Talk:Kathleen Blanco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Louisiana Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Louisiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Louisiana. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (December 2007)

[edit] POV

  • Well I find so much negativity in this article I wonder if a mad republican wrote some of it. They are being sure point all the faults and nothing of what good she has accomplished. I am neither a Dem or a Rep. but a a liberal, but i find this article harsh and non-neutal Justin 04:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • NPOV dispute

I hardly find the language of this article neutral, going so far as to wonder if the governor’s press secretary wrote it. For example when referring to the Saints the writer says, “ While Governor Blanco would certainly like to resolve this issue and remain focused on issues such as education, there is little doubt that the outcome of this debate will play a major role in Louisiana's future economic development.” The writer assumes the governor’s thoughts on potential actions. Later in the article the writers states, “ Governor Blanco is still grappling with the massive damage to the State of Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.” Is the governor grappling? How Massive was the damage? When referring to the governor’s time as lieutenant governor, the writer states, “ During her time as lieutenant governor, Blanco focused much of her work on developing the state's tourism industry.” In the state of Louisiana the job of lieutenant governor is head of the tourism dept., its what the lieutenant governor does! The governor focused nothing but what she was supposed to be doing. As governor of Louisiana the writer states that Blanco has, “ traveled more than her predecessor.” I don’t understand the need for this statement. It is a fact that the governor traveled in her first year, but, I question the neutrality of comparing the current governor’s travel with the previous governor’s travel. As to the portion concerning the governor’s actions during Katrina the author cites articles that do not question or condemn the governor’s performance. I would have preferred the author refer to the Congressional hearings concerning Katrina, in this manner the author could have used quotes in the governor’s own words while the governor was under oath. Or it should be discussed in a seperate article. In conclusion I do not find the closing comments concerning the governor’s political future appropriate in a neutral article. What polls say or how well the governor may do is absolutely inappropriate in this setting. I suggest that sections concerning the governor’s handling of the Katrina be omitted. I suggest that said omissions be replaced with a brief statement saying that Kathleen Blanco was governor when the hurricane his then the reader be directed to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Louisiana


Added existing criticism of Blanco in failure of first responders at the local and state level in the Hurricane Katrina crisis. -- Long John Silver 12.74.187.122 18:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Such criticsms have been kept out of the article on President Bush, so I guess Wikipedia policy is to wait until events have settled before including such info. I've put that text into a hidden comment for now.

This is not a print encyclopedia so information will be revised later if needed. --Howrealisreal 01:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I do NOT think it's proper to use these materials, such as how many national guards troops she can use, there is only one reference and does not provide the resource of the number, it hardly convincing anybody who can think. Also, the governor ordered "shoot and kill" after the President's talk about "no looting will be allowed", since this does not show up in President's page, i do NOT think it is proper to put here also. there will be a lot controversies about how governor, mayor, and president handle the disaster, it is not proper to use information that hard to test and without an explain from the other side. --Wfeng 16:13, 4 September 2005

These are all valid claims, but the more intelligent thing to do (since you say it's hardly convincing for anyone who can think), would be to find another source that disputes the information you think is biased and edit the content. Deleting full paragraphs of information that has been collaborated on by many wikipedia editors just because YOU think it is not appropriate is blatant censorship. I agree that nobody here is absolutely correct, but the ability to compromise is what makes wikipedia great. --Howrealisreal 21:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A press release dated August 27 on the Louisiana state government's site contains the full text of Governor Blanco's request for federal assistance, which is also dated August 27. [1] Additionally, a FEMA press release dated August 27 acknowledges a "state request for federal assistance". [2] --Jentizzle 04:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I added the number of the Louisiana guards that were on active duty as of Aug 30th, data came from chicagotribune. --C.levin 5 September 2005

According to the artical on washingtonpost, i added the source of the "Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday" and "As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency." --C.levin 5 September 2005

The statement: "However, Governor Blanco and Major General Bennett Landreneau, commanding Louisiana's National Guard, have co-operated closely with Lieutenant General Russel Honoré, commanding military operations under Joint Task Force Katrina" is unsourced and appears to be personal POV. I removed it. Can anyone provide a source or explain why this isn't personal POV? --JimmyCrackedCorn 07:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Rephrased criticism of Governor Blanco, removed the following sentence-

"No information was given as to what compacts these were nor why these sources were unaware of the agreement between Louisiana and New Mexico."

This was in regards to a Yahoo! news article, which states that some required paperwork from the feds needed to deploy National Guard troops, which were offered by Governor Richardson of New Mexico, and accepted by Governor Blanco. Information was given "as to what these compacts were," obviously, because they are stated as necessary to deploy the troops.

"Why these [government] source were unaware of the agreement between Louisiana and New Mexico" is blatant POV. The article doesn't state that the government was "unaware" of the agreement. What can be deigned from the article is that paperwork didn't arrive from the feds until September 1. What the cause of the delay was, is unknown. I replaced the offending POV claim by stating just that. --Jentizzle 17:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I added the president's statement about looters, that statment came just couple hours before Governor Blanco's order, and that might be helpful to fully understand the situation at that time and the reason for the order. --C.levin 21:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Modified this part:

On August 27, 2005, Governor Blanco asked President Bush through the media to declare a state of emergency in the state of Lousiana,
Such a maneuver is usually considered "blind-siding" in political or diplomatic circles and is bad form. President Bush, however, responded to Blanco's media event on August 27, 2005.[3]

if this "blind-siding" words here is not POV, then i don't know anything else is POV. if Mr. Unknown who added these information really wonder why Blanco made request on Aug 27th while the requesting letter was dated as 28th, just present the fact, no need to add his own comment which is cleay not fair, also, in the president's responce, which is made on Aug 27th, the president asked the emergency aid to start "from Aug 26th" [4]. its not political trick, its just that they act before the document. --C.levin 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Added a statement from the letter that Blanco sent to president about state of emergency, which show the emergency plan has been operated since Aug 26th. 2005

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.

--C.levin 22:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin apparently sided with President Bush in an apparent dispute with Blanco over who should control the National Guard in Louisiana, saying in a CNN interview[5], "I want to see stuff done. And that's why I'm so happy that the president came down here, because I think they were feeding him a line of bull also. And they were telling him things weren't as bad as it was. He came down and saw it, and he put a general on the field. His name is General Honore. And when he hit the field, we started to see action. And what the state was doing, I don't frigging know. But I tell you, I am pissed. It wasn't adequate."

Modified the part above, from mayor's interview, there is nothing indicate that he "sided with bush about who should control the national guards".--C.levin 23:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Governor Blanco, Mayor Ray Nagin, who are both Democrats, have quickly become targets, along with Republican President George W. Bush and FEMA Under Secretary Michael D. Brown, for wide ranging criticism of the relief response, which left tens of thousands of Louisiana's poorest residents stranded without food or water for more than four days after Katrina had hit.

Criticism needs to be coming from someone. "Wide-ranging criticism" needs to be made into specific criticisms which are sourced. A journalistic entity, whatever. It's unnecessary to re-assert the party affiliations of Nagin, Bush and Blanco.

Criticism has come equally from both Democrats and Republicans for decisions they have all made.

POV and irrelevant.

On September 3, 2005, United States Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff described the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as "probably the worst catastrophe, or set of catastrophes" in the country's history.

irrelevant to Blanco article specifically, and needs a source.

Mayor Nagin again voiced his criticism of the federal response to the crisis in a CNNinterview on September 5:"...what the state was doing, I don't frigging know. But I tell you, I am pissed. It [the federal response] wasn't adequate." [6]

Moved to Nagin article, irrelevant here. --Jentizzle 09:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Not that I have a problem with Fox News bashing, but FNC is not cited anywhere in this article. --Howrealisreal 17:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Even more scathing is a report on September 7, 2005 by Major Garrett, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, that alleges that the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security [[7]] (which reports to the governor's office) did not allow FEMA (or any other relief organization) to bring crucial aid such as food and water to the Superdome or the Convention Center in the days that immediately followed the storm since it would encourage evacuees to stay rather than leave the city [[8]].

i deleted the above part citing resource from a blog which get news from Fox news Channel, until the author find sourcing from other place, this is not a fair quote. also, aout redcross, i added the explaination from redcross which make situation more clearly, also, there is no date on that FAQ page, which means the refusal of RedCross's presence might happen before the hurricane, no governor refuse help after the hurricane, also, Redcross say they are refused by state Home land security dept. not governor, i here express my regret about this author who added this part, who clearly has a preset attitude here.--C.levin 11:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I moved all the part to the section below here in discussion zone. About Nagin's critisize, this content has been added before, its not fair to accuse Blanco of delaying 24 hours of aiding people in New orleans, since there is no indication what president offerred, its not like what he offered absolutely would be good. Since we do have a content of president's offer of federal takeover of national guards in this article already, i think that part should be more clear and useful. Also, about the red cross part, first, in the whole FAQ, Redcross does not mention anything about Governor, some people might imagine that governor asked state home land security to refuse the enter of RedCross to NO, but the simply fact is: this is only an imagination, not fact! so there is no relevent here to put RedCross part in Blanco's page; second, Redcross also admit themself that their proper role is to help people who has been evacuated. --C.levin 13:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Generally only partisan Republicans use phrasing like "Mayor Ray Nagin, the Democrat Mayor of New Orleans." The proper adjective is "Democratic." It is a Republican rhetorical flourish with more than one objective, but mainly seems to be for the purpose of annoying Democrats. Any time you wee the phrase "Democrat Party," you can be reasonably sure the writer is a Republican that has internalized and regurgitated at least one talking point.

POV is AWFUL for this article. I could hardly be characterized as a Blanco booster. but my political views are neither here nor there, though, in evaluating the true awfulness of this article. This article has some serious if not libelous defects as well as what appears to be outright plagiarism rolled up as Original Research (isn't that banned regardless?) or just plain uncited paraphrasing that goes beyond fair use. For instance a lot of the material, especially regarding behind the scenes political alliances, seems to be drawn from popular books like "Breach of Faith" and "The Great Deluge" without citation.

The section about Benson and the Saints is utter crap. Perhaps, as a conservative, and as a football fan, I have no truck with the Saints - a truly awful franchise - nor their money-grubbing leech of an owner, Benson. Instead, Let's just say its worded incorrectly. That the Governor's policies regarding Benson and the Saints changed is undeniable. But what is left out is that this policy changed during active negotiations with a highly aggressive and vociferous team of Saints-funded lawyers and politicos. Considering that it was Benson's team of negotiators who demanded a brand-new stadium lest they bolt to Texas or beyond - a stadium they expected gratis - on the tax payer's dime, it's hardly fair to call Blanco to accounts for a situation she had zero control over. Especially given the low numbers a new stadium for the Saints polled with the state's residents and the legislature - much grumbling arose about this, given the fact that the Superdome, which was built in the late 60s, whose price-tag as sold to the public who had to vote to approve the bonds, zoning, expropriations etc. actually quadrupled with Gov. McKeithen's signature still wet on the parchment, a structure that was not completely paid for until the late 80s. To somehow lay this Benson-engineered crisis and attempted swindle at the vault of the public coffer at Blanco's feet goes beyond simple ignorance, it's deliberate character assassination.

And I write this as someone who voted for Jindal and who refers to our governor as Aunt Bea - any state workers here no the reference. This article is mostly trash, and needs a serious re-write. It needs to more closely resemble the style, tone, and content of the other U.S. Governor's wikipedia pages. I could go on. But why bother? The simple fact is that this article needs to be flagged for someone higher up the wikipedia food-chain to evaluate, perhaps with a lock-down enforced. 199.80.65.132 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This really is a terrible article. ...relentless Governor Blanco and the Louisiana Recovery Authority negotiated an additional $4.2 billion in aid for rebuilding housing in Louisiana. Things like that really make this article sound at times scathingly critical and then almost like something right from the DNC. Readerfrompa 00:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful to use "facts" not "i think", or "they think"

207.162.228.11 this Mr. keep flooding the article with conclusions without any facts or imagination, such as "the blame of people's death directly on Governor's shoulder", and "governor refuse redcross to enter the city of New Orleans" etc.--C.levin 13:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

this ip 207.162.228.11 need to be blocked, this guy looks like Faux new reporter, keep reverting spam here.--C.levin 14:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what he posted:

In the aftermath of what some critics called one of the worst domestic humanitarian disasters in US history, the media began to focus on the US government's response to Hurricane Katrina. While early criticism seemed to focus on FEMA and the budget cuts it endured under the Bush Administration, by September 7, 2005, the blame for inaction which left thousands of evacuees stranded in downtown New Orleans for almost a full week fell, to a large degree, on the shoulders of Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco.
An article in The National Ledger on September 5, 2005 cites an account by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin of a meeting between Blanco and President Bush that occurred on Air Force One early on in the crisis [[9]]. At one point in the meeting, Bush and Blanco met privately to discuss two alternatives that Bush had proposed to deal with the organizational issues that had come to light early on in the crisis. Immediately following the meeting, the President advised Nagin that Blanco needed 24 hours to make a decision. Angry about the delay, Nagin said that "It would have been great if we could of left Air Force One, walked outside, and told the world that we had this all worked out. It didn't happen, and more people died". Other newspapers referencing this alleged conflict and delay include the The Washington Times [10] and USA Today [11].
Even more scathing is a report on September 7, 2005 by Major Garrett, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, that alleges that the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security [12](which reports to the governor's office) did not allow FEMA (or any other relief organization) to bring crucial aid such as food and water to the Superdome or the Convention Center in the days that immediately followed the storm since it would encourage evacuees to stay rather than leave the city [13], [[14]] [[15]].
The American Red Cross confirms that Governor Blanco refused to allow the organization to provide aid within the city of New Orleans through her state's Homeland Security Department (not to be confused with the federal department with the same name) even though they were standing-by at ready to deliver the aid. [16] The Red Cross has been maintaining this position since August 30, 2005.

[edit] The last bit

"Other sources say that Louisiana did not attempt a mutual aid compact for assistance from other states until Wednesday, August 31. [17]"

An anon deleted this last bit from the article. I'll leave it to you all to decide whether or not it should be in. Borisblue 03:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the very moment Nagins says to CNN that he cannot remember the two options President told him to have discuss with Ms Blanco and take as good the President word saying the Governor has asked for 24 hour to decide which of them to take, Nagins credibility is not good for me in this respect.

As far as I can tell, Nagin never said that he could not remember the two options; since he wasn't there, he did not know which options were discussed but the overall discussion relating to federal versus state control of the rescue/salvage effort.

[edit] Current POV discussion

C. Levin accuses me of being a Faux new reporter and spamming this article. My references have always been to direct eyewitness accounts and qoutes have been attributed, sources cited. I am not spamming. Luckily this is my day off so I can stay on top of this important story. Please block User:C.levin - 207.162.228.11

Let me tell you,

1. unless you have original article from news network such as AP, MSNBC, washingtonpost, BBC, yahoo news etc, personal blog just does NOT have solid evidence to convincing people.
2. even congress is just start investigation, and u already have conlusion that "the fault is on Blanco's shoulder"?
3. RedCross's press does not mention governor, if you think state homeland security did not make right decision, you need first check their excuse, and stop blame Blanco for state homeland security dept. Just like you would not blame president bush for the failure of FEMA, or would YOU? DID i call you hired by Bush?

Well, duh. Of course Bush would bear some blame for FEMA's failures (if any). It's part of his executive branch, just as Louisiana's state departments are part of Blanco's administration. People blame Bush all the time for actions of his administration, and with good reason; as Truman said, 'the buck stops here.' -- Irregardless 11:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

4. You just need to provide facts, You do not add your own comment, as long as you cite solid resource of each of your accusation, readers will have their own opinion. you DO NOT GUIDE your reader by using misleading word, and you do NOT make conclusions for other people.--C.levin 17:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Clevin, Your selective editing of Red Cross' statement was clearly POV. Knock it off. It's all or none, preferably none. Let people follow the link. As for a media source, that has been added. Can you cite a single FoxNews scandal similar to CNN's Operation Tailwind fabrication, or NBC News' rigging a truck to explode, or CBS' use of falsified documents in their own POV story, or the NYT's Jayson Blair scandal or the Washington Post's Janet Cook affair? You can't. And since you cant FoxNews can and should be viewed as more credible than most. --SwampFoxx138.162.0.43 17:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I selectve citing? and you did not? you even change Red Cross's word from "state Homeland Security department" to "governor blanco"? who is not honesty here? I moved this part cos this press did not mention anything about governor, its you added, and changed the original press's words. so who is POV here?

FOX news is not convincing is because they add 70% comment rather than just report that fact, that is not news! --C.levin 17:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Your source for your nonsense? Fox News is especially convincing since their report confirms the Red Cross' statement. Your selective suppression of fact reveals a clear POV. Knock it off. If you have a source that rebuts the Red Cross & Fox by all means include it. Till then, stop the vandalism. --Swamp Fox138.162.0.43 17:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I do NOT care how do u think about FAUX news, if u want to discuss the authority of fox news, goto their own page. but WHY DID you change the content and press release of Red Cross? what you are writing is clearly not the original word of Red Cross, and clearly have strong attitude, you better be careful not to modify your source. --C.levin 17:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't cited any Res Cross "press releases" nor have I quoted them. Ergo, I can't be accused of misquoting them yet you managed to lie and do it anyway. I linked their FAQ as a source. Knock off your little POV minded edits. Knock off your suppression of fact. Knock off your blatant leftism. Clear? Now, your reliable source that says Fox News isn't credible, SVP? OR your link to a Wikipedia policy that forbids the use of Fox News as a source, SVP? Since you can't come up with one of those try to bring a source that refutes the Red Cross and Fox News. Look hard. I have little doubt BuzzFlash has something. Why don't you go check there? --SwampFoxx138.162.0.42 18:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Tired of talking to you with your POV post, you think your reader will not find out your POV trick? you think they will not find out that you have changed the content of yoru reource to fullfil your own personal view? I cited red cross's FAQ with their exact own words, and you kept modify them, you think that's a civil people's attitude? If u are pretty sure Red Cross has that "facts", why dont you use their own words? I lie? which word i used is not true? You respect fact? use your eyes and brain to search the Red Cross page you provided, see if there is any single word looks like "Blanco" or "governor". Its very fair to say you are really good at imagine and make your own conclusion about your "facts", altho those are lies. --C.levin 18:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Warrior 209.247.x.x and 138.162.0.x

(copied from the Nagin article so you can see what this guy is up to)

A user calling himself Long John Silver has been persistently reverting (at least 50 times) to a personal version of this article that contains uncited, highly POV claims that clearly violate WP:NPOV. he has also repeatedly violated WP:NPA calling other editors liars and Nazis. His edits usually have deceptive descriptions, this edit described as 'correcting spelling and grammer[sic]' actually replaces the entire article with his personal version: [18]

The user is behind a NAT and the address frequently changes. The same IP address range has also posted racist grafiti on the Martin Luther King [19] and Danny Glover [20] articles and homophobic bigotry ("RectumReaper is a total flamer.") on the Fucked Company article[21]. He has also made subtle redirect edits to turn redirect pages such as First responder into a personal platform for POV wingnuttery [22]. There is no reason why an article on first responders should mention a current news event at all, let alone contain partisan criticism.

  • 138.162.0.38/28
  • 209.247.222.92/28

If the section 'Dueling Criticism' reappears in the article it has been reverted to the highly POV version. Rather than attempting to eliminate the POV in that article please revert to the mainstream version of the article that has been created by the named editors.

One point to watch, some editors have attempted to revert a POV edit by one IP address and reverted to another earlier copy of the text. LJS has then tagged his later reversions as being a revert to that editor's text 'Reverting to better version of this article by HallMonitor' even though HallMonitor did not wirte that text and in fact reverted immediately afterwards.

One side effect of this vandalism is that criticism of Nagin is ending up being stripped out as editors attempt to revert the highly POV statements. --Gorgonzilla 14:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Check your watch Gorgonzilla and then revert the page to that time when it is convenient. The Wiki guidelines suggest that these folks feed on reverts for their ego "I'm in control of the world..." So I dont want you to be wasting your time on endless reverts. Perhaps for the moment, content editing should hold back and gel, until this storm blows over. Otherwise, if its 50 times, get a temporary edit hold on the article.Kyle Andrew Brown 17:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
My own edits reporting comments critical of Nagin have been stripped out in the process. I agree with your analysis though. The article should be reverted to the non-POV version and locked. Discussion on the ongoing Hurricane Katrina issue should take place in that article and the article on the political fallout. This article should not be used as a place to dump POV theories. --Gorgonzilla 17:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank god some people helped, I myself was not sure what i should do, i dont want to lower myself to his level to make blatant lie and to attack him, but this guy is really nonsense, he even changed his source to make his points, its unbelievable there is people like this. --C.levin 01:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

anyway, Gorgonzilla, i will not have time to check these 5-years-old-childish behavior, but whenever i got here, your version will be the one i revert to. or Jentizzle's, btw, i suppose this is normal on wiki, that at this traffic time, this kind of behavior is difficult to handle, altho they might just block the whole IP range, but, time will tell, those dishonest low behavior will be judged by the history. --C.levin 17:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long John Silver - one guy, 1826485505 different aliases

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)

[edit] CLevin: Do you work for Blanco? well no, LJS's aliases

Your tireless reversals on this page all day long are growing quite painful. Can't you leave this one issue alone? The Red Cross statement is clearly not one person's opinion, and instead represents the collective view of a large well-kown organization. Please leave this post alone! I hope an Admin sees this and blocks this nutjob or paid employee of Kathleen Blanco. Stop the vandalism.

I followed the links, the statement is factually acfurate but presented in a very misleading and POV fashion. The red cross states that it is following the request of the authorities to provide aid in certain places. The primary expertise of the red cross is not search and rescue, it is providing relief aid. They state quite clearly that it makes best sense for them to provide relief after the victims are evacuated. The Fox News report is very misleading and should in any case be cited as Fox's reporting on the Red cross, not as a statement BY the red cross. --Gorgonzilla 04:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I admire your magic word can make dead alive again, although you sounds innocent, any human being with reading ability can know you are telling the lie, Yes, Red Cross statement is not one person's view, but you are changing the Red Cross's statement to a different version by yourself and convey your own view, that is disgusting. You want to know why Faux news can not be trusted? cos its just like your style, distorting the facts and add 70% comment to the news facts. ARE you working for FOX?--C.levin 11:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina Section is at Least Partially POV Attack on Blanco

A lot of it is suspiciously critically arranged. One segment linked an ABC News article that said "One aide to the governor told ABC News today Blanco thought city officials were taking care of the evacuation" and characterized that as "Governor Blanco has blamed New Orleans' Mayor Nagin the poor evacuation contributing to the crisis according to an ABC News Report." That is an untrue characterization. It's beyond POV, it's false. I'll delete that. -Daniel M. PS: No wait, someone beat me to it I think.

yeah, I think that was me. A bunch of people are watching (guarding, really) this article from wildly POV claims that are not properly sourced - all of them seem to come from one anon. user who frequently changes the computer, but Gorgonzilla tracked the IPs to one main source, a naval base in SF.
Be forewarned, this guy makes edits and basically refuses to discuss them with anyone. You can see his stuff above as "Long John Silver" and "SwampFoxxx". If you feel like wasting time, you might try explaining to him why his POV claims need to be sourced and properly phrased but we've all done that quite a bit to no avail. if you recognize his weird edits to an article, it's likely you have to just revert the last version --Jentizzle 09:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] New IP user POV

Maybe another Alias of LJS

Governor Blanco has blamed New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin for the poor evacuation contributing to the Hurricane Katrina crisis according to an ABC News Report.[23] However, according to the Governor's Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Evacuation and Sheltering Plan (Section D1)Southeast Louisiana Evacuation Plan Supplement , Governor Blanco was responsible for "Authoriz(ing) and direct(ing) 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." There is no indication Governor Blanco ever opened any evacuation shelters anywhere in Louisiana prior to the storm.

This bolded part has no source whatsoever to support.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin(D) has sided with President Bush in an apparent dispute with Blanco over who should control the National Guard in Louisiana, saying in a CNN interview[24], "I want to see stuff done. And that's why I'm so happy that the president came down here, because I think they were feeding him a line of bull also. And they were telling him things weren't as bad as it was. He came down and saw it, and he put a general on the field. His name is Generalre. And when he hit the field, we started to see action. And what the state was doing, I don't frigging know. But I tell you, I am pissed. It wasn't adequate."

Just likebefore, Nagin's word has been posted here many times in which he did not clearly say anything he want Bush takeover control of LA's national guards. I hope this IP user use only clearly stated facts, but not personal feeling, hope this user is not LJS, if it is, then i m very sorry. I will keep rv to the former version of TomasK --C.levin 02:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't be sorry. Let's just say I think your suspicions are probably on point. Regarding the inane comment below, I think it goes without saying that claiming something like, "X happened" is not a statement that is satisfactorily supported just because you can't prove it didn't happen. --Jentizzle 11:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

LJS? If you disagree with the bolded part, can you provide any evidence Blanco opened any evacuation shelers "in non-risk parishes" (Baton Rouge or Shreveport for example), as required under her state evacuation plan, that Mayor Nagin could have sent New Orleanean evacuees to? I hope you can. I hope she did. I like to think the best of people. If so, I'd agree it doesn't belong. If not, it should stay. - NEW IP User

Have you learn anything about the objectiveness of news? You post facts that can be proved! not something there is no way to prove, if I list that You are a terrorist, would you be happy? altho i can not prove you are, but you have to show you are not, that is how your brain is working, and that is disgusting. Dont pretend to not known LJS, coz You logic is just as low and dishonest as him. --C.levin 23:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Err that is not how dictionaries are compiled. They do not contain statements of events that cannot be proved to have happened. We have no evidence that the Queen of England has ever gone to the bathroom, none. There is no eyewitness account of her ever having defecated. Should we add this remarkable fact to the QEII page? Nope because the lack of evidence is entirely expected.

If a commission of enquiry was to examine all the evidence and come to the conclusion that there had been no evacuation shelters and that the lack of shelters prevented evacuation that would be a different issue. But a personal theory based on a lack of evidence is not notable. --Gorgonzilla 12:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact I disagree with this logic is now moot. The NY Times is a clear and convincing source on this.

"Colonel Ebbert {Blanco's National Guard director} decided to make the Superdome the city's lone shelter, assuming the city would only have to shelter people in the arena for 48 hours, until the storm passed or the federal government came and rescued people. "[25]

As the city's "*lone* shelter," Blanco did not exercise her authority to designate a shelter for the city residents in a non-risk area. Given Blanco was still fretting about the flooded busses and other buses she couldn't round up she couldn't evacuate anyone anyhow. It seems her operation was incompetent from the get go. She even said of FEMA director Mike Brown

"Director Brown, I hope you will tell President Bush how much we appreciated - these are the times that really count - to know that our federal government will step in and give us the kind of assistance that we need." Sen. Mary L. Landrieu piped in: "We are indeed fortunate to have an able and experienced director of FEMA who has been with us on the ground for some time."" - New IP User

Can you read? or you always misunderstand the truth? The "lone shelter in New Orleans" does NOT equal to "no shelters at other places outside New Orleans". If you like federal government so much, you can open your own website to praise whatever they did, but please, wiki is a place people talk with evidence and solid prove, not your imagination.

[edit] LJS in operation - not POV, deliberate distorting of the facts

Compare the following:

  1. On August 27, 2005, Governor Blanco sent a request for federal assistance and US$9 million in aid to President Bush,
  2. On August 27, 2005, Governor Blanco issued a press release requesting federal assistance and [USD]$9 million in aid to President Bush,

This is not an honest attempt to present facts. There is a press release, but it clearly states that a request was sent to BUSH and that is the fact that is notable here and is not in dispute by any notable source.

This is your lie. Blanco's press release says nothing about a letter being sent. The only description of what Blanco did is Governor Blanco asks President to Declare an Emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina - New IP User

  1. On August 28, Governor Blanco sent a second letter to President Bush, which increased the amount of aid requested to US$130 million.
  2. On August 28, Governor Blanco sent a letter to President Bush, which increased the amount of aid requested to $130 million. [

As has been demonstrated the two letters are different, the amount of aid increased from $9 million to $130 million, there are two letters.

This is not simply a POV dispute it is the intentional introduction of false claims. -- Yes, clearly they are your false claims - New IP User


Gorgonzilla 21:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


Now here is a demonstration of your distortion:

Regarding Blanco's press release you say:

  1. On August 27, 2005, Governor Blanco sent a request for federal assistance and US$9 million in aid to President Bush,

Regarding President Bush's response to Blanco's request you say

  1. FEMA, in a press release dated August 27, stated that President Bush authorized the allocation

Get your POV under control, Gorgonzilla. - New ISP User

Way to edit out the last part of the sentence LJS, which said Pres. Bush authorized the aidfollowing FEMA's analysis of the state's request for federal assistance. Still following me? Okay, take some deep breaths and let me try and walk you through a process known to the most of here in talk as LOGIC:

1) The president issued the authorization FOLLOWING FEMA's analysis, which means his authorization had to have come AFTER FEMA's ANALYSIS

2) FEMA analyzed a state request for federal assistance, and in order to analyze something, it must be SENT TO YOU FIRST. Thus, we can surmise here that FEMA analyzed the state's request for assistance, you know, after FIRST RECEIVING IT.

--Jentizzle 22:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It does not need to be sent to you. Things that appear in the media are often acted upon. Remember when Patrick Leahy made an ass of himself over Dan Rather's fraudulent memos? Leahy acted on media accounts without analysis. President Bush appears to have acted upon a media account WITH analysis. Get it? - New IP User

Where the HELL does the assumption come LOGICALLY that Bush acted on a media account, and not a letter from the Governor WHICH IS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT? Has anyone here (not you, LJS) heard of someone "issuing a press release," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, with a reprint of a letter they wrote, addressed to someone, IN PLACE OF sending the letter itself? There is NO evidence for the assumption that Governor Blanco merely "issued a press release" rather an actual request, which is what her letter stipulates, and moreover, what the Times-Picayune and Bayoubuzz cite ON THE 27 AUGUST, if you'd bothered to check out those two sources, listed after the governor's site. --Jentizzle 00:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Note whether an item "ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT" carries a White House destination address. (SEWilco 14:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Reference to infamous Bush/Blanco private meeting on Air Force One

I inserted references to this meeting previously and have always found them deleted. Hopefully this version avoids making point-of-view statements and merely states the facts regarding why they met privately, what Bush said after the meeting (according to Mayor Nagin) and what happened afterward regarding the federalization of the National Guard. Please do not delete this! There is plenty of blame to go around including Bush, Nagin and FEMA, but I feel this struggle between Bush and Blanco will be examined in detail in the future and it is important that it be referenced here. User 207.162.228.10

The deletion before is because there was never more detail by a well-respected news media, what you did this time is pretty well tho, personally, i will suggest to keep your version this time. There is no doubt Blanco and Bush has this problem as of Sept 2. But just as an article on NYTimes said, The federal gov "did not offer any suggestion of federal takeover" because they thought "gov. would not accepte", but dude, thats the reason they did not offer Blanco choice untill 4 days later? I just think that is weird, at least they should ask at first. And another good reason for "not using troops at first" was that they think "National guards" is better, which is true, BUT, regretfully, feds did NOT prepare enough national guards for La. and Feds can not approve even the guards Blanco agreed with Gov. of New Mexico days before the hurricane, that is really weird. Personally, i dont think it should be state and local, to ask other states for more national guard to help, as a country with 50 states, who can do it better than feds to cooperate multipul states to help? --C.levin 23:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

C.levin, you may want to read up a bit more on how the National Guard functions and who controls it. some flagrant errors in your commentDjgranados 04:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did Fox News Channel ever interview Kathleen Blanco or Ray Nagin.

I just want to know? I been watching Fox News and they seem to have not one interview to interview with the Democratic Governor and Mayor. Something to ponder? User:LILVOKA 16 September 2005.

Does not suprise me at all, most politicians will not appear on partisan propaganda outlets that are opposed to them. Blanco and Nagin both have much better things to do with their time at the moment. --Gorgonzilla 03:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

better things to do with his time?? You must have missed the countless number of interviews Nagin has given. Djgranados 04:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the governors election blurb.

The article states "Blanco is currently facing re-election in the fall of 2007. While the election is still many months away and many potential candidates have not yet formally announced their candidacies, most commentators see Bobby Jindal as her most formidable opponent."

A) Shouldn't all candidates who have anounced be listed. If you are going to list one other candidate you should list them all. B) Shoudln't any commentary on that race be either placed on the page devoted to that election or removed altogether as violating wp:npov if not attributed to a specific source? DanielZimmerman 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On March 20th Gov Kathleen Blanco announced that she would not seek reelection

[edit] Cleanup references tag

I added a tag to the article to draw attention to the deficiencies in reference formatting. Anchoress 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The cleanup tag was removed, but the issue remains, so I'm re-adding it. Anchoress 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)