Talk:New Orleans/Archive 1

message: I don't speak French and have never been to New Orleans (Helas!), but isn't Laissez le bon temps roulez quite as common, or maybe even more so, as Laissez le bon temps rouler?  Recently changed from the former to the later. Ortolan88
: Actually, it's "Laissez les bons temps rouler" . "Temps" is plural, so it should be "les bons"... And "rouler" is the right infinitive, whereas 'roulez' means: you roll (plural). "Rouler" and "roulez" are pronounced the same, and with the 'laissez' in the first part of the sentence, I guess I understand the confusion. It is indeed a quite common misconception, according to Google.. --JoanneB 09:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: French

message: I am in the process of creating a page on New Orleans Carnival celebrations, to split off from the Mardi Gras page.  My rough draft is currently at 
User:Infrogmation/New Orleans Mardi Gras. (It currently has way too many photos; I will spin many of them off elsewhere eventually.) I invite other folks knowledgable about the subject to contribute. Time & circumstances permitting, I'd like to have a decent page in the main article space before Mardi Gras Day.  You can comment at User talk:Infrogmation/New Orleans Mardi Gras too.  Iko Iko, -- Infrogmation 05:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a fair amount of work on it. While more remains to be done, I think its in ok shape for a good start on the subject.  I'll be moving it into the article space within 12 hours or so. -- Infrogmation 06:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just did so: New Orleans Mardi Gras. -- Infrogmation 13:50, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mardi Gras Mambo, Mambo 

message: I made Orleans Parish redirect to New Orleans, and I merged some of the article to New Orleans. WhisperToMe 22:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'd just unredirected Orleans Parish, Louisiana not long ago and returned that to being a seperate article. I'd tend to wish for a seperate article for the Parish for reasons I'll mention, but will go with the consensus if people think that shouldn't be the case. The government and official limits of the Parish and the city of New Orleans are identical. They have not been so for all of their history, however. If we have more on the history of Orleans Parish, it will be seen not to be the same as the history of New Orleans.  Algiers, Louisiana, Carrollton, and I think a few other communities now part of New Orleans were seperate towns and cities in the in Orleans in the past. I believe that Orleans Parish originally also included what is now Jefferson, Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, and maybe some other lands.  There have been various proposals brought up and currently being discussed, such as the Algiers councilman who wants to restore its status as a seperate city, that would again make them not legally the same. (I am under the impression that there are some other legal differences between the city and the Parish, though I'm not clear on that at present.) -- Infrogmation 04:14, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orleans Parish, Louisiana article 

message: There was no French conquest of Spain in 1801.  Rather, Napolean strong-armed the Spanish crown to cede Louisiana back to him as part of a secret treaty signed at San Idelfonso in October of 1800. A failed (and hare-brained) attempt to invade Canada via the Mississippi basin left Napoleon with an unmanageable problem, driving him to sell the territory in 1803. Pointym5 20:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The French did not invade Spain until 1808, long after the Louisiana Territory was sold.  The conquest of Spain by France is at most only peripherally relevant to a discussion of New Orleans history. (Pointym5 17:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonial Era 

message: Can anyone explain to me what the difference between a Dike and a Levee is? --Hullbr3ach 10:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Levees were originally along rivers or other flowing bodies of water that periodically flood. -- Infrogmation 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It appears that a levee is a type of dyke, built along a river.  At least if you can trust Wikipedia. :-)  PerlKnitter 13:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In German, such a wall along a river would be called Deich (obviously the related to the English dike; the cross-language WP link also points to Dike). Now, according to LEO.org levee translates to Deich as well, however it is apparently also associated with other, non-water related meanings. Dyke on the other hand translates mostly to geological terms. Maybe someone familiar with the difference could point it out more clearly in the two WP articles, as this distinction apparently does not exist in all languages. --Hullbr3ach 18:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess you could argue that the levees against Lake Pontchartrain are actually dikes, but the local usage is levee, to keep things simple.--Kbk 15:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as I know its pretty much the same thing. NO has French background, and levee comes from that language. Bertus 05:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levee vs. Dike 

message: At what point would it be appropriate to change the parts of the article discussing N.O. as a city from present to past tense? 65.96.131.159 21:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably if the mayor or city council declares that it is no longer incorporated as a city. I have heard no rumors of any such move, why do you ask? -- Infrogmation 21:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it seems to be one of the most frequently changed things about the article. 65.96.131.159 22:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those changes are unlikely to have been made in good faith. New Orleans remains a city, albeit one facing some very serious problems. Please do not continue adding false statements. Dystopos 22:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: New Orleans is still a city, and on the US map. There is an intense relief effort currently underway. It is inappropriate to cease referring to it as a city. Furthermore, any information on the details of the hurricane should be in the Hurricane Katrina article, with only a brief mention on the city page of New Orleans. People need to seriously resist the urge to add their mark to this page just to make a mark on history. Dr. Cash 01:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This hurricane is nothing compared to what happened to some cities in WW2. Relax. Bertus 05:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: Maybe we should rename Hurricane Katrina to Hurricane Latrina. After all, she turned the much of Dixie into a latrine. 165.230.149.164 23:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you inspired by the city's motto, "Let the good times roll"? That alone is enough sarcastic. --Keimzelle 09:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Still hardly a match for Hong Kong's slogan during the SARS epidemic... "Hong Kong will take your breath away!". Nonetheless, the "city that care forgot" moniker does ring rather hollow as of late --carlb 03:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A ghoulish, inappropriate joke 

message: Hi, I missed some info about people living in New Orleans which still are speaking French. Has French died out, or is French a quasi-official language in that city? --Keimzelle 09:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you :) --Keimzelle 18:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  French speakers in New Orleans? 

message: i think we should emphasise Katrina more in this article. Its currently what many readers will be looking for - and the awful damage and loss of life potentially makes much of the article out of date. I propose we move the paragraph in the heading to the second position and perhaps bold part of it:
:New Orleans (local pronunciations: , , or ) (French: La Nouvelle-Orléans, pronounced  in standard French accent) is the largest city in the U.S. state of Louisiana. New Orleans is located in southeastern Louisiana along the Mississippi River, just south of Lake Pontchartrain, and is coextensive with Orleans Parish. The 2000 census put New Orleans's population at 484,674 and the  population of Greater New Orleans at 1,337,726. The city's name is often abbreviated NOLA.
:On August 29, 2005, the city was struck by Hurricane Katrina, which caused catastrophic damage and flooding throughout the entire metropolitan area. Authorities are currently attempting to evacuate the entire population. Seabhcán 16:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose emphasizing Hurricane Katrina on this page. The article is about New Orleans, not the Hurricane. The city will be rebuilt, much of the information is not out-of-date. It's way too early to start writing that anyways. Encyclopedias are not news media outlets. The purpose of encyclopedias are to archive what has happened, and things of a historical nature. Parts of the article will be rewritten, if necessary, once the information has solidified and stopped changing. Dr. Cash 16:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting that we rewrite now - I'm suggesting we give a prominant link to the appropriate article on this current event. A large proportion of users will be looking for it anyway. It will also divert some of those ip users who are rapidly editing this article. This article is about New Orleans, and the hurricane is probably the most significant thing to happen to the city in many years. Seabhcán 17:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, positively, the wrong approach! First of all, BOLD TEXT of a complete sentence or paragraph is UNACCEPTABLE in the opening statement of any article. Secondly, we need to make sure that the Hurricane coverage itself goes to the Hurricane Katrina article, or the Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans article. It is unacceptable to bloat this article with tons of information on the hurricane. Dr. Cash 23:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't what i'm proposing. Please read and refer to my suggestion above. Seabhcán 12:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Great - thats a clever solution. Seabhcán 15:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  emphasized Katrina  

message: I heard Jesse Jackson interviewed and he pronounced the city's name "Norlun." Is there is a distinct "Black" pronunciation? Adam 05:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Jesse Jackson's not from New Orleans (actually from South Carolina), so he was probably adding his own personal or local flavor to the 'Nawlins' pronunciation. I don't think it's significant. Dr. Cash 14:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To my ear there is no distinct pronunciation at all. Instructions about how to pronounce the name of the city seem to always produce jarring results. The best advice I've heard is to use whichever pronunciation rhymes with the rest of the song. Dystopos 20:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Norlun, etc

message: Can we possibly have a lot more pictures, or separate pictures pages, thumbnails at the footer? I'll look for public domain photos, but I think it is our responsibility to provide them all if we can. Any historical photos that can legally be used should. It's a position I'm firm on, but I'm not wild on destroying nice articles. Can we discuss this? JoeHenzi 13:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More pictures would definitely be a plus, particularly in the People & Culture and Infrastructure sections. However, it may be difficult to acquire photos currently, given the situation. I don't think we want this article to be overloaded with a bunch of Hurricane Katrina references and pictures,... there are other articles for that information. This article needs to remain about the city of New Orleans without being overrun with Hurricane effect information. Dr. Cash 00:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I don't think we want this article to be overloaded with a bunch of Hurricane Katrina references and pictures,... there are other articles for that information. This article needs to remain about the city of New Orleans without being overrun with Hurricane effect information" - This is my point, but I didn't want to come out saying it. Historical photos of New Orleans, accounts of it's history, anything would be great. We've got the space and the responsibility to provide people with a sense of the city before this disaster. JoeHenzi 03:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shallow request: Pictures 

message: date wikification is often overdone at wikipedia, and this article suffers a bit from it. if there weren't so many changes to the article right now, i'd take a sweep and fix the whole thing. until it slows down, please consider correcting wikified dates you come across that don't have at least a day and a month, and don't have special significance. from the manual of style:
:If the date does not contain a day and a month, then date preferences do not work. In such cases, square brackets around dates do not respond to user preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it.
most of the time at wikipedia you see a wikified year by itself (e.g., 2002), it would be better plain. same with months and years with no day (e.g., August 2005). thanks. SaltyPig 00:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  overwikification of incomplete dates 

message: :::A note is NOT needed in the infobox, period. The note under the demographics section is sufficient. The infobox needs to remain simply. Please stop adding notes and subclauses (or "caveats", as you would like to put it). Given the fact that the city is set to start re-populating this week, no notation is really necessary. Sure, some people may choose to relocate permanently elsewhere; but until that count is official, we cannot say anything yet; doing so would be pure speculation and POV. Dr. Cash 15:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, and agree that the note should remain in demographics. However, the infobox needs to remain clear and clean, and introducing the page-internal link is unnecessary. The infobox should remain as-is with no notes or links or anything of the sort. Stop reverting this. Dr. Cash 16:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have yet to cite a Wikipedia precedent or guideline rule or anything other than your own opinion to make the case that the infobox can't be changed.  I understand that you don't want it to be changed and you think it should always be kept as is, but that is just an opinion, just your belief system about Wikipedia's infoboxes.  It's not based in anything more than that.  Moncrief 16:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I see and agree with the argument that the infobox is technically misleading without the note, and I don't, personally, feel the note makes the infobox ugly; rather, that it make clear that we realize that the number isn't accurate at the moment, and might change.  I'm not fond of summaries that are factually incorrect, hoping the reader will read the entire piece; experience proves that many readers a) don't, and b) appeal to the authority of the (misleading) summary.  I'd call for an informal vote, but in lieu of that, I'd like to suggest keeping the note link in the infobox, absent a clear, solid reason to leave it out (which I have not seen presented to my own personal satisfaction yet).--Baylink 20:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: To claim "1.1 million live in greater New Orleans" without mentioning this is as of 2000 is as meaningless as claiming that fifty thousand work at the World Trade Center in Manhattan (also true as of 2000). There are some habitable buildings in the city (such as in Algiers or the older sections of the city along the river) and in suburbs near the main airport but 1.1 million people or the buildings to house all of them simply aren't there anymore. Unless we have reliable current population figures for the area (and we won't until all of this is over), the year 2000 census figures should be marked as 2000 census figures. Otherwise, out of context, they're meaningless. --carlb 20:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Note 

message: I removed this section:
*"Orle is the Old French word from which the name Orleans was derived. Orle stems from the word oral as in mouth of a river. In the Old English it also means beginning, origin or front."
This bit of nonsense is not just one mistake, but so full of gross mistakes that I'll enumerate them here so it never shows its face in the article again....
*Orle is the Old French word from which the name Orléans was derived: not true. Orléans derives from Latin Aurelianum.
*Orle, a relatively rare heraldic term, in any case does not derive from oral (or more properly if it were true, from os, oris) but, via *orulare, from a different Latin word, ora, meaning, not a mouth, but a seashore or an edge.
*There is no "Old English" cognate; which, in any case, if any of this argument were true, would be a French word, and thus not in Old English which had almost no French in it. At any rate, no word like this meant "beginning, origin or front".
Bill 20:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Folk etymology

message: Someone deleted the innocent statement in the article that in colonial times the population was about 10,000; on the grounds that it was unsourced. There are of course umpteen unsourced statements thruout this article and Wikipedia: more generally, encyclopedia articles do not customarily include footnotes with sources for every statement made in them.
But, yes, the population was about that — whoever put that in was most reasonable in not inserting some precise figure — here are the kinds of figures given by Kendall in his History of New Orleans, large chunks of which are going up on my site these days: population in 1722, immediately after foundation, about 500 • population in 1744, about 3000 • number of buildings in 1803, about 4,000 • population in 1806: 12,000 Bill 13:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonial population

message: Am I the only one to find it strange that the article title is not just New Orleans? What other New Orleans is there? The guidelines on the naming of articles on geographical features are that if there is no ambiguity, the simpler, unqualified name is better. Someone did this back in 2002, and we've all followed along like sheep.... I'd move it back right now, but once a redirect is in place, reversing them takes an admin. Bill 14:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title: "New&nbsp;Orleans, Louisiana"

message: The recent edit by --which was quickly reverted for npov reasons--looked an awful lot like a magazine article to me, style-wise.  Sure enough, when I googled a sentence from them they came up as a copyvio of this.  Just posting it here so people will know if it's re-inserted. --Aquillion 15:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio note

message: Isn't New Orleans perceived as one of the most corrupt cities in the USA?  
There was an article in the Washington Post this week, about fatigue in Washington,
about funding further reconstruction,
because of the perception that New Orleans is corrupt.
A google search of the Washington Post website produced many hits, including these ones:
*[Burdens of Past Limit New Orleans's Future: Poverty, Corruption Weigh on Recovery, November 10, 2005
*Corruption as Usual, September 28, 2005
Even if the perception is a misconception, it is so widespread that, in the interests of completeness, the article should address the issue of corruption.  --  Geo Swan 15:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: New Orleans has been notoriously corrupt since the mid‑19c: elections, lawmakers, quite a few mayors, and police. (I'm the guy putting up Kendall, one of the books covered by the "History of Louisiana" link in "External links" at the bottom of this article, and he's been a real eye-opener to me!) Any discussion of it should be even-handed in the sense that it shouldn't just focus on the current corruption. Bill 15:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think details should go into the "History of New Orleans" article. -- Infrogmation 21:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unpleasant topic -- police corruption