrina there are 24 hits, which is not very many for the biggest story running. None of the stories remotely support the interpretation being pushed by LJS. --Gorgonzilla 23:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea how so many people can be so ignorant and so wrong. Yet a simple search on Yahoo for Posse Comitatus and katrina reveals 27 links: http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=%22posse+comitatus%22+katrina&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt

And a search of posse comitatus and hurricane reveals 30 links: http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=%22posse+comitatus%22+hurricane&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt

One of the links is a federal government briefing on katrina: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4779

In that briefing Deputy Homeland Security Department Secretary McHale says:

"For the past 125 years, approximately, it has been the public policy of our nation, reflected in numerous statutes, but most particularly the posse comitatus statute, that our active duty military forces ordinarily do not engage in law enforcement activity. We've decided, as a matter of public policy, that our police officers will normally protect us. Our law enforcement officials will provide the security that we reasonably expect. And so, in this circumstance, and all circumstances, we turn, first and foremost, to civilian law enforcement to protect the American people.

The Department of Defense does have statutory authority to provide assistance, military support to civilian law enforcement authorities, and that often involves training and equipment and other forms of assistance that enable police officers to better do their jobs.

And under truly extraordinary circumstances, occurring once in a generation typically, when there's a civil disturbance, the President does have the legal authority to make certain declarations and use the active duty military to restore civil order. And so there are things that we in the Department of Defense can do to contribute to that climate of safety and security." -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.99 00:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR, admins please block Long John Silver

A user with IP addresses 12.74.187.152 and 209.247.222.81 has made repeated revert edits to insert a crackpot POV argument involving Posse Comitatus that appears to be his own personal theory, it certainly is not supported by any citations. The poster also edits the article to remove content that is critical of the Federal disaster relief efforts. The net result is POV. These collectively violate WP:NFN - Wikipedia is not FOX News--Gorgonzilla 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Here we go with your name-calling again. "Crackpot?" The Governor controls the National Guard under posse comitatus. That's a fact whether you like it or not. I haven't cited FoxNews as a source once. I've provided sources from the AP, Washington Post, CNN, and even Governor Blanco's official website. Weren't you recently cited for lies as well as name-calling? -- Long John Silver 12.74.187.152 22:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The President can waive Posse Comitatus by Presidential order in emergencies, at least according to the WP entry. It is not unusual for people who have been cited in a Cfp to make allegations against the people who made the complaints. The point is that you have repeatedly ignored the 3RR and you have failled to substantiate your novel and 'interesting' theories in talk. You are correct in stating that you have not cited Fox, you failed to support your Posse Comitatus claims with any citation, but the net effect of the edits is to reduce the article to Fox News style POV propaganda.--Gorgonzilla 23:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen to Gorgonzilla's request. Krakatoa 22:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

User Corwin8 appears to now be attempting to make the exact same edit, most likely a sockpuppet of LJS. Somewhat ironically I have been planning to edit in a set of criticisms of Nagin that do appear to be well founded but have not found notable citations to back them yet because I have been reverting these POV edits. --Gorgonzilla 00:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

A poster calling himself 'Honest Abe' using the same Level 3 IP block has been making a similar series of tendentious POV edits to Able Danger, exact same modus operandi, replacement of entire article with a parallel article, use of sockpuppets to push POV. The user description for Corwin8 states that he is a political consultant. Perhaps these edits are paid work for one of his clients. --Gorgonzilla 01:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt...the information being pushed is all anti-Nagin POV and appears to be an effort to filibuster this in using multiple accounts. Long John Silver could better gain credence here if he simply signed up with a username instead of the long hand style of timpstamping. I certainly don't think Nagin did everything right, but the bottom line is that the only reason a delay was tolerable was due to the fact that when the Governor releases the control of National Guard troops to the Feds the troops then have less police abilities and with the rise of the violence immediately after the flood they quarrelled about who had jusridiction. In times of a national emergency such as this storm was, Nagin was right: where are the 40,000 troops...where is the food, water, medicine....the President could have easily overridden any laws against taking over due to the severity of the situation and it is extremely unlikely that Louisiana would have sued them.--MONGO 02:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have another issue with an edit LJS made to the "Criticism of Nagin" section. It was claimed that "a sick bay had not been established in the Superdome" and that there were no medical staff. Though I don't dispute that even if there were medical staff, there certainly wasn't an adequate number, This CNN story covering the conditions at the Superdome say there was some some sort of medical staff as well as a "medical shelter" [26]. --Jentizzle 04:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Governor Blanco's Request

The press release including the full text of Governor Blanco's first request for federal assistance is dated August 27 [27]. There's a .pdf which states that date is August 28. However, both NOLA [28] and FEMA [29] indicate that this request was received on the 27th.

From FEMA site- [August 27th] "A request for a disaster declaration has been received from the Governor of Florida and acknowledged. Preliminary disaster assessments (PDAs) are being scheduled."

--Jentizzle 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Both these links are irrelevant. The first goes to an article regarding Gov. Blanco's request for relief concerning Tropical Storm Cindy on July 27. The second link, as you correctly quote it, refers to a request from the Governor of Florida. Gov. Blanco is the governor of Louisiana, not Florida. Krakatoa 00:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There are THREE links cited, NOT TWO. You've established that both the NOLA and FEMA links are irrelevant, but what about the press release from Governor Blanco's site? Thanks for picking up on my erroneous citations of both NOLA and FEMA.

My FIRST link goes to Governor Blanco's press release, and still, as far as I can see, dates her request as being sent to the president on August 27. This in contradiction with the .pdf currently referenced in the Nagin article stating that it was sent on the 28th.

http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976 --Jentizzle 01:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow overlooked your first link. I don't know whether (a) the letter in fact went out on the 27th, as stated in the press release, or (b) went out on the 28th, the date on the PDF. Maybe her office was tinkering with the language or something and it didn't actually go out until the next day. I don't know. The fact that the press release gives the entire letter -- obviously cut-and-pasted into the press release -- with an August 27 date, but the actual signed letter is dated August 28, suggests to me that theory b is more likely correct. Krakatoa 01:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging the discrepancy. But I'm still not sure your assumption is warranted. A press release on the FEMA site, dated AUGUST 27, states in the beginning of the second paragraph:

"Brown said President Bush authorized the aid under an emergency disaster declaration issued following a review of FEMA's analysis of the state's request for federal assistance.

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18447

Thus, FEMA acknowledges a request from the state made on August 27. Another source is Lousiana-based website, bayoubuzz.com, which, in an article also dated August 27, cites the request coming on 27th as well.

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=4843

If we're going to play the "probably" game, from the FEMA press release, it would appear that the President Bush's authorization [30], which is also dated August 27, was preceded by FEMA's analysis, which was preceded by the state's request. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but the .PDF is not linked from the Lousiana state government's site. It looks to be on their server, but not linked to the public site, but this press release with the supposedly wrong date is. It also looks as though the only other people referencing the .PDF are blogs. If it's linked somewhere to the public site, please tell me. Beyond this, I'm sure in a couple of days it will be verified that this .PDF represents "the actual document," but at the moment, (in my opinion) it hasn't been verified. --Jentizzle 02:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a discrepancy between the .pdf which appears to be a copy of the governor's request, and the press release cited on her site. The press release on her site dates the request as the August 27, and most importantly, FEMA's press release of August 27 acknowledges a "state request of federal assistance," and states the "Brown named William Lokey to coordinate the federal relief effort."

Furthermore, in the whitehouse press release of August 27 describing Pres. Bush's authorization of FEMA "to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population" also states that Brown named Lokey to lead this federal effort. It would appear that both the white house press release and FEMA press release corroborate the press release on Governor Blanco's site.

Citing all three, sequentially in the order mentioned above, and placing the .pdf as a noted discrepancy under the citation of the request from Governor Blanco's site. --Jentizzle 02:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Theory B is probably correct. The press relese went out on the 27th while the letter went ut on the 28th. One can only wonder if there was a political calculus to this. But what is still clear is President Bush responded before even receiving the request. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.99 01:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)]

Either way President Bush put FEMA on alert 27 August. IOW he honored her one and only request until her next on September 2nd and honored that one also putting down the disturbance locals couldn't control on September 3rd - one day later. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.93 23:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Who disputed that the President complied with her request and/or "put FEMA on alert"? NO ONE DID. What does your witless remark have to do with anything? If anyone sounds partisan, it's you. I'm raising the issue of correcting the governor's request as coming on August 27. --Jentizzle 23:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

LJS makes an utterly bizare argument. The entire point of putting FEMA on alert was for them to be in a position to then provide aid. This is exactly the type of legalistic parsing that has led to between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths. Leadership is generally considered to be about leading, not waiting around to be asked a second time to do what should be obvious. --Gorgonzilla 23:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You have any estimate on how long it would have taken Nagin to get control of his city so FEMA and NGO's could pass out relief? Fortunatly no one had to wait that long since Blanco finally requested realized the state's incompetence on September 2. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.99 02:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Since this IP address block has previously made the same types of edit to Able Danger and LJS called me a NAZI, can't we just get a block on the /24? --Gorgonzilla 02:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of context quote

The POV edit that the sockpuppets have been reverting to contains a quotation:

City-Journal summarized their criticism this way, "Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco lost whatever fragile authority they ever had over New Orleans early Monday {August 29, 2005}, as the waters still rose."

This is used in a completely different context to the original article which actually discusses the pre-disaster city. --Gorgonzilla 01:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There has been plenty of discussion

Nobody agrees with your crackpot posse comitatus theory nobody, it has been disproved --Gorgonzilla 02:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The Twenty Revert Rule

The POV peddling 209.xxx has now reverted twenty times. His MO seems to be to keep repasting his POV version as a revert. --Gorgonzilla 02:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not Posse Comitatus, the Stafford Act

Posse comitatus does not apply here. What the article needs to be corrected to include is The Stafford Act [31]. Under Stafford, the President is authorized "to utilize the resources of the Department of Defense for the purpose of performing on public and private lands any emergency work which is made necessary by such incident and which is essential for the preservation of life and property".

Now, under Stafford, in times of major disaster, only the state Governor can request federal troops from the President for assistance and aid. The President cannot just decide to send in troops during a national disaster - that's illegal under Stafford, and/or posse comitatus (it gets fuzzy here). The Governor specifically has to request troops. The President can't send them in on his own authority just because a state of emergency has been declared. While Ray Nagin was wrong to demand federal troops, Governor Kathleen Blanco properly requested federal support under Stafford on August 27 [32].

Not to change the subject, but posse comitatus is not a constitutional prohibition, and has been weakened by further legislation. But it still does not apply here. The real issue, that CNN is already starting to pick up, is that Louisiana is listed as the 3rd most corrupt state in the USA [33]. Just do a Google on Louisiana and corruption [34]. Corwin8 03:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Nagin was elected as the least conspicuously corrupt candidate. Which is much better than par for the course in LA politics. --Gorgonzilla 04:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Nagin was elected on a hard and fast campaign to eliminate corruption. Unfortunately, that set him up as an outsider - and outsiders, despite the best of intentions, often have a challenging task in finding where the really deep muck is (theory vs. practice, yada yada). Still, the fact that Louisiana politicans have been sent to jail is a good sign. Corwin8 05:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

More LJS tricks - subtle edits

I took a look at some other LJS handiwork. in particular he has been taking redirect articles such as First responder and inserting his usual gratuitous POV B/S. There is no excuse for inserting editorialized POV like this into a basic article that has absolutely no need to refer to on ongoing current event. This is a very serious and subtle form of vandalism. He has also engaged in abuse of WP:NPA, calling people 'National Socialists' and 'liars', he also appears to have vandalized the Fucked Company article --Gorgonzilla 04:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

One of his IP addresses inserted the phrase 'White Supremacy' into the MLK article, apparently when it was assigned to him. [35]

Not unlikely the "contributor" is a a bigot.--MONGO 17:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, here is a contribution made under his 'Swamp Fox' sock puppet. [36], he uses the N. word repeatedly. It is possible that this is the work of another person at the same naval base, i.e. behind the same firewall/NAT but there does not seem to be a lot of constructive non POV material comming from there except for a small number of edits to navy related pages. --Gorgonzilla 18:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Whitewash Alert

Both Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco hired P.R. consultants on Monday, September 5, to help their public image through this situation. This also includes handling their image as represented on the Internet. Typically, this has been restricted to blogging, but I'm wondering if they have recognized Wikipedia as a white-washing area? The Wikipedia entry for Nagin keeps having his criticisms downplayed (maybe Blanco's, too?). Does Wiki have a method of tracking these sorts of things? Corwin8 08:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems natural that both individuals would've had PR consultants already. Where are you getting the data about hiring new consultants on September 5? Even if they did, it doesn't prove anything about the edits made to NEUTRALIZE the article's POV. Not sure why you'd link the two, or even why I'm bothering to respond to this, since this user (Corwin8) seems to be anon. user Long John Silver masquerading as another user. Whatever. --Jentizzle 08:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In fairness to Corwin8, I don't think he's Long John Silver, since Corwin8 a couple of headings above says that the Posse Comitatus Act doesn't apply, and that Gov. Blanco properly requested federal aid under the Stafford Act on August 27. That's completely contrary to everything LJS has ever said (again and again and again) about this article. Krakatoa 15:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that LJS is one of the pepole that the GOP admits to paying minimum wage to surf the Internet and post comments in blogs etc. His posts are uniformly plugging the GOP line of the day. This would explain inserting the Posse Comitatus stuff, these people don't so much care about pusshing their side of the story, they will settle for discrediting and smearing anything critical. So filling Wikipedia with nonsense would meet their objectives. The edits that they really do not like to see are ones mentioning Astroturf campaign--Gorgonzilla 14:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what LJS is. I only post under Corwin8, although before registering I published under an IP address which usually begins with 24. If I can clarify myself in any way, or if there are rules I need to know, please let me know. Oh, both parties pay to surf the internet, as do corporations, individuals, and foreign governments. It's all pretty childish if you ask me. I actually learned about Wilki in the marketing book "We know what you want" by Martin Howard. While the political entries here are filled with fights & filtered POVs, the science & philosophy here is the best and esiest to understand on the internet. Corwin8 19:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

A sincere apology from regarding my half-hearted accusation. My arguments about your "whitewash alert" and apparent issues with non-POV edits to the article are still the same. --Jentizzle 00:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of LJS

138.162.0.41 and some other addresses in the same /28 have started to revert to the LJS/Honest Abe version. This time the address is sourced to a military installation. Same tactics though. --Gorgonzilla 15:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

School Buses Criticism

Matt Drudge posted a link to this pic with the very accusational headline "WHY DIDN'T YOU DEPLOY THE BUSES DURING THE MANDATORY EVACUATION, MAYOR?" It should be noted that the school buses apparently aren't owned by the city but by a private company called Laidlaw which runs some 40,000 school buses across the United States, as well as owning Greyhound. I was only able to find this information, after lots of searching, in an article in the Chicago Times. [37] Rabit 02:52, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

So what's your point? Is your point the mayor is absolved of his responsibility for providing adequate evacuation vehicles because the mayor decided to contract out school bus services and didn't require the buses to be stored on high ground in the contract? If yes, that is a very weak point. If no, what the hell are you talking about? Whether Drudge references the Associated Press photo or not, the photo is clear and the Drudge question is yet more evidence the mayor has been criticized for his failures. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.81 16:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

My "point" is contained in the above comment. Nothing more, nothing less. Point of fact based on an article in Chicago Tribune. Don't like facts, don't use Wikipedia. There are plenty of better places for opinion. Rabit 19:15, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Again with the school bus

Someone (won't make any assumptions here) attempted to re-insert the "unused" school buses theory in the article, in much the same manner as LJS, using the very same .jpg as the Drudge Report which I believe LJS did as well. THIS PHOTO DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE THEORY. --Jentizzle 17:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Those buses were parked in the normal city "yard" which is not at one of the lower sections of the city. My thoughts are, yeah, Nagin probably should have sent the buses out to get people on them...yeah, more supplies should have been available at the Superdome...etc. But the reality is that no one expected the morons that run FEMA to take 5 days to get to the Superdome and water and food could easily have been transported via helicopter to hold those people over while they tried to get buses in there...the city buses might have taken one or two trips and gotten 2 or 3 thousand people out...but that is if they were willing to go and to where...well, Nagin couldn't say hey Houston, I'm bringing 30 thousand people to the astrodome.--MONGO 17:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also my understanding is that the school buses were not his to commandeer - i.e. the school board does not fall under the control of the city. --Lee Hunter 20:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody quote big article here, i shortened it. --C.levin 23:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms

I've noticed that all of the criticisms of Nagin so far just state that "people" have criticized him, or that he has "faced criticism". This is unencyclopedic; criticisms need to be traced to a specific source before they can be placed in an enyclopedia article. Likewise, if they don't have a specific source, they can't be here--people can't just come up with their own criticisms of Nagin and put them in the article. Aquillion 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The article was reverted to LJS's version, which incorrectly construes the Posse Comitataus Act and makes POV claims in okay...I've lost count of the instances. I think a revert is in order. --Jentizzle 00:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, however I would prefer people try to find citations rather than just revert here. Otherwise the Faux News crowd just keep reverting. Of course the best thing would be for them to do some research rather than simply regurgitate POV spin from Drunge and O'Reilly but thats not what they appear to do. --Gorgonzilla 22:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Understood and agreed, except I think what qualifies as a valid source. Links to .jpgs of school buses...don't. Beyond that, there was mention of the September 2 request for federal assistance which was properly sourced but still factually incorrect the way it was stated-- as the "only formal specific request" for federal assistance. Ridiculous contradiction of the August 27/28 claim, and badly phrased at that. --Jentizzle 00:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about sources intended to prove the criticisms. In fact, I don't think we need those, although they can't hurt. What we need is sources for the criticisms themselves. In other words, absolutely everything under the "Criticism of Nagin's Response" section has to be cited to specific people or groups who have made those criticisms; Wikipedia editors cannot come up with criticisms of their own and put them there, no matter how much original research they do to support their claims. All criticism of Nagin (or any other figure in Wikipedia) needs to be in the format of "so-and-so said X", not "A hypothetical criticism of Nagin is X" or "Nagin has faced criticism for X." Right now, not a single criticism in the criticism section lists who's doing the criticizing; that's unencyclopedic. Always keep Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms in mind. That's why I kept putting in things like "supporters of the Administration have criticized Nagin for...", which is at least better than not giving a source at all. If no source for a criticism can be found, then the criticism itself has to be removed as an out-of-place rant by an editor.

A criticism section, first and foremost, lists specific groups and people who have criticized the article's subject. It's not a place for editors to dump critical rants of their own; that's why absolutely everything placed there must contain a cite back to where the criticism originates. Aquillion 03:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

More Whitewashing

This is ridiculous. Someone keeps whitewashing this article and removing all criticism of Nagin. I gave good references and even linked to the Louisiana hurricane emergency plan, and it keeps getting removed. Corwin8 00:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. This showed up on some idiotic LW blog like BuzzFlash, MoveOn.org or Democratic Underground. I'm sure. When Gorgonzilla shows up you can expect there to be whitewashing and extreme LW POV inserted. Jentizzle seems to mean well but is hopelessly lost not knowing her edits have a LW POV also. Her ever increasing demands for sourcing have caused the expansion of the section criticizing Nagin rather than her intended effect. Proper balance would seem to be showing Nagins criticism of others including federal authorities and the LA Governor, criticism of Nagin and Nagin's defense of himself. I've done that with my edits. Can Jentizzle explain why that isn't a neutral POV?? I doubt it, but I'd love to hear her try. -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.92 17:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Just sayin', if this turns out to be anon 209.247.222.92/LJS replying to an alter-ego, I will be quite amused. --Jentizzle 17:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Dude, whatever. I have reversed the insertion of POV statements from the articles, including some pretty atrocious grammar and spelling which I think should be above most Wikipedians here. I just did a revert, which indeed removed the ADDED and UNSUBSTANTIATED criticisms of Nagin. Many of the revisions NOT BY ME before this addressed POV issues which were put there by some anon. user. Thus, I made a revert. --Jentizzle 00:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that Corwin8 began editing from the LJS text and did not take note of the collision. --Gorgonzilla 16:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, he did that more than once. Why he'd go all the way back to the LJS/anon version is beyond me. He should makes edits on the newer version and MAKE CLEAR what he's adding/removing. --Jentizzle 17:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bad, Bad POV claims

The new section under Criticism of Nagin refers to Mayor Nagin's TWICE, the second time to make a moot point. Further claim that Nagin "fled" to Baton Rouge on the 27th rather than "evacuated" like everyone else is POV.

The moronic school bus theory is STILL NOT properly supported and I'M STILL EDITING IT OUT. Corwin8 cites a bunch of irrelevant sources that state Lousiana authorizes school buses in for use in evac efforts.

You, Corwin8 have not established that those school buses in the .jpg were on "low-lying" ground, that they were controlled by the city/mayor and thus could've been utilized.

The claim that Pres. Bush made "a personal call" on August 26 to Nagin and Blanco, who in turn "ignored his request" is NEITHER supported by the link to a whitehouse interview beside it.

Finally, there's this statement all by it's lonesome, unsupported:

"There is no record of Nagin giving orders to evacuate residents in low-lying areas when orders for mandatory evacuation were issued."

Corwin8 appears to be another sockpuppet from the Navy supply depot where Dishonest Abe and Long Bong Silver come from. another of his nyms is SwampFox. Suggest revert on sight policy. Someone please report this vandal. --Gorgonzilla 01:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I shall revert on sight, and explain it here if I think it's LJS/anon. And I'm retracting my half-hearted apology to Corwin8; I'm back to being suspicious. --Jentizzle 01:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Reporting LJS/anon to an admin named Hall Monitor, who reverted the article to its previous version after an anon, likely LJS reverted it to his version. This is ridiculous and I'm so very tired of having to protect this article against a litany of unsubstantiated claims. The one about the personal phone call really got me, I think this person is sloppily citing sources in hopes no one will check them out.

--Jentizzle 02:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop with the repeated reverts to the poorly written version with the POV claims, LJS. It's pathetic that they're being labeled as additions to defenses of Nagin, or whatever. --Jentizzle 04:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't my statement. It was Nagin's own defense of his actions and the statement was sourced. If you think it was lame you should take that up with Nagin. Why didn't you follow the link? Just click on the little number beside the text if you're having trouble with that. You do think Nagin deserves to be able to have his own defense aired, don't you?? -- Long John Silver 209.247.222.82 05:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Did I make reference to that statement? No, I specified your endless number of reverts to a version with badly written, POV claims, which has been substantially edited over the past couple of days. The least you could do is make incremental changes to the existing version. Your endless capacity to deflect criticism...by let's see not responding to it but an entirely separate, undispute issue remains unsurpassed. It's clear reasoning isn't going to convince to stop making these million reverts a day, so we're going to all have to wait for an admin to step in. --Jentizzle 05:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

cites that superdome wasn't stocked with food... it doesn't look like this is true

apparently there were 7 truckloads of MREs there. the national guard had supplies there to provide food and water for 15,000 people for 3 days on the august 28th. as for wether to believe quotes attributed to the deputy director of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Emergency Preparedness as reported by the times picayune, or the "drudge report"... http://nola.live.advance.net/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08.html

FEMA and NOLA Supporting Blanco's Press Release

Finally! In its August 27 update, NOLA/Times-Picayune references the governor's request as coming 8/27, also reprinting the full text of the request which is dated 8/27 [38]

Bayoubuzz.com acknowledges the same info. Adding these two sources to the article.

Just so everyone's clear, this makes for a total of four online sources which designate Governor Kathleen Blanco/state of Louisiana as requesting federal assistance on AUGUST 27. For convenience, I'm reposting them all here:

1 Press Release on Governor Blanco's site: http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976

2 FEMA Press Release: http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18447

3 NOLA/Times Picayune newslog: http://nola.live.advance.net/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08.html#074515

4 Bayoubuzz: http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=4843

Thus, the .pdf which supposedly represents the "actual document" will be noted in the article as presenting a discrepancy and disputing the above four sources. --Jentizzle 08:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The president's "action authorize[d] the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, to coordinate all disaster relief efforts . . . ."

Cited from the whitehouse press release which is already sourced in the article, reiterating a point which is made by simply stating that Pres. Bush authorized the allocation of federal resources, which is stated in the article.

The Department of Homeland Security's website states that, "In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility . . . for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort." [39] Page 43 of the National Response Plan issued by the Department of Homeland Security in December 2004 states, under the "Guiding Principles for Proactive Federal Response," that "Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude." [40]

I think this isn't necessary in the Ray Nagin article. If it was put in the Hurricane Katrina article, it would be more relevant.

Michael Chertoff said one reason federal assets were not used more quickly was "because our constitutional system really places the primary authority in each state with the governor."

Needs source before it can be re-added.

That's a gimme. [41] It's bullshit (DHS has primary authority, as the link to DHS' website that I put in this article, but that someone has removed, will tell you), but Chertoff did say it. Krakatoa 18:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Addendum -- I see you have my link above, but say it isn't relevant to the Nagin article. Assuming that it's not relevant now, it certainly becomes relevant if Chertoff's quote is added. Krakatoa 18:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nagin did not call a mandatory evacuation until Sunday morning, after first consulting with city attorneys to see if he had the legal authority to do so. Moreover, the Superdome, one of the the city's designated Last Resort Refuge shelters, was not supplied with meals ready-to-eat (MRE's), water purification equipment, chemical toilets, blankets, nor an adequate number of medical staff and facilities. [42]

Not removed, but needs to be sourced. Only last claim about medical staff is back up by CNN source, furthermore criticism needs to be cited as coming from SOMEONE, as another user pointed out. --Jentizzle 09:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Rove 'Bush Pleaded Spin collapses

The source is poissibly biased, but nowhere near as biased as Fox News. [43] Incidentally, Scott McClellan refused to endorse the claim as true in the press conference yesterday and the press secretary would normally have a list of every conversation between the President or Vice President and another elected official.

On the September 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume claimed that New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin had ordered a mandatory evacuation of the city on August 28 after President Bush "pleaded" with him. During the same show, Fox News correspondent Brian Wilson repeated the claim, reporting that Nagin had proceeded with the mandatory evacuation "only after President Bush insisted that he do so." But while numerous conservative weblogs had earlier made nearly identical claims, news reports indicate that Bush called Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco -- not Nagin -- on the morning of August 28 to ensure that such precautions would be taken. Moreover, Blanco stated that Bush called "just before" she and Nagin held a press conference to announce the mandatory evacuation, casting doubt over Hume and Wilson's suggestion that Bush's phone call triggered the decision to evacuate.

The press conference was called for 9:30 and Bush called just before. It is clear that the decision had already been taken at that point and that Bush was neither responsible for the evacuation nor would he have 'pleaded' for it. In fact I think the claim is somewhat disrespectful to Bush, Presidents do not plead. It also cuts something of a hole in the excuses being made for the lack of a response. --Gorgonzilla 18:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and Criteria for notability of criticism

There is a problem with this article, each time I add in sourced criticism of Nagin it disappears. There has been considerable criticism of Nagin for his preparations for the Hurricane that do appear to be well founded, or at the very least justifiable. The evacuation order could have been made earlier, the evacuation could have planned to evacuate people who did not have cars.

The main reason for this problem is of course the individual who keeps on inserting exceptionally POV, unfounded criticisms that are either unsupported or disproven.

I do not think that the article should list every crackpot theory from wingnut blogs the second it appears, whether left or right wing. On the other hand if a criticism has been made by the mainstream media OR is being made by big blogs on both sides then I think it is notable. I have seen criticism of preparations before the storm on most of the left wing big blogs and it appears the right wing blogs agree on this point. I think that the criticism is therefore notable, NPOV and important. Even if it is with the benefit of hindsight as most criticism is.

I do not however see any reason to include whackpot conspiracy theories where the original source is a comment on powerline.

• The 'Bush pleaded' story has been disproved, Bush called just before the press conference that had already been arranged to discuss the mandatory evacuation order.
• The school buses picture is irrelevant, the resource limitation was drivers not buses, school buses are small, they are not the prefered vehicle for a mass evacuation. Coaches are much better, they hold more people.
• The Posse Comitatus theory clearly does not apply, the act explicitly allows the president to waive it in times of emergency.

If these theories were being discussed in the mainstream media, if they were definitively sourced as Whitehouse criticism or they were being advanced by non-partisan or bi-partisan weblogs they would be notable and there should be a note that they are disproved.

I suggest that there be a section of criticism of Nagin's planning for the hurricane. That does seem to be an area where he shares responsibility with the federal govt and there are certainly a lot of people who have criticized the planning. --Gorgonzilla 19:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, good points.Voice of All(MTG) 19:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Great timeline by ThinkProgress

ThinkProgress has a great timeline on Katrina and the federal/state/local response thereto, with links, which should be very helpful for this and related articles. [44] (No, I'm not associated with ThinkProgress -- just thought this would be useful.) Krakatoa 19:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Terrible edits by anon. user LJS/sockpuppets and "The Left"

I've mentioned this before but this anonymous user continues to edit SUBSTANTIAL sections of the article, including reorganizing the timeline of events re: Katrina, getting rid of the sourced info noting the discrepancy between the August 27/28th documents which cite Blanco's request for aid ALONG WITH his badly written edits to criticism of mayor Nagin, without mentioning it! Mention all aspects of the article you edit, LJS!

Moreover, LJS has made repeated WORTHLESS comments re: "The Left" when making edits. Make specific comments regarding the edits of individual Wikipedians please! --Jentizzle 19:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

He has also accused me of being a 'Liar' and a NAZI violating WP:NPA. I suggest we file a Rfc against the two /28s he is using. I have been reluctant to propose that because they are at a large Navy base and he is not the only poster from that address. However the folk who make the useful posts on Naval subjects might find this guy and teach him about Wikequete. He has clearly violated the 3RR, he is the only party promoting this higly POV edit, he makes use of sockpuppets to imply that others share his views. he is also arguably violating military law in accusing Bill Clinton of rape. --Gorgonzilla 20:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Will do. If anyone is the Nazi, it's him. It's so not okay to ignore hold this article hostage and make MASS edits you don't mention or specify the reason for. --Jentizzle 22:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

More LJS Sockpupetry

If this continues a certain naval base is going to end up with all its IP address ranges blocked:

• 138.162.0.38/28
• 209.247.222.92/28

These are very clearly the same individual or a group of invidividuals working together. The IP addresses appear to be comming from a naval base in the San Francisco area. --Gorgonzilla 20:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding criticisms of Nagin

I think it hurts the credibility of both the Wikipedia and Nagin if criticisms of him are simply omitted. These criticisms are being made, and so they should on some level be presented here, regardless of whether we consider them valid. Instead, we are simply acting as a sounding board for the mayor's own opinions, rather than providing a neutral perspective on the controversies surrounding him. Moreover, I happen to think that most of the criticisms weighed against Nagin are invalid, and by neglecting to mention them, we have the additional effect of perpetuating them. On the other hand, if we balance out all of the unverified claims with statements to the effect that "the accuracy of this claim has not been verified", etc., we avoid the possibility that people will suspect the Wikipedia of sharing these unverified claims. This seems to me, the much better approach.

And to say that the neutrality of the article is not in dispute is ridiculous. It clearly is. 65.241.152.139 21:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

DUDE, all anyone is asking you to do is 1) SOURCE YOUR CLAIMS 2) ATTRIBUTE YOUR CLAIMS TO SOMEONE

this does not crap generalized statements like "Nagin has been criticized for not providing..." ID the critic, and provide source!

Beyond, CLEARLY STATE WHAT YOU ADD AND REMOVE TO AN ARTICLE. If you edit parts about criticism AND when the requests for federal assistance came, SAY SO! As a heads up, people (or maybe just one person) have been routinely replacing whole sections of the article, removing lots of properly sourced info and then neglecting to mention it.

This is a huge deal with regard to removal of 1) citation of Governor Blanco's press release of request for federal assistance on August 27 2) FEMA's supporting press release 3) NOLA.COM's supporting press release. Stop it, while I'm still asking you nicely. --Jentizzle 22:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As has been said before, it is not enough to assert "these criticisms are being made." Who is making them? Occasional bloggers? A dog? Random Wikipedia posters? Karl Rove? Anyone who wants to quote criticisms in the article has to prove that they're being made by finding such sources; and they have to properly attribute those claims to the people who are making them. Wikipedia editors cannot include their own criticisms in an article; they can only report criticisms that are being made by others, with proper attribution. The fact that after several days there is still no source for any of those criticisms indicates to me that they are either the original research of Wikipedia authors; or that the sources of these criticisms have so little credibility that the people who want them in the article are embarassed to admit where they're coming from.

The article itself cannot criticize Nagin. Period. Encyclopedic articles are not the the place for such criticism. They can, and should, report criticism made by others when it comes from a noteworthy source and is relevent to the article (as we are reporting Nagin's criticism); but they cannot have any criticism without reporting who it is coming from. Aquillion 22:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Evergreen Foundation is a Scaife front that has been putting up several comentators to recycle wingnut blog theories in the mainstream media. I much prefer to have the wingnut theories out in the open and examined. The problem is though that a comment on Powerline (not even an article) is not exactly a credible source. The Wall Street Journal article appears to have all the claims. BTW the claim that Bush begged before the storm is a little hard to reconcile with the fact that he stayed on holiday for three days and spent his time giving out cakes and strumming guitars. I don't think that that particular claim is part of the Rove talking points. --Gorgonzilla 01:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS A PRO-NAGIN ARTICLE

I'm getting the idea now. This is a pro-Nagin article. Any link that criticises Nagin is insufficient. Anyone that criticises Nagin is a "sockpuppet" or a pawn or any of the other names that people here are called. And now, we are being told that "Encyclopedic articles are not the the place for such criticism"? Fine. Will the George W. Bush article be changed to reflect that? Of course not.

Anyone care to look at this Wall Street Journal article "Blame Amid the Tragedy - Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin failed their constituents" [45]? I quote, "Mayor Nagin had to be encouraged by the governor to contact the National Hurricane Center before he finally, belatedly, issued the order for mandatory evacuation. And sadly, it apparently took a personal call from the president to urge the governor to order the mandatory evacuation."

"...even though the city has enough school and transit buses to evacuate 12,000 citizens per fleet run, the mayor did not use them"

Oh, I forgot - no link is sufficient to claim that the phone call existed, or that the school busses were under water. Even Yahoo pictures are insufficient, huh?

"Instead of evacuating the people, the mayor ordered the refugees to the Superdome and Convention Center without adequate security and no provisions for food, water and sanitary conditions. As a result people died, and there was even rape committed"

Has Gorgonzolla violated the 3RR rule? How many times has he violated it?

I'm beginning to get the picture, and I NOW understand Wikipedia. The purpose of this is to present biased and prejudiced political opinions. Anyone that questions those opinions is attacked.

It cracks me up now that some of the same documents I originally referenced - documents such as the New Orleans evacuation plan, and Bianco's letter on her .gov website - are now being referenced by CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Corwin8 00:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR does not apply when reverting a serial vandal like the Navy troll who has reverted several hundred times and refuses to take any notice of the discussion in talk. If you care to look at the logs you will see that I have actually put criticism sections in to the article several times. Each time the Navy troll decided they are insufficiently POV and replaces them with his crackpot theories which are then deleted or reverted. I suggest you add the WSJ quote in the article, it is the first time a mainstream media journal has been cited. --Gorgonzilla 00:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you don't understand. You don't actually have to prove the accusitions against Nagin; Wikipedia isn't a place for arguing over which political claims are right and which are wrong (if it was, every political article would just be an endless revert war.) You just have to say where those accusitions are coming from. All you have to do--all you ever had to do--is edit the criticism section to say that "commentator X has accused Nagin of Y" or whoever you're getting your criticisms from, and report it in a neutral fashion. Then the article is true and neutral regardless of whether the claims are true or not. It's not hard. As long as you're not coming up with them yourself, you just have to think back to the places you've heard them from, and indicate in the article that those are the people doing the criticizing. We can't do it for you; we don't know where you're getting these criticisms from. But it shouldn't be hard for you to do it. Aquillion 01:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

O.K., Aquillion, maybe I mispoke. If, for example, I wrote something like: Reporter John Smith remarked that Mayor Ray Nagin failed to put the toilet seat down.[46] Is that the proper format? Corwin8 05:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

POV deletions

The POV deletions I have made do not imply that the content deleted is inaccurate. However, as an encyclopedia article content must be constructed that refrains from appearing to be the opinion of the writer. The article can state that an individual said ____ regarding _____. But the content cannot make conclusions based upon those statements. The statements must speak for themselves. Deletions do not imply a bias against Nagin. Deletions are an indication to writers that content must be factual and not opinionated. When, for example, the Governor is quoted as saying "I think the mayor..." that is her opinion and is appropriate for inclusion in the article. To begin the quote saying "The mayor flip flopped when he" is an opinion by the writer of the action. However, to state, "When the mayor did ___ then ____ was the result" that is a statement of fact. Journo 101.Kyle Andrew Brown 07:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Inane Dueling Criticisms Section Removed for POV

This is the "Dueling Criticisms" which has been removed from the article for POV:

Thats alright, we have all seen it again, and again and again and again. Long John Silver keeps reverting to the version of this article he wrote several days ago and has been rejected as POV by every single other editor apart from his sockpuppets. It isn't even repeating GOP talking points (which would be notable even if POV) it is his own set of personal theories based on rumours he read on Powerline and Little Green Footballs. --Gorgonzilla 14:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest LJS trolling?

The article has been repeatedly vandalised from a new IP address. The text inserted "Mayor Nagin doesn't care about Latino people!" is 'supported by a link to a page that does not mention Nagin. IP addresses associated with LJS have in the past peppered pages with racist graffiti so it is not unlikely. --Gorgonzilla 03:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It almost doesn't matter. We've got enough eyes to just keep reverting. I note that this person has violated 3RR at this point, albeit with multiple IPs ... but since he or she is obviously not on a static connection, a 24 hour block for 3RR probably won't do any good. Just keep reverting -- at this point I basically consider it vandalism. Apparently even Trollderella's attempt to help wasn't good enough. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the section as best I can, except I have yet to find any evidence that the comments were criticized. Can anybody come up with a source for the "hispanic groups criticized the comment as racist?" I can't so far. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that the reason that you can't find the source is that whatever event is refered to has been distorted out of all proportion. LJS seems to peddle POV nonsense even Limbaugh or O'Reily would not touch.

If it is LJS it would be relevant to the Rfc. I think that before long we are going to end up at a Rfa. I agree on the dynamic IP point, but LJS seems to have a limited pool available. I hope this does not metastacize into a wally on wheels situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgonzilla (talk • contribs)

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if some Hispanic groups criticized it. I just can't find anything that suggests they did to use as an actual source. If a source can't be found for the comment being criticized, then we should probably just remove it. Otherwise we are de facto saying it was bad. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Found one... US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce [47]. Fixed. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush's Criticism of State and Local Government

Bush's comments about the "tremendous problems that have strained state and local capabilities" shouldn't be presented as a criticism of C. Ray's mayoral administration during and after the storm or construed as "focusing on the failings of state and local authorities". EVERYTHING was overwhelmed by the magnitude of this storm. I'm not an apologist for either Nagin or Bush. There's plenty of blame for everyone to share. But this is both a mischaracterization of Bush's comments and a sideways POV slam against Nagin, likely in retaliation for his vitriolic criticism of the federal response (or lack thereof). Let's just include an actual published accusation against Nagin instead of this weak attack, if anyone has one that's relevant.

I don't really understand your objection. It's clear that the administration tried to shift the blame off on local governments. That'd be Nagin and his administration. How is that not relevant? · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur that certain members of this administration initally pointed the finger at local governments, including Nagin and his team, and perhaps rightly so in many cases. This quote from the president just doesn't serve for those potentially valid criticisms. "Strained capabilities" do not "failings" make. A quote that was actually a criticism rather than a mere POV spin of Bush's reporting of the obvious would be relevant. How about a Chertoff quote about the failures of local government, for instance? I know he was later quoted as saying he would NOT blame local governments but surely he initially did somewhere, especially if the president did. Economy1 23:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe this would penetrate my thick skull better if you'd find another quote you think makes the point better? · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, my problem is that I can't find a quote that makes the point at all, except for Mike Brown's comments after resigning. Perhaps you can find one for us? The media showed us flooded buses, but I don't see a quote about flooded buses. The media reported on the lack of sufficient provisioning at the Dome, but I can't find a quote about local governments failing to provide enough food and water. The media did everything but interview the looters, but I can't locate a quote that says that NOPD response was inadequate. All of those things (and more) are properly directed as criticisms of the failings of local authorities. I just cannot locate a relevant quote. If this general comment by Bush was intended to be a veiled criticism, I just don't see it. He didn't say the local response was "woefully inadequate," as I believe it factually was; he just says this storm was more than they could handle. It was more than anyone could handle, including all levels of government. But surely someone somewhere made a statement on the record on behalf of the administration in the midst of the early finger pointing that prompted Sen. Mary Landrieu to threaten to punch the president. All I can find is Mike Brown, ex-FEMA chief, saying post-hoc that he told the city and state to order evacuations sooner. Economy1 12:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree with this interpretation of Bush's comments but I'll accept this as at least properly sourced as the Washington Post interpretation of Bush's comments. The administration certainly wanted to avoid losing the blame game but I don't agree that they used the president to articulate that position. Economy1 17:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I found a Mike Chertoff quote in the NYT in an article outlining the Carl Rove-authored strategy. That's what I was talking about. Just hard to find for some reason. Economy1 04:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

composition of chocolate milk

Ghetteaux, I think I see where you're coming from with the chocolate milk thing. But do you really think Nagin had looked up the recipe for chocolate milk before he made that second comment? It seems more likely to me that he was thinking of chocolate milk in the general sense of "mixture of white and black", and hadn't, in his head, taken the metaphor as far as you're taking it. --Allen 03:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Demographics and chocolate ingredients

I find User:Ghetteaux's extended riff on possible demographic implications of substances used in chocolate foods and beverages to be amusing, but as it goes beyond anything Nagin actually said into speculation, I don't think it belongs in the article. Also, I don't think it's clear from Nagin's quotes that his "explanation" refers to hot chocolate or chocolate milk, so I disagree with wording that assumes this is known. -- Infrogmation 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; no need for this. Also, the section is entirely too long and a perfect example of Recentism; it dwarfs the entire rest of the article in terms of treatment length. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 03:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it was getting to an absurd length. It should definitely be shortened considerably (should be no more than 2 or 3 paragraphs - One paragraph describing what he said and another describing the fallout) - Maximusveritas 03:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

if you all do not understand (or at least recognize) the relevance of what i wrote, then wikipedia is for 5th graders. shame on you for dumbing down america. and shame on you for thinking that a majority opinion makes something right. knowledge should be inclusive. --Ghetteaux 11:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a summary of reliable, verifiable and pertinent information, it is not every shred of information on a topic ever written about or conceived. If you feel that strongly about it, perhaps the best thing for you to do is start a blog. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm glad that crushing one guy's honest contribution makes you all feel better. long live the internets! Leave Ray Nagin alone. He did a better job than any mayor would have done. What matters is that he actually cares about us. during the hurricane he was here. He had to curse people out to get somebody to help. Vote for him again.

you all need to chill

there is now a small gang of bullies (chiefly User:Maximusveritas) who follow me around on here and revert anything i contribute. I fail to see how this is helpful behaviour to the so called 'wikicommunity' that they are hiding behind. congratulations, you have succeeded in discouraging a human being from participating in this project. --Ghetteaux 11:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is following you around and no one is discouraging you from participating. We have tried to explain to you that just because something is factual doesn't mean you should insert it into only every single page that might be marginally related to the original fact. For example, info about Nagin's comment does not belong on the milk (disambiguation) page. In response to helpful suggestions, you have responded with comments like the one above, "if you all do not understand (or at least recognize) the relevance of what i wrote, then wikipedia is for 5th graders. shame on you for dumbing down america. and shame on you for thinking that a majority opinion makes something right. knowledge should be inclusive." I think this is a case of you becoming too involved with a certain topic (Nagin's comments). I would suggest moving on to other topics like you were doing before. Of course, you don't have to do that, but don't get upset when people remove or alter your contributions. - Maximusveritas 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

To introduce a (presumably) less controversional question... It would be helpful ot add a note on how Mayor Nagin's name is pronounced. Is it "Nay-ghin"? Flapdragon 16:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it rhymes with "Reagan", a name that was used as a slander by some Orleans African-American leaders during his first candidacy. He was dubbed "Ray Reagan" because he was alleged to be beholden to the white people of Uptown who endorsed and supported him. Funny how times change. Economy1 13:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate City

I didn't do much research on his explanation of his comment, but are we sure that he was alluding to the Chocolate City album? Nagin apparently has some level of education, and it could have been a poor usage of Cornel West's 'chocolate' metaphor. I could be wrong, or maybe nobody knows, I'd just hate to see a citation based on something, purely, because the names happen to match. 71.12.199.149 22:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The term "Chocolate City" was used before Parliament got a hold of it. In any case, I think the picture of the album cover has to go. While it may be funny, it's inappropriate for this page. By the way, I hope you don't mind that I reformatted your comment. - Maximusveritas 23:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

"Nay-ghin" is more proper as a pronunciation guide. "Nay-gin" can be pronounced as the drink gin, which is incorrect. Please revert this inaccurate pronunciation. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 Election

Someone submitted an edit saying that Nagin lost tonight's election, when in fact he won. The official results can be found here: http://www.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcpr&rqsdta=05200636

Yes, either a vandal or someone thinking they could change the result by editing Wikipedia. The edit was quickly reverted. -- Infrogmation 04:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I stole his business card

It was YOU!!!Adambiswanger1 22:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

but why

The city of NO was not under mandatory evacuation until MONDAY, SEPT 5

It is wrongly listed as being under mandatory evacuation on Thursday, the 28th of August.

71.139.17.189 22:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)ZF71.139.17.189 22:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Nagin issued voluntary evacuation order Sat 27 Aug, and mandatory the morning of Sun the 28th. Additional orders were made later with the goal of getting remaining inhabitants out, but the city had been under a mandatory evacuation order since the day before the storm. -- Infrogmation 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Merchandising

File:QuarterKatrinaShirts23ApNaginNOPD.jpg

As another editor has twice removed language noting there have been multiple designs of shirts satirizing Nagin as Wonka, here are a couple of references and images. Two different local ones mentioned in Jan Times-Picayune Froogle Willy Nagin Mayor Wonka.

Note that these are all different designs from the [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48403 Worldnetdaily] listing. For good measure, a different chocolate Nagin satire found on Ebay. I've seen at least a couple more designs on the same theme. (I could take some more photos if folks think it particularly important, but as I still have a few hundred Katrina devastation photos I want to upload next time I have access to something faster than dialup, I won't make it a priority unless multiple users so request.) -- Infrogmation 14:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Political party

The article (and many sources) state that Nagin is a former Republican, yet I just heard him in an interview on the Tavis Smiley Show (NPR) saying that he is a "life-long Democrat" and has never been a registered republican. Can someone please verify? (the interview with Tavis Smiley originally aired on 13 January 2006, I believe) Drumsac 19:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I added links to the interview. He definitely said it, and also used the "chocolate city" phrase in that interview too, three days before the Martin Luther King day speech that got him in hot water. Drumsac 13:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is correct; the link provided afterwards says that, and the Office of the Mayor has also confirmed this. I've changed it in the article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to further confirm what's already been said, this article includes a correction at the top noting that Nagin was never a Republican. It's interesting how many people (including reputable news organizations) picked this up and repeated it as fact without ever checking on it. It's also interesting that Nagin never thought to correct the record until now. I guess that speaks to the incompetence of both. - Maximusveritas 03:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Jeez, I owe LJS et. all an apology. Oh well, at least we know now. --Aquillion 08:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently someone changed this back to saying Nagin was a Republican and it slipped by my watchlist last month. I've changed it back to the former version and left a hidden HTML comment directing people here and indicating that several sources have erroneously reported that Nagin was formerly a Republican. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Still needs a citation for the claim. I think that what was previously claimed was that Nagin was registered as a Republican which I have not seen actually denied with specificity. In other words it is not incompatible for Nagin to have been a registered Republican and to have claimed to be a lifelong Democrat. Nagin is not a New Orleans version of Giulianni. It is not as if either side particularly wants to claim him as their own. But Nagin does have an interest in claiming to be a truer Deomocrat than pre-hurricane reports suggest. --Gorgonzilla 21:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• • See the link above, a correction by the Washington Post clarifying this issue. Also, we've gotten correspondence from the Office of the Mayor requesting that we fix this error and confirming that Nagin has never been a Republican. (For those with access, ticket # 2006012510007997). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• This article clearly states that Nagin was a life-long Republican and switched parties before taking office. http://www.citymayors.com/mayors/new_orleans_mayor.html. Maddyfan 09:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok, GAH. Someone switched it back. As noted above, though, we, Wikipedia, have actually received a request directly from the Office of the Mayor stating that Nagin was never a Republican and asking that we fix the error, so there's no longer any actual debate on the issue; he wasn't a Republican at any point, and that is that. It's quite likely that the news sources that have said otherwise were using us as a source. I'll fix it using both the Washington Post retraction and the interview as a source. --Aquillion 22:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Nagin's office cannot be telling people what to change the text to. They are too close to the source. It's in their interest. Reports tell otherwise. Nagin was a Republican up until the election. Conservatives themselves have backed this up. Nagin was known as Ray Reagan around town.Stewiegfan 05:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Did you read your sources carefully? At least one cites Wikipedia as its source, and the others cite no-one at all. Like I noted above, many people have used Wikipedia as a source on Nagin and incorrectly repeated our error on his political background. (I, myself, was fooled by this the first time the issue came up.) Given that, blogs and the like won't cut it--you'll need a source more authoritative then the mayor himself to contradict him and change the article. It seems nonsensical to me to claim that the mayor's office would lie about his own political background when voter registrations are a matter of public record, but if you're really, really determined to fight them in this, all you have to do is obtain an image of one of those official documents indicating that Nagin was once a Republican. If it is really as common-knowledge as you claim, and not just a rumor that has been echoing around blogs and editorials, this should be easy. Until then, I'll remove this from the article in keeping with WP:BIO and the official statements from the office of the mayor; no number of cites to blogs and editorials will ever have enough credibility to go against someone's own description of their background on a matter of public record. --Aquillion 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Firearms

This has somehow become a hot topic well over a year later, with some rants recently being posted. Good sourced NPOV coverage of this would probably be a useful addition. The below removed from the article is lacking any references. Some details do not seem in line with news reports I read at the time as well. -- Infrogmation 09:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Orleans Fleur de Lis.gif

Image:New Orleans Fleur de Lis.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)