Talk:Ray Nagin/Archive 3

message: Restored RECENT TALK comments that should NOT be hidden in archieve the SAME DAY they are written.  TALK is where consensus and respect is given to differing points of view.Kyle Andrew Brown 16:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of current commentary 

message: 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" ? 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  THIS IS A PRO-NAGIN ARTICLE 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV deletions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inane Dueling Criticisms Section Removed for POV 

message: (summary of earlier debate) It is really quite simple. If you want to report criticism of the article simply state who is making the satement. 'Some people say' is not an acceptable citation for partisan criticism in a dictionary. The Evergreen Foundation has been circulating most of the blog conspiracy theories to the mainstream media including the Wall Street Journal and CNN. So this is not all that hard. A comment in Powerline blog is NOT notable criticism --Gorgonzilla 14:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to quote criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms]]

message: (summary of earlier debate) The claim that Posse Comitatus prevented action by Bush has been disproved by reference to the Wikipedia article which clearly states that the act can be waived by the President in times of emergency. Anyone wanting to resurect the claim should discuss here in talk first. --Gorgonzilla 14:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posse Comitatus 

message: The following theories have floated around the blogosphere but are not considered notable for the reason given:
* Nagin beleives CIA attempting to kill him This turns out to be sourced to the World Net Daily News which is a Web tabloid similar to the National Examiner. 
* Blanco failed to declare state of emergency Actually she declared the emergency before the huricane struck, see archive
* Bush begged Nagin to evacuate This originates from a comment on a Powerline blog article. It has been disproved (Bush called after the press had already been told to attend the press conference to announce a mandatory evacuation)'. it is in the article because it was repeated on CNN, MSNBC and the WSJ.
: I think these miscellaneous junk theories should be included in the article, at least to correct any popularly held misconceptions. I would like to comment that I do remember that CIA comment, but I don't think it was meant seriously.--220.238.233.226 17:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After a quick Google search, this is probably the article that it probably comes from. Notice that it's an article about how he's feeling "much better" about the response. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300300.html--220.238.233.226 17:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. Blogosphere Theories 

message: The Extended comments by Bush and by the Governor are candidates for shortening.  This article is not a debate forum in the sense that we are not here to bring the "evidence" of who is right, who is wrong, who gets blamed, based upon lengthy "transcripts".  The transcripts are entirely appropriate as external links that the reader can go to which also have the advantage in their original form of being unfiltered.  As they are now presented in the article they are POV filtered.  That just does't fly.
Again, its totally appropriate for the article to frame that there is a controversy between the White House and the Governor and the Mayor about responsiblity.  However, it cannot be framed using opinionated modifying language juxtaposed next to the quotes.  The goal as a content provider is to not let the reader be pointed to the writer's personal POV.  If a writer has  POV - and any journalist worthy of the name does have a POV, then present it with facts, attribution.  Let the other side do the same.  Then the reader can weigh the facts presented - and that is their right as a reader of an encyclopedia.  If I want to convince you that the President, the Mayor, the Governor is at fault for something then I will turn to another media forum where is is perfectly acceptable to do that.  
This is not FOX News or the Madison Capitol Times, oppps, sorry, that's POV sockpuppetry.  I apologize.Kyle Andrew Brown 16:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workshop Time 

message: The quotations from the sep1 interview are excessive. A representative quote and a link to the full transcript would be more appropriate. --Gorgonzilla 19:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace quotations from interview with transcript 

message: Had to give up basically guarding this article with Gorgonzilla for a bit to study for exams. Long John Silver's signature tabloid-news reporter style is so obvious after he's re-written an article it really doesn't matter what alias he uses, does it? 
I've told quite a few admin's about this loose cannon rewriting entire articles without a shred of evidence e.g. the sources don't support claims he makes, takes quotes out of context, etc.
and worst of all, the way he uses the talk page not to reach consensus with other users but as a soapbox for his whacked theories. Perhaps I'm getting a bit mean now, but this is the sum total of major problems I have had (as well as many others who voice their opinions above) with user's HORRIBLE edits. I can only hope some admin sees this and blocks the MANY different IPs he posts from.
--Jentizzle 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long John Silver - one guy, 1826485505 different aliases 

message: I think that it will inflate the size of the article beyond what is appropriate, but the one sentance I have been trying to correct from the nagin criticism portion, the part about the superdome not being supplied, keeps returning.
would a point by point pro/con list be acceptable, e.g.
**Arguments involving the mayor, and the humanitarian response to hurricane Katrina**
point 1: federal response
pro: [statistics on federal response] e.g. FEMA's response included:
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18461
"FEMA’s Urban Search & Rescue (USAR) and Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMATs) are also staged for immediate response anywhere in the region. The funding and direct federal assistance will assist law enforcement with evacuations, establishing shelters and other emergency protective measures.
FEMA has deployed USAR teams from Tennessee, Missouri and Texas to stage in Shreveport, LA.. USAR teams from Indiana and Ohio are staged in Meridian, MS. Two teams each from Florida and Virginia and one team from Maryland are on alert at their home stations.
A total of 18 DMATs have been deployed to staging areas in Houston, Anniston and Memphis. There are 9 full DMATs (35 members per team) and 9 strike teams (5 members per team) in these staging areas."... 
"Eighteen Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMATs) and 3 Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) task forces have been deployed to the region for further dispatch when needed."
by the 31st "More than 1,700 trucks have been mobilized through federal, state and contract sources to supply ice, water and supplies. These supplies and equipment are being moved into the hardest hit areas as quickly as possible, especially water, ice, meals, medical supplies, and generators. It may, however, take several days for supplies and equipment to reach all victims because of damaged and closed roads and bridges."
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18497
[nagin]con: the federal response to the most dangerous natural disaster in U. S. history was not what could be called "shock, and awe", rather it was seemingly reluctant, disproportionally small, and in many cases put on hold for usually half a week because of red tape when hours and minutes decide the fates of the people unable to escape the path of the hurricane.  Nagin has been one of the central figures in the public outcry over the federal government's relief effort.
point 2:  superdome (preperation of)
[nagin]pro:  stocked with seven truckloads of Meals Ready to Eat, and three truckloads of water
cons: sanitation, underestimation of the number of people to prepare for, lack of generators, airconditioning, national guardsmen, transportation.  Supporters of the Federal response have been decrying what they describe, as the local government's failure to properly prepare the superdome, and other shelters for the hurricane.
point 3: superdome (handling of crisis)
pro: after something like a week, they were evacuated
[nagin]con: ignored for days by federal authorities.  Nagin has been criticised federal government's assistance with regard to the situation in the superdome
point 4:  Local, and State Response
[nagin]Pro:  for the most part described as over and above all previous state, and local responses to hurricanes ever before.
cons: republicans from drudge to the President are dumping blame on a group often referred to as "anyone but the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Executive branch of the U. S. Government".  Many republicans have lashed out at Nagin, though few have admitted that they're following the adage that a good offense makes the best defense.
point 5:  mass transit
[nagin]pro:  ???
con: many critics believe, that, in retrospect, that the use of Mass Transit, especially busses, should have been explored to improve the mandatory evacuation effort that was delayed by uncertainty in the mayor's office.  this harsh criticism is also one of the points Republicans make to deflect criticism of the Bush Administration's handling of hurricane Katrina.
--66.92.144.73 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  deuling criticism expansion 

message: (Nagin)
Pro: ???
Con: Many critics believe that, in retrospect, the use of Mass Transit, especially busses, should have been explored to improve the mandatory evacuation effort that was delayed by uncertainty in the mayor's office. this harsh criticism is also one of the points Republicans make to deflect criticism of the Bush Administration's handling of hurricane Katrina.  "WHY DIDN'T YOU DEPLOY THE BUSES DURING THE MANDATORY EVACUATION, MAYOR?..."  as the drudge report puts it.
--66.92.144.73 01:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (5)Mass Transit(5) 

message: Whatever their content, this article section on criticism is loaded with long excerpts from sources.  It's fully understandable that the content supports various positions on the Mayor.  But I would suggest that it reads like a newspaper article and that the work of preparing a summary based upon facts and placing the long excerpts in links has not been done.  It gives the article the appearance of one big POV - and I'll be honest I did not wade through it to determine just which POV viewpoints were presented.
I just don't think this article should be prepared as a newspaper report and I suspect it's not going to hold up.  The huge transcript of the Mayor in an interview just doesn't look like it should be presented that way.
You wont see me editing, deleting, reverting it.  But it needs to be done.  This is not how biography is done in an encylclopedia.  It's how its done in a book.Kyle Andrew Brown 15:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthly quotations and transcripts 

message: I noticed the clean up tag on this page. I've been watching the talk page as well. We should come to an agreement and have someone edit this page so we can remove it. I'm not sure if no one has had time to fix it, or that they are afraid to with all the problems it's had. Anyway, I just thought I'd say that Davidpdx 9/11/05 9:03pm KST
:It is difficult to invest time in fixing the article while one individual keeps reverting it at every opportunity to a version that claims Nagin tries to eat raw babies for breakfast every morning and only George W. Bush's personal intervention stops him. The problems the article has had are mostly due to that one individual who is clearly only interested in providing an alibi for George W. Bush regardless of what the facts might be. He seems oblivious to the fact that most people consider the federal govt. responsible for public safety regardless of who the local mayor might be, I would not want my safety to depend on the nincompoops we elect to the local council. --Gorgonzilla 13:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: Now the revert war/sockpuppet problem is comming under control we need to cleanup the article. In particular I would like to see the long extracts from the radio interview paraphrased, I don't think that two weeks out they really look like they stand the test of time as Nagin's definitive critique of the Federal efforts. 
I would like to suggest that people look through the talk to see what they feel is still relevant to ongoing development of the article and copy them below this comment. Then we can archive all the rest. --Gorgonzilla 21:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of talk 

message: Paragraph in question:
Bob Williams of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank, criticized Nagin's preparation for the hurricane in a Wall Street Journal op-ed claiming "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." [16] However, when asked to confirm the claim that Bush had allegedly persuaded Nagin to order the evacuation, White House press secretary Scott McClellan stated that he had no information to this effect. In fact, the only reported conversation between Bush and Blanco regarding the hurricane prior to its arrival had taken place immediately before the mandatory evacuation was announced at a pre-arranged press conference [17].
The only reason the Evergreen foundation is relevant here is that they are a partisan organization that is presumed by the networks to be delivering the WhiteHouse talking points. The organization does not list emergency response as a core competency. The organization website makes it very clear that the organization is partisan and the attempt to present their criticism as neutral and unbiased is deceptive and POV. 
Since Scott McClelan's refusal to confirm the claims made by Evergreen the organization has not been heard from again on this matter. --Gorgonzilla 01:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evergreen Foundation 

message: This paragraph needs to be deleted completely.  Here again Gorgonzilla tries to make a point using bits and pieces only found on the most extreme LW Blogs. The section even includes a blog as a source.   There is very little that can be done to remove the extreme LW POV beside shortening.  The paragraph:
Bob Williams of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank, criticized Nagin's preparation for the hurricane in a Wall Street Journal op-ed claiming "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."  However, when asked to confirm the claim that Bush had allegedly persuaded Nagin to order the evacuation, White House press secretary Scott McClellan stated that he had no information to this effect. In fact, the only reported conversation between Bush and Blanco regarding the hurricane prior to its arrival had taken place immediately before the mandatory evacuation was announced at a pre-arranged press conference .
Could become:
Bob Williams of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a think tank that describes itself as "a private, non-profit, public policy research organization," criticized Nagin's preparation for the hurricane in a Wall Street Journal op-ed with several points.  Among them Williams claimed "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."  
and that would remove all POV.
But I'd vote that it be deleted entirely.  There are far more criticisms of the Mayor that can be included in the article.  Among them was the Governor's public shoot down of the Mayor's plan to forcefully evacuate people who chose to stay in New Orleans flooded and polluted areas.  --DKorn 02:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are forgetting why the quote is sourced to evergreen: the evergreen forum was reported on all the major news media and was simply recycling right wing blog theories. They don't seem to have been mentioned much since and at this point none of the news media are continuing with the blame game after Bush was reported as admitting he was at fault (though thats not what he actually said). --Gorgonzilla 03:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The term 'think tank' is in any case utterly untrue when applied to any washington DC outfit of that type. Any thinking is done by the people who pay them, in this case Scaife. --Gorgonzilla 03:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Just stop the pretense that you are not LJS, if you are as you pretend a new user you sure have become rude pretty quickly, accusing others of bias and extreme left wing POV every other sentence, just like 'LJS' used to. The section was added because you insisted on adding unsourced blogosphere criticism to the article. The evergreen foundation is the only group that has pushed these theories in the mainstream media and once they came out in the open they were quickly dismissed as nonsense. --Gorgonzilla 13:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LW Blog Nonsense

message: Sorry, I misattributed the POV statement.  It wasn't from JimmyCrackedCorn, but from an anonymous source.  My apologies. -Yipdw 01:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I protected the page. David, you might like to take a minute to review Wikipedia:Civility. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So, was anyone banned for vandalizing the page?  Why was material removed if it wasn't vandalism?  (SEWilco 04:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been an edit war. Protecting the page facilitates discussion and negates the need for banning anyone. Blocking is a blunt instrument and I personally do not use it if it tends to impede discussions, which I think it would in this instance. Editors on competing sides of whether the information should be included or how best it should be included should work out their differences here on the talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit line correction 

message: http://mediamatters.org/items/200509070003
the truth of this assertion rests on Bob William's shoulders.  whitehouse.org is mum on the subject.  the only call that referances can be found to on google are the sun. sept 28th 9AM call to Gov Blanco.
this doesn't sound like something that belongs on wikepedia.
--66.92.144.73 07:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps searching whitehouse.gov is more relevant than whitehouse.org.  (SEWilco 02:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bush phone call to nagin fabrication 

message: JimmyCrackedCorn recently created Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy, a fork which contains only the disputed bus section.  They then created Nagin (disambiguation), which linked only to that article and this one, and redirected Nagin to that disambig.  Since disambiguation pages are not ment to be used for multiple articles on the same subject, but for articles on different subjects with names that have a potental to be confused, I went ahead and changed the Nagin redirect back and redirected Nagin (disambiguation) here. The fork is still there for now. --Aquillion 22:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your diligence, Aquillion. What's a couple more pages on the watchlist?  A note to JCC:  Don't be dishonest.  POV in one place is POV in another place.  Guess we get to have a polite discussion on Talk:Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation by School Buses Controversy too. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That has been discussed at length, but this deals with a more specific policy. When you are in disagreement with other editors it is not approprate to go and create a fork of the disputed article; that is called a content forking or, as that page notes, POV forking, and the page thus created is a POV fork. --Aquillion 01:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And he's trying it again on that page. I've wikilinked it in your text above, Gorgonzilla, for easier access.--chris.lawson 16:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've deleted Nagin (disambiguation), as there doesn't seem to be anything to disambiguate. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Forks

message: Apologies if this is not the appropriate place for this, but since it's come up so many times, and happened almost entirely on this page, I thought I should mention that I finally have more or less concrete evidence (or as concrete as anyone is ever going to get) that  and  are the same person.  The similarities in posting style, sequental appearance with a line of other socks and anons, recent registrations, and other behavioral things have all been discussed at length; but I thought I should bring people's attention to these diffs:
Recently, JimmyCrackedCorn accidently posted while not logged in.  Note that they were logged in for the earlier challenge to KateFan0 they refer to there, and note that their other contributions while not logged in exactly follow what JimmyCrackedCorn was doing at the time.  Therefore, JimmyCrackedCorn is 12.74.187.165.
12.74.187.** is one of the IPs used by Long John Silver, who (thankfully for us) never registered under that name and always posted while logged out, but signed his name and left his IP address visible:  .
More commonly, though, Long John Silver posted under 209.247.222.**:   .
And when DKorn made the same mistake as LongJohnSilver and posted while logged out, what did we see?  Surprise!  DKorn is 209.247.222.**, aka Long John Silver, aka JimmyCrackedCorn. --Aquillion 02:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest you bring an RfC against this user and his multiple sockpuppets, citing the evidence you've cited here? I think that will probably be sufficient to have him blocked for at least a little while.--chris.lawson 04:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think you should go ahead and bring it to WP:AN/I. After reviewing the information you have presented here, it would be enough to convince me were I reading such a report there (particularly when combined with the POV fork).  But since I now am involved in what amounts to a content dispute with this person (persons?) over this article, I will recuse myself from using any admin powers in this instance. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be there too...this whole thing is really getting old. I appreciate you're "stepping aside" and have no doubt a suitable third party admin can be found--MONGO 05:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I first posted almost exactly a year ago. Gorgonzilla first posted almost two months ago. Both of us have posted fairly consistantly since our first posts, with over 500 edits each, and have never crossed paths on an article until now. For Gorgonzilla to be my sockpuppet, I would have had to have started long before Hurricane Katrina began to form and carefully used the two accounts at the same time to make unrelated edits without a single slip-up the entire time, while maintaining distinct communications with numerous people in each persona, just so I could bring them together for a single article. You, by comparison, came here posting anonymously after the article became controversal, got blocked for reverting too many times in a short period of time, immediately registered numerous new accounts and devoted virtually all their edits to pages related to this subject, then gave them away repeatedly by accidently posting without logging in. At this point, you match almost every standard of proof for sockpuppetry available, short of declaring outright that you are a sockpuppet; your response to this is to make implausible accusations against others. --Aquillion 17:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I often post when not logged in. 204.52.215.107 22:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Here's some more for anybody keeping track. , ,  and  (who had a sockpuppet "award" given to it by  which I believe resolves to the same IP JimmyCrackedCorn has used.  They showed up suddenly to desperately request where they could find the article about the "Ray Nagin and the School Buses Controversy" on WP:AN/I and WP:VIP. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  · Katefan0(scribble) 03:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets

message: Please explain what you think is POV about the text below.  I'm already aware of the objection to placing this in a section labeled criticism and even agree with that objection.  I'm looking for specific sentences that are wrong or POV in something akin to the bullet list I provided with what is wrong with the article in its current form.  I'm not looking for general complaints or more personal ad hominem attacks. Please place your comments in the section just below.  Thanks. --JimmyCrackedCorn 16:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: {The Governor} Authorize{s} and direct{s} the authorities of non-risk parishes to coordinate the opening and operation of shelters with DSS in conjunction with ARC, and to lend all possible assistance to the evacuation and shelter effort.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is responsible for assisting local authorities when requested by the state authorities to respond to natural disasters as a secondary or tertiary responder.  State and local authorities are considered first responders.
Use of Buses for Evacuation During and After Hurricane Katrina
The mayor stated on September 1, 2005 that he rejected the use of school buses and insisted that someone provide Greyhound buses.  Nagin said in a WWL radio interview, "I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man. We ain't talking about -- you know, one of the briefings we had - they were talking about getting public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out here.  I'm like, "You got to be kidding me. This is a national disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans."   
Later, on a September 11, 2005 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press responding to a question by moderator Tim Russert, Nagin claimed 550 municipal buses and hundreds of additional school buses at his disposal sat unused because there was no one to drive them. Nagin said, "Sure, here was lots of buses out there.  But guess what?  You can't find drivers that would stay behind with a Category 5 hurricane, you know, pending down on New Orleans.  We barely got enough drivers to move people on Sunday, or Saturday and Sunday, to move them to the Superdome.  We barely had enough drivers for that.  So sure, we had the assets, but the drivers just weren't available."
However, the very first bus to arrive at the Reliant Astrodome with New Orleans evacuees was a New Orleans school bus driven by an evacuee, 20 year old Jabbar Gibson, who commandeered it.  By that time most New Orleans buses were flooded after the hurricane and subsequent levee failure and unable to make the trip.   A story that appeared in the Chicago Tribune indicates Laidlaw, Inc was willing to loan the city to help in the emergency but they also could not provide drivers.  There is no indication Nagin ever sought volunteer drivers from among the evacuees.
NBC's veteran reporter Lisa Myers reported local authorities had not used New Orleans' school buses or Regional Transit Authority (RTA) buses to evacuate the city's stranded poor during the Hurricane Katrina emergency.  The city authorities also parked those buses where they were flooded after the levee break according to Myers.  The Associated Press and Reuters have both captured images of the flooded buses.,  and  According to Myers, "A draft emergency plan, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and obtained by NBC News, calls for '400 buses to ... evacuate victims.' Yet those 200 buses were left in Katrina's path."
The bus situation was not lost on at least one New Orleans evacuee, Connie London, interviewed by ABC's Nightline Reporter Dean Reynolds at the Reliant Astrodome.  The evacuee cites the bus flooding as her major criticism of the performance of city and state officials in handling Hurricane Katrina.  Video (wmv file, 00:54 seconds)
However, as Jesse Jackson has pointed out on FoxNews' Hannity and Colmes September 13, 2005 there was nowhere the mayor could have sent the evacuees by bus.  On the orders of Col Terry J Ebbert, Governor Kathleen Blanco's head of her state's Homeland Security Department. the Superdome in New Orleans would be the city's only evacuation shelter despite the Governor's responsibility to establish evacuation shelters in "non-risk parishes" according to the Louisiana's Evacuation Plan (Part 1, Section D1).
I know at least one person thinks this doesn't belong in criticism.  I even agree.  The text here is point of fact not point of criticism, or in my opinion also not point of view.  But please tell me what the POV text is in your opinion. I'm really trying to understand the objections here.  --JimmyCrackedCorn 16:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but your arguments don't convince me. The information you are seeking to add is too lengthy, improperly sourced and misinterprets source documents to your own uses. Three other editors agree with me on this, and we are now working on compromise language. You must now either work along with us, or prepare to accept the results of a consensus on the issue that is drafted without your input. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Compromise language on the issue is being drafted at the above section called "Compromise language." You're welcome to contribute there to the compromise language being drafted on the issue. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As Katefan0 said above, either work with other editors in the appropriate section to draft neutral language, or stop your whingeing. If you aren't going to help solve the problem, at least shut up so the rest of us can go about our business in peace.--chris.lawson 01:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Please stop.  It is disruptive and unconstructive to revert an article simply to make a point. The problems with using official documents to make POV arguments within an article were discussed at length only a few weeks ago; asking other editors to retread the same debates again simply because you don't want to take the time to familiarize yourself with them shows disrespect to the time and effort that they put into the original compromise. If you have valid complaints to make, go ahead and make them, but don't revert just because you don't like the idea of referring editors to older discussions. --Aquillion 21:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is POV, factally inaccurate or even unsupported about this text?

message: As far as I can tell, the whole following bit doesn't really relate to Nagin; it would belong on Blanco's page, Hurricane Katrina, or someplace similar, but is, I'm sure, already covered on all those places.  Nagin's name isn't even mentioned anywhere, though, and it seems to have to do with state/federal discussions rather than anything related to the city. The only reason it became as long as it did, I think, is because it was at the center of arguments that spilled onto this page from elsewhere.  Does anyone have any reason why these paragraphs...
:On August 27, 2005, Governor Blanco issued a request for federal assistance and $9 million in aid to President Bush, which stated, "...I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster. I am specifically requesting emergency protective measures, direct Federal Assistance, Individual and Household Program (IHP) assistance, Special Needs Program assistance, and debris removal." Also in the requesting letter, the governor stated: "In response to the situation I have taken appropriate action under State law and directed the execution of the State Emergency Plan on August 26, 2005 in accordance with Section 501 (a) of the Stafford Act. A State of Emergency has been issued for the State in order to support the evacuations of the coastal areas in accordance with our State Evacuation Plan and the remainder of the state to support the State Special Needs and Sheltering Plan." 
:The White House issued an authorization of aid by President Bush on the same day.   FEMA also issued a statement that President Bush authorized the allocation of federal resources, "following a review of FEMA's analysis of the state's request for federal assistance." 
:On August 28, Governor Blanco sent a letter to President Bush, which increased the amount of aid requested to $130 million. 
...shouldn't just be removed from the article? --Aquillion 06:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed it, since nobody objected. --Aquillion 02:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruft in Hurricane Katrina section

message: If the army of liberals that run this site are only going to candy coat everything, what is the point of having an encylopedia that anyone can edit?
A bunch of us include quotes that Ray himself, actually said. 
Imagine this: I'm a space alien, and I land on this planet, and want to learn about Katrina and Ray Nagin. I go to Ray's entry, and read.
"Wow!" I think. "What the hell is wrong with that American Gov't!? Nagin did all he could, and that lousy GOP-led government screwed over everyone with total mismanagement".
But in FACT, in documented, widely-accepted fact:
Ray Nagin had no experience in handling these disasters
Ray Nagin did not follow his own city, state emergency plan
Ray Nagin did not use the 215 buses he was SUPPOSED to use
Ray Nagin screamed, ranted and raved like a lunatic
No person would learn these historical FACTS if they read the Nagin entry here.
So again, I ask: What is the point? 
Why dont' you libs just make up whatever nonesense you want, work your iMacs into a frenzy, and simply rename the site: Libipedia. At least that way, everyone will know that this place is the liberal view of the world.
:This has nothing to do with a "liberal" or "conservative cabal trying to POV the issues. There is a section that discusses the issues you demand...but let's talk more about this...there were, ah, 100,000 people left in the city when the levees broke...even if Nagin used the buses for 48 hours prior to and immediately after the levees burst, they seat about 50 people...so they put 50 people in each bus, times 250 buses (approximately) equals 12,500 people...so they travel at 50 miles and hour and drive 200 miles north to drop off the people and then return, picking up another 12,500 people....so in about 8 round trips, they could have gotten all those anxious people out of there. Remeber, there were lots of folks that wouldn't leave even after ther levees had burst and they were reduced to living on the second floor of their homes...so what makes you think that prior to the levees bursting Nagin could have convinced more than a quarter fo the folks to get on school buses, and drive north or west to destinations unknown? Most of the people that were trapped in the city had no intention of leaving until it was obvious that they had no choice due to no place to live, no water, food, electricity. --MONGO 20:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're saying it is OK to not bother moving people away from a storm.  Or is it OK if you can't prove that you can move all of them.  Do we have to wait until we have a full count before trying to save anyone?  Perhaps it is not fair to not save the first person in line if you can't guarantee that you'll also be able to save the last person in line.  (SEWilco 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This line of discussion is really not very helpful.  Talk pages are for discussing changes to articles.  This isn't Usenet or a forum -- our opinions about whether someone could've gotten out of New Orleans, or how fast the buses could be loaded, etc., are completely irrelevant. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The line of discussion is helpful and surmises why the whole topic of using buses or not using buses is ridiculous....many of those that stayed behind did so by choice, at least initially. Those that kept up on the events would have seen that the vast majority of those still in the city had decided to ride out the storm, so in all liklihood, Nagin could have sent 10,000 buses there and still only gotten a relative handful of persons out. We are discussing what belongs in the article and what doesn't so I have no idea what you're talking about.--MONGO 20:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussing what belongs in the article or doesn't is great, but our personal opinions about whether people had time to get out or not isn't criteria for establishing whether something belongs or doesn't. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what is the criteria...that it must fit your politics? It is in there, and is mentioned and I was merely trying to show that further elaboration is POV.--MONGO 02:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on now -- I never suggested such a thing; please assume good faith. It's fine to debate whether information should be included in the article or not, that's what talk pages are for. But you don't support your position by airing your personal opinions about it. You find published sources. Newspaper articles. Politicians. Thinktanks, whatever, that support your position. My only point is to support your position with sources, as per Wikipedia:Cite sources, not with your personal opinions. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I know how to research, but saw no reason do to so as it has already been done...I was merely attempting to discuss that further elaboration of the school buses is unwarranted and what I stated isn't anything other than common sense and a knowledge of the situation as it unfolded. Simple math and logistics, which is my forte, but I'm not going to cite myself.--MONGO 01:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The New Orleans plan was a voluntary "mandatory evacuation", primarily under control of the city although the Governor apparently had to help find buses (she found many within hours on Election Day too).  The Superdome is a "refuge of last resort".  Look up the definition of that label in the plans.  It is not a shelter, although the Superdome was used the same way previously.  The intent to not do so again somehow didn't achieve much.  The original problem was not getting people out of the city and to shelters.  Not putting buses on higher ground (yet still within a hurricane zone), or moving buses away from the hurricane for later use, are mere mistakes or side effects of not moving people.  Not arranging for transport after the storm is yet another issue, but follows the decision to leave people in the city.  Oh, and then after the storm the plan included starving the people to make them leave, which is an interesting evacuation method.  (SEWilco 05:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we both agree that the New Orleans plan was deficient with respect to the 135,000 people who did not have transport. The plan certainly does not appear to have functioned well. There were breakdowns at every level of government. However the fact remains that the 'evacuation' plan was almost exclusively evacuation for people with their own transport. Earlier I added in links to the story of the DVD the city made telling people that they would be on their own. The school buses issue is utterly irrelevant to the post storm evacuation. FEMA promised buses with drivers and failed to deliver. Blanco and Nagin might be blamed for not pressing Brown on when the buses would arrive, for not being suspicious enough. If you are promised buses with drivers you are not likely to divert your scarce manpower on the ground to providing drivers when there are other urgent needs. A more relevant question would be why the helicopters that were meant to be shoring up the levees were diverted into other tasks. --Gorgonzilla 14:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all interesting but not necessarily relevant to an article about the person of Ray Nagin himself. I wonder, do we have an article like Response to Hurricane Katrina or Failures during Hurricane Katrina?  To your point on FEMA and the buses, Gorgonzilla, I was at a hearing with DOT secretary Norm Mineta yesterday and this is what he said:  after the hurricane, FEMA directed the DOT, under the national response plan, to deliver 455 buses to transport people out of the Superdome. The DOT delivered them to somewhere just outside of New Orleans on 8/31. It was from that point FEMA's responsibility to dispatch them from there, and that's where the breakdown happened. The buses were there, FEMA just didn't utilize them properly. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are articles Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans and Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina.  (SEWilco 16:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  The 'evacuation' plan failed the same way during at least two previous hurricanes.  Promises of improvements were made.  The bus issue is relevant at two levels: Either move the buses out of town (with people on them) so the buses (and people) survive the storm, or put them someplace where they're likely to survive the long-expected flooding.  The flooded buses shows neither was done.  The mayor is not responsible for saving private buses, but he was authorized to use them during evacuation, as the Governor did.  Again, the flooded buses (and Superdome people) show they weren't used during evacuation.  (SEWilco 16:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about the evacuation, and you've clearly done a lot of research. However, it was my understanding, from reports on the media and across the internet, that 80% of residents of New Orleans were evacuated, making this a very successful evacuation, and that the congestion and flooding physically prevented further evacuations, making the buses a moot point. AIUI, the failures were in not starting the mandatory evacuation immediately rather than a voluntary evacuation to start, and not adequately preparing emergency shelters within New Orleans for those who couldn't be evacuated in time. 172.214.64.34 04:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Superdome refuge opened at Noon on Sunday, and city buses were bringing people there.  Taking some of the people from the Superdome out of town could have been done with the still-dry buses.  Yes, better preparations could have been made within the city.  I don't remember if any Red Cross "shelter" definitions apply to locations within a storm's path, particularly when 35 feet of water is expected.  (SEWilco 16:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell is the point, really? 

message: Perhaps there is a better way to record the phone conversation Nagin had in a daughter article. I'm taking it out as it is longer than the biography itself and doesn't add much to the article.--MONGO 07:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that really belongs more in Wikisource. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phone conversation posted by 71.106.200.233