Talk:Criticism of the government response to Hurricane Katrina/Archive 1

message: # It is very, very important from the outset that we keep this article POV-free.
# This is something of a placeholder - the true political ramifications will likely be judged by debates in Congress over environmental and infrastructure policies, and ultimately perhaps by the outcome of the next elections.
-- BD2412 talk 02:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is virtually impossible. What some view as NPOV is POV for others, on both sides of the fence. CrazyC83 21:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at the very least we can strive to present facts, source observations, and not attribute motives to people involved (although we can report that others have made such specific attributions). I have faith that a fairly NPOV product can emerge from this process. :-D -- BD2412 talk 21:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Politics is POV by definition. So if you want NPOV, then remove everything in this article. Wallie 08:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-POV dispute note

message: Some material on this page was taken from the Hurricane Katrina article. -- BD2412 talk 02:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: As of now, this article raises alot of question, but offer little facts directly relevant to political effect. It seems that political effect would come abit later. Why not move this to Political Response to Hurricane Katrina (or similar title), and describe how did the political leaders (POTUS, Congressman, Governors, etc) response to Hurricane Katrina? In this way, we can focus more on facts rather than commentary. Political effect can be described later after-the-fact. --Vsion 05:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Response to Hurricane Katrina 

message: This could become an important article.  I expect the debate and recriminations on this event will go on endlessly, as it does with the Iraq War. What the article needs right now is a fleshing out of the issues listed.  For example, a number of politicians and activists have made comments on the global warming issue, and I am sure there are several articles about the actions taken by various politicians (the Prez, The Gov, The Mayor).  We need quotes and sources to develop each listed issue into its own section. NoSeptember 09:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A source for the Dennis Hastert controversy: . --Titoxd 02:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and quotes

message: The text mentions the effect of changes to bankruptcy with respect to natural disasters.  A natural disaster would be a hurricane hit on a city above sea level.  For a city below sea level with woefully inadequate protection, the term natural doesn't seem right; it's a man-made disaster.  This was argued by an author of the New Orleans Times-Picayune article series (mentioned in predictions) when he was interviewed on Australian public radio, ABC, on 1st September.
:unsigned edit by 144.135.190.104
* The point is certainly arguable, but bear in mind that the storm was certainly a "natural disaster" with respect to the displaced residents of Mississippi (where at least 110 people have died, and where the city of Waveland was "wiped off the map", and Trent Lott's home was destroyed), as well as Alabama, Florida, and the rest of Louisiana outside of New Orleans. The narrow media focus on New Orleans has likely been to the detriment of those living in surrounding states. Also, even if New Orleans were above sea level, it still would have suffered considerable damage from a storm of this magnitude, and in a few instances it might be difficult to assess how different the damage would be. -- BD2412 talk 14:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural disaster? 

message: "Whether this whole article is just written by and for Bush-haters who refuse to admit that everything that has happened would have also likely to have happened had John Kerry been in office and not George W. Bush."
I rest my case.  Frightening thing is, the point is valid.
:unsigned edit by 64.202.11.2
*I don't see the article as sniping at Bush in particular - it's presenting both sides of the issues, and is basically only accurately reporting what the political fallout after the hurricane has actually been. If anything, it shows that our entire political system is in need of an overhaul. -- BD2412 talk 01:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partisan Sniping 

message: It seems that the characterization of looters as halting relief efforts is premature.  We know there has been shooting.  We know that it has hampered relief efforts.  We don't know who is shooting.  Should there be references sited for this?  I assume most of this will be erased shortly enough.
--"When federal response did start arriving, much of it was focused on stopping looters, some of whom had reportedly delayed the delivery of vital relief. Louisiana Gov... "--
--Genobeeno 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Race and Class - "When federal response did start arriving..." 

message: After a thorough read, the article seems to meet NPOV criteria. After all, politicians from both sides of the aisle have agreed that the relief efforts were extremely slow, including President Bush himself. I'm tempted to be bold and remove the tag... --Titoxd 02:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any glaring problems. The summary of political criticisms is handled quite well, in fact, although it's an odd sort of section for an article like this. If User:CrazyC83 cannot outline specific violations of neutrality which the community can then correct, the NPOV tag should be removed. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: There are severe problems with this section. In particular the paragraph 'There have reports that Governor Blanco was reluctant to issue a mandatory evacuation order until President Bush called to personally ask that she give the order. [18] At the 28 August press conference in which Nagin and Blanco ordered the evacuation of New Orleans, Blanco actually said that Bush had called "just before we walked into this room" to share his concerns and urge that the city be evacuated. [19]' can only be characterised as grossly distorted. (1) The Media Matters link on the claim with respect to the Bush call prodding Blanco is headed 'Chavez, Murdock advanced dubious claim that Bush convinced Blanco to evacuate New Orleans ' and actually concludes the Bush call was too late to have been a part of Blanco's decision. (2) The mandatory evacuation order was actually issued by Nagin, not Blanco.  The paragraph should be rewritten and we should not be citing links that actually contradict what our text alleges. To quote the referenced page: 'As Media Matters for America has previously documented, there is little evidence to support this contention.' Alan 19:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Louisiana

message: "Whether this whole article is just written by and for Bush-haters who refuse to admit that everything that has happened would have also likely to have happened had John Kerry been in office and not George W. Bush."
Were John Kerry the President, he would not be hiding. He'd be as incoherent as ever, but he'd have taken charge instantly, and be standing in New Orleans at this very moment -looking for all the world like the same fence-post we saw in the 2004 Debates. But he'd be doing the right thing. Not hiding in the White House, cheerily talking about "pushing through dark times", and launching a private fundraising campaign.
But to remain on topic: this article is POV - but that is obvious from the title, and first few lines. Most of the text on this page will be replaced in the comming weeks and months with more accurate summaries of news. For now, keep in mind that those who do not follow the same POV as this page will disagree with it, and realise it for what it is: a politicaly motivated article. -- unsigned comment by User:Jkarp
:No crystal ball, please. The article has a large potential to be POV, that's why we need to keep up trying to distinguish what's factual and what's opinion. For example, if Democrats began politicizing this thing, that would cause a lot of criticism, which should be noted here too. Try to write on the things already said, like how Ray Nagin blew up and lost his head on radio in anger because of the slow relief efforts. --Titoxd 02:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article documents points of view, but the article itself is not POV. I hope you understand what that means in Wikipedia terms; if you don't, please reread the Neutral point of view policy. --Dhartung | Talk 02:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand WP:NPOV, I've been here quite a while. However, what I ask is, what in the article isn't NPOV? I don't see anything here that isn't being mentioned in C-SPAN (where I'm getting my baseline for neutral bias), MSNBC, CNN, or even Fox News. Instead of criticism, might I ask for suggestions, instead? --Titoxd 02:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The indentation I used was at the same level as your comment. That means it is a reply to Jkarp, not you. --Dhartung | Talk 07:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: For the record, I think the title and the first few lines are about as NPOV as you can get on Wikipedia. All they are saying is that political effects exist, what their basic nature was, and how they will ultimately be measured. -- BD2412 talk 03:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV - Bush 

message: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1452490.htm
:Yummy! 10.5 billion beautiful bucks. Wonder who will get that! Wallie 09:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  five days because of race? 

message: Materials relating to conspiracy theories have now been moved to Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 01:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored part of that material because those are political statements and IMO belong in this article. --The Bruce 01:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think assertions of supernatural causation are really "political"... I can see how it might be argued, but I worry that they will detract from the serious policy discussions and electoral consequences which will eventually be the focus of this article. -- BD2412 talk 01:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The section needs to be written up more, but those statements are critical of political decisions of the past (legalising abortion and homosexuality, invading Iraq), part of a political agenda and could have a political effect. I'll work on making the section more relevant.--The Bruce 02:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. If you can keep it from descending to lunacy, have at it! -- BD2412 talk 02:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody else added something about Noah, which I'm not sure about but tried to work in after an edit conflict, but I've tried to explain the political significance of these claims. Depending on whether or not the religious claims do exert any influence (and they might in terms of local and state politics in New Orleans and the South) I think this may eventually be best put together with other info on partisan responses and the "blame game" that's being played in various quarters.--The Bruce 03:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories 

message: At least nine and possibly many more tourists trapped by the New Orleans flood were rescued by foreign media.  The media's role is important from a political viewpoint for two reasons - (1) how the foreign media gained unfettered access while foreign consular officials did not, and (2) the foreign media showing more initiative and evacuating people quicker than the US authorities.  Successful rescues by foreign media should be documented..--Auswide 12:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is documented here  Apparent a number of foreign tourists were told that they had to fend for themselves when it came to evacuation . Jooler 16:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign Media

message: Quote: Whether the hurricane was divine retribution for any of a wide array of alleged offenses.  This quote was under "Political controversies and electoral consequences".  I don't think that the US government would seriously be debating this issue.  I am removing it for now. -- Bubbachuck 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Divine retribution"? 

message: I notice the section on the 17th St levee has picked up (without citation) a statement that: 'These claims however, dont bear out as the 17th street levees were concrete walls and not earthen works that would require such shoring up.'
What s the authority for that proposition? The engineering idea that a concrete wall would not require shoring is ridiculous. Mst New Orleans levees were eathen berms topped (in some cases) by concrete walls. It is just possile that someone looking atan mage of the 17th St levee only saw the wall. Alan 09:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levee design 

message: I can't find a reference, but during my viewing, I heard a report that Mayor Nagin, had ordered the evacuation of tourists in a hotel near is headquarters, these tourists were taken to the superdome and per the Mayor's orders went to the front of the line for buses and preferentially evacuated ahead of the people who had been waiting.  This caused protest and accusations of discrimination by those at the superdome.  Obviously the Mayor was thinking of the reputation of New Orleans tourist economy, but this story may be appropriate for the discrimination section if anyone can find a citable source.--Silverback 12:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:A family returning to Scotland has described on the BBC TV news 6 August 2005 how after they were rescued from a New Orleans apartment roof hotels refused to let them stay, and when buses turned up at the Hilton for guests there were more spaces than paying guests, so six buses went back empty after refusing to take the family. As tourists they obviously came up against discrimination against those without ready cash. As a European I consider it outrageous that resources were not pooled to save everyone in this emergency: "small government" seems to have produced a bureacracy that outdoes Kafka....dave souza 21:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  discrimination by Mayor Nagin 

message: Looks like the Able DangerRay Nagin troll has caught up with you here. He has gone by the names Honest Abe and Long John Silver in the past. His MO is to make massively POV edits to the whole article then repeatedly revert when anyone calls him on them, claiming that his is the 'correct' version. He also has a history of making personal attacks against people who do not like this behavior, calling them liars and occasionally 'National Socialists' (i.e. NAZIs). He seems to float arround the 209.x.x.x block. He has repeatedly violated the 3RR, 10RR and 20RR. At this point I think revert on sight is justified. Look at the history of the Nagin story for details. He also appears to have a number of sockpuppets.--Gorgonzilla 05:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *At this point he has reverted to his parallel version of the same article at leat 50 times. This version used to include a crackpot Posse Comitatus theory until I posted the wikipedia article on it when he found some other theory on powerline or whatever. He seems to think that changing his IP address allows him to revert with impunity. Actually it appears to. his other tactic is to make pre-emptive attacks on all the other editors as being left wing extreemists, he called me a liar and a Nazi in the Able Danger article. Admin I reported to said stop bickering. I have not seen any evidence of the 3RR being enforced or the WP:NPA rule being enforced in that case. --Gorgonzilla 02:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll/Vandal header your way 

message: Is it worth mentioning in the "Refusal to accept Foreign Aid" section that Canadian Red Cross workers, emergency response teams and coast guard assistance has been accepted?  Right now, the subsection makes it sound like no foreign assistance has been accepted at all.  Jkelly 00:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)jkelly
:The section is (and has always been) titled "Reluctance to accept foreign assistance". The criticism would be that no (substantial) assistance was accepted when offered in the first couple of days, when aid was needed the most. --Tsaddik Dervish 03:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Webster's definition of "reluctance" --Tsaddik Dervish 03:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refusal to accept Foreign Assistance:  Canadian aid accepted 

message: Its very important to read the article on washingtonpost carefully,, the "rejection of federakl taking over" is following the "The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night," the simple statement like "the federal taking over of evacuation of new orleans was rejected" is very easily mileading reader to think feds only want to take over evacuation but not other action of national guards.--C.levin 13:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's proposal of federal taking over 

message: For your info, that's an article George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina devoted specifically to POTUS's response to Katrina. It's on "response" not "Political effects", so it is quite different from this article . Please contribute there if interested. Gebuhuka 07:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina