Talk:Ray Nagin/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does Mike Brown Belong in Nagin's Bio? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Furious

message: 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)
thread_title: Telling it like it is

message: "...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)
thread_title:  Controversial? 

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV-check

message: 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)
thread_title:  Posse Comatatus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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" . --Jentizzle 04:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of 3RR, admins please block Long John Silver 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Out of context quote 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Twenty Revert Rule 

message: Posse comitatus does not apply here. What the article needs to be corrected to include is The Stafford Act . 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 .
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 . Just do a Google on Louisiana and corruption . Corwin8 03:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Posse Comitatus, the Stafford Act 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Whitewash Alert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New sockpuppet of LJS 

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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More Whitewashing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bad, Bad POV claims 

message: The source is poissibly biased, but nowhere near as biased as Fox News.  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)
thread_title:  Rove 'Bush Pleaded Spin collapses 

message: 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.  (No, I'm not associated with ThinkProgress -- just thought this would be useful.)  Krakatoa 19:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great timeline by ThinkProgress 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terrible edits by anon. user LJS/sockpuppets and "The Left" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More LJS Sockpupetry 

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: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bush's Criticism of State and Local Government 

message: 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)
thread_title:  composition of chocolate milk 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  you all need to chill 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chocolate City 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2006 Election 

message: :It was YOU!!!Adambiswanger1 22:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I stole his business card

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The city of NO was not under mandatory evacuation until MONDAY, SEPT 5

message: 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 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)
thread_title: Merchandising

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Political party

message: 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)
thread_title: Firearms

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