Talk:New Orleans, Louisiana/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives
1) Nov 2002 - Jan 6, 2006
2) Jan 6, 2006 - Jan 27, 2007


Contents

Inventors of Jazz

It's pretty funny to list all those guys as "inventor of jazz", but it ain't so encylopedic. There's proper info to be given about each of them, Bolden, first jazz star of all time, LaRoxa, leader of ODJB, Jelly Roll Morton, well "embodiment of jazz" might do, but early piano star, composer, etc. Ortolan88

  • Sorry, I guess I got carried away by a wave of home-town patriotism. :-) Though seriously, Morton had that claim on his business cards, and Bolden, Lacombe, and LaRocca all have it on their tomb-stones. I could say "Self proclaimed inventor of jazz" for 3 of them, but Bolden's carrer slightly predated the use of the term to refer to music. -- Infrogmation 07:44 Nov 15, 2002

Hm the list of people is getting a bit long, do you think it should be moved to "List of Famous New Orleanians"?

French

I don't speak French and have never been to New Orleans (Helas!), but isn't Laissez le bon temps roulez quite as common, or maybe even more so, as Laissez le bon temps rouler? Recently changed from the former to the later. Ortolan88

Actually, it's "Laissez les bons temps rouler" [1]. "Temps" is plural, so it should be "les bons"... And "rouler" is the right infinitive, whereas 'roulez' means: you roll (plural). "Rouler" and "roulez" are pronounced the same, and with the 'laissez' in the first part of the sentence, I guess I understand the confusion. It is indeed a quite common misconception, according to Google.. --JoanneB 09:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


I lack the confidence to edit the page without screwing it up. It might be nice to have the flag on the site. See http://www.ace.unsw.edu.au/PEOPLE/rmjc/fotw/flags/us-la-no.html


Mardi Gras Mambo, Mambo

I am in the process of creating a page on New Orleans Carnival celebrations, to split off from the Mardi Gras page. My rough draft is currently at User:Infrogmation/New Orleans Mardi Gras. (It currently has way too many photos; I will spin many of them off elsewhere eventually.) I invite other folks knowledgable about the subject to contribute. Time & circumstances permitting, I'd like to have a decent page in the main article space before Mardi Gras Day. You can comment at User talk:Infrogmation/New Orleans Mardi Gras too. Iko Iko, -- Infrogmation 05:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've done a fair amount of work on it. While more remains to be done, I think its in ok shape for a good start on the subject. I'll be moving it into the article space within 12 hours or so. -- Infrogmation 06:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I just did so: New Orleans Mardi Gras. -- Infrogmation 13:50, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Orleans Parish, Louisiana article

I made Orleans Parish redirect to New Orleans, and I merged some of the article to New Orleans. WhisperToMe 22:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

The ordeal doesn't just apply to New Orleans. Juneau, Alaska, Denver, Colorado, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and San Francisco, California are both a city and a county. The history of the Orleans parish is dealt with in the New Orleans article. WhisperToMe 07:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're all right. It should remain a redirect until the historical content becomes unwieldy enough to necessitate a separate article. Dystopos 03:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Times-Picayune

I just noticed there's no New Orleans Times-Picayune article. This seems a glaring oversight. Anyone better informed than me who can start it off with more than a stub? Dystopos 7 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)

Colonial Era

There was no French conquest of Spain in 1801. Rather, Napolean strong-armed the Spanish crown to cede Louisiana back to him as part of a secret treaty signed at San Idelfonso in October of 1800. A failed (and hare-brained) attempt to invade Canada via the Mississippi basin left Napoleon with an unmanageable problem, driving him to sell the territory in 1803. Pointym5 20:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the French conquered Spain and most of Portugal, but over extended their supply lines and couldn't quite get the British out of the Peninsula. After a hard winter, they were forced to retreat and give back all their gains. It was the beginning of the end for Napoleon but he needed cash to keep his army together...and so sold the Louisiana Purchase lands to fund the European war. The fact that the US funded the European war created more problems for a couple of decades, including the war of 1812 and some skull duggery involving Aaron Burr.

The French did not invade Spain until 1808, long after the Louisiana Territory was sold. The conquest of Spain by France is at most only peripherally relevant to a discussion of New Orleans history. (Pointym5 17:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC))

Proposed move

Given what's happened due to Hurricane Katrina, would it be appropriate to move this page to Lake New Orleans? --Carnildo 21:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You're not as funny as you apparently think you are. Could you have just a little bit of respect for the recently departed and the thousands of people struggling to get out? It may very well be the case that this article will need some drastic editing, with a lot of present-to-past tense conversions, but even if the city is entirely abandoned (unlikely), we will still need an article about it, so no page move is in order. We have an article about Nineveh, even though it hasn't been inhabited for millenia. --Jpbrenna 22:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with a little black humour, now and then. --Golbez 22:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Not to be too pedantic, but Nineveh is still inhabited, but its name is now Mosul. Anyway, I find it hard to blame anyone who sees many present tenses reverting to past tenses, though they may not be encyclopedic outside of a tabloid page. I doubt the whole city will be abandoned, and the article about the city and its past are still and will perhaps always be encyclopedic topics. But, if as it seems, most of the city is destroyed and claimed by a permanent lake, we should wait patiently until such a lake's future is certain. Anyway, for the time being, I think it would be much wiser to focus edits relating to the lake with articles concerning the geology of the vertical depression that New Orleans sits in, and its history. Does the depression have a name, BTW? - Gilgamesh 08:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose deletion --Alex¯Jon 02:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not Lake New Orleans, but how about New Venice???? It's become all too much like Venice, Italy. Laugh or not, the truth is getting truthier each day! --129.130.38.232 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

OMG! It even reroutes to New Orleans. --129.130.38.232 03:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be edited now. It's not the largest city in Louisiana. People have left and many won't be back.

Pump system

I'd be interested to read more technical details about how the system of pumps was supposed to work. Rmisiak 06:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too. Some of the news media have implied that maintainance was not what it should have been. Pollinator 06:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Most of the pumps are still based on the A. Baldwin Wood design. Part of the impressive design is their sturdiness and low maintanence. I recall about a dozen years ago a couple of news stories, the first being the discovery that one set of pumps had not had any full overhall or major maintancence in over 75 years; the second story being that after detailed inspection, it was found that they really didn't need much of anything done. However the pumps are key but just one part of the drainage system, originally set up when much less of the city was built up and covered with blacktop. The canals (many of which are now underground beneath the city's neutral grounds) need to be kept clear and flowing, and of course the levees need to be kept intact. The pumps need to be kept powered; I believe many have diesel generators that kick in in the event of electric failure, but if no one can get to them to refuel them of course they will stop. In any event they can only pump about an inch of water an hour (which is actually a huge amount in an area the size of New Orleans). It sounds like at least one key pump is in danger of (or already has) gone out for the reason of the flood water level physically getting up over the pumping station machinery (which I think would need to be some 12 feet or more of water at least). -- a refugee from Atlantis, Infrogmation 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Levee vs. Dike

Can anyone explain to me what the difference between a Dike and a Levee is? --Hullbr3ach 10:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Levees were originally along rivers or other flowing bodies of water that periodically flood. -- Infrogmation 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
It appears that a levee is a type of dyke, built along a river. At least if you can trust Wikipedia. :-) PerlKnitter 13:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
In German, such a wall along a river would be called Deich (obviously the related to the English dike; the cross-language WP link also points to Dike).
Now, according to LEO.org levee translates to Deich as well, however it is apparently also associated with other, non-water related meanings. Dyke on the other hand translates mostly to geological terms.
Maybe someone familiar with the difference could point it out more clearly in the two WP articles, as this distinction apparently does not exist in all languages. --Hullbr3ach 18:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I guess you could argue that the levees against Lake Pontchartrain are actually dikes, but the local usage is levee, to keep things simple.--Kbk 15:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know its pretty much the same thing. NO has French background, and levee comes from that language. Bertus 05:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

It seems to me that this section is getting too detailed, given that we have Hurricane Katrina, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, and Predictions of hurricane risk for New Orleans. If nobody objects, I'll trim it back.--Kbk 15:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me like there's been a huge increase in edits to this page in the past few days. It looks like many of these edits are by people not necessarily worried about providing a good quality, readable, encyclopedia article on the city of New Orleans, but instead are more concerned with merely, "placing their mark," on some notable event in the history of the city. This article should be about the city of New Orleans. A brief mention of Hurricane Katrina at the end of the history section is all that is required. Details on the ongoing aftermath of Katrina should be placed in the Hurricane Katrina article itself. Dr. Cash 16:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Dystopos 17:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree too. See Wikipedia:Recentism. MPS 18:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I agreed so much I was bold and chopped a bunch myself. DreamGuy 19:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans should be linked in the first para of this article.

Status

At what point would it be appropriate to change the parts of the article discussing N.O. as a city from present to past tense? 65.96.131.159 21:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

The hurricane is over. Its effects are creating the new New Orleans, whatever that will be. The hurricane is part and parcel of what New New Orleans will become. "Brief mention" on the city page of New Orleans is nostalgia.

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

History

Ok, we have these sections in history:

  • 1.1 Colonial Era
  • 1.2 19th century
  • 1.3 20th century
  • 1.4 Hurricane Katrina

Can we move Katrina to a section called 21st century? It seems a little over the top now, I mean, unless they just call it quits and abandon the town. --Quasipalm 20:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a sub-section called '21st century' with only one sub-sub-section called 'Hurricane Katrina'. If there's more to say to it than just the Hurricane, then add it. But it doesn't look good to have too many sub and sub-sub section headers right next to each other. We probably don't even need an entire section on the hurricane anyways. A brief sentence or two mentioning it is all that is required on this page, with links to the other articles on the hurricane. But right now, there's too much interest in editing this article, and too many hands involved. Whatever action is done could quickly be changed to something else. I think it's best to hold off on the organization for a bit, at least until the news stories and attention die down. Encyclopedias were never meant to be major news sources. They are meant to document what happened after the fact, accurately and completely. There's still too much developing at a fast pace right now that the information is likely to change many times. Dr. Cash 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Date inconsistency - The post below say the city was started in 1717 and wikipedia say 1718. I am not saying wiki is long, but I have seen that claim in a couple of articles. Any reason there is that difference? [2]

A ghoulish, inappropriate joke

Maybe we should rename Hurricane Katrina to Hurricane Latrina. After all, she turned the much of Dixie into a latrine. 165.230.149.164 23:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you inspired by the city's motto, "Let the good times roll"? That alone is enough sarcastic. --Keimzelle 09:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Still hardly a match for Hong Kong's slogan during the SARS epidemic... "Hong Kong will take your breath away!". Nonetheless, the "city that care forgot" moniker does ring rather hollow as of late --carlb 03:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

French speakers in New Orleans?

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

  • Very little french is spoken in New Orleans, and the language has no official status except possibly in the tourism industry. In Southwestern Louisiana there are isolated communities with speakers of Cajun French, which is significantly different than Parisian French. Except for a few of the elderly, speakers of Cajun French also speak English. Dystopos 13:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thank you :) --Keimzelle 18:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

emphasized Katrina

i think we should emphasise Katrina more in this article. Its currently what many readers will be looking for - and the awful damage and loss of life potentially makes much of the article out of date. I propose we move the paragraph in the heading to the second position and perhaps bold part of it:

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

Ok, I think I know what you mean. I've added a link, similar to a disambiguation link, but not quite, near the top of the page. Hopefully, this will deflect a lot of the unnecessary and inappropriate editing. Dr. Cash 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Levee vs. Dike

Along the shore of Lake Erie in Lucas County, OH the Corps of Engineers constructed a dike out of quarry stone placed on fiberglass matting. Some of those limestone boulders are as big as Volkswagens. This project was done about 30 years ago. The western basin of Lake Erie is relatively shallow and would flood inland during a stiff nor'easter wind. The village of Reno Beach was most vulnerable. On severe floods, the water would go two miles inland to the village of Bono, prompting the highway department to barricade State Rte. 2. The project is regarded as a success, but in recent years the level of the Great Lakes has declined.

Are there levees in Ohio? Yes- about 200 miles south in Portsmouth, OH there are concrete levees to protect the city from encroachment of the Ohio River during heavy rains. Later on, those levees became a tourist attraction after the city authorized artists to paint murals on them. I was there in 2004. If you drive north away from the river, the elevation changes from 500 feet to over 1000 feet in a few minutes due to hilly terrain.

Vandalism

Someone please restore the picture of the city flag. I found a picture of a penis here instead and removed it. I didn't revert because of other editing. Rt66lt 02:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

NOLA

I'm curious as to how frequently the abbreviation NOLA was used prior to the Katrina disaster, because the current version of the page would lead one to believe its usage was universally known. In fact, the first use of the abbreviation NOLA occurs one week ago. Perhaps it would be best to credit the widespread use of NOLA to the media's (especially 24 hour news networks) coverage of hurricane Katrina.

It's common; I have a friend in Baton Rouge who has commonly referred to the cities as BRLA and NOLA for a long time. Also, the website for New Orleans' main newspaper, the Times-Picayune, is www.nola.com. --Golbez 08:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
It was in use at least back to the 19th century. I've seen it on steamer trunks from that era. -- Infrogmation 12:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
NOLA is a common abbreviation, used in shop, professional office and restaurant names and in the local media as long as I've been reading about the city. Why do you think it was invented a week ago? Dystopos 14:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that it was invented a week ago, what I meant was that NOLA first appears in the wikipedia article one week ago. I am sure that the abbreviation has existed for some time, but if it was so frequently used why was it not included in the wikipedia article until a week ago when the media suddenly began using the abbreviation? It would be fine to add the information to the article, but if it is going to be mentioned in the introduction I think that it should say something to the effect of "News reports on the Katrina disaster have popularized the abbreviation NOLA."
What I am trying to point out here is that wikipedia exists to document this historically significant event and, in this article specifically, its effect on the city of New Orleans. If a relatively obscure abbreviation for the city came into usage because of media coverage of an event, this should be mentioned, particularly because it may just as quickly fall out of common usage. BTW, when I say obscure I mean that it was known to maybe 10% of the US population 2 weeks ago, now 95% are aware of the abbreviation.--67.188.247.177 20:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
You're just plain wrong to think that the news media in the past week have popularized the NOLA abbreviation. It has appeared lots of times by lots of people & organizations. It's used in a lot of the tourist literature. It's been the domain name (nola.com) for the local Times-Picayune newspaper since at least 1998. Dr. Cash 23:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Norlun, etc

I heard Jesse Jackson interviewed and he pronounced the city's name "Norlun." Is there is a distinct "Black" pronunciation? Adam 05:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Shallow request: Pictures

Can we possibly have a lot more pictures, or separate pictures pages, thumbnails at the footer? I'll look for public domain photos, but I think it is our responsibility to provide them all if we can. Any historical photos that can legally be used should. It's a position I'm firm on, but I'm not wild on destroying nice articles. Can we discuss this? JoeHenzi 13:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More pictures would definitely be a plus, particularly in the People & Culture and Infrastructure sections. However, it may be difficult to acquire photos currently, given the situation. I don't think we want this article to be overloaded with a bunch of Hurricane Katrina references and pictures,... there are other articles for that information. This article needs to remain about the city of New Orleans without being overrun with Hurricane effect information. Dr. Cash 00:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
"I don't think we want this article to be overloaded with a bunch of Hurricane Katrina references and pictures,... there are other articles for that information. This article needs to remain about the city of New Orleans without being overrun with Hurricane effect information" - This is my point, but I didn't want to come out saying it. Historical photos of New Orleans, accounts of it's history, anything would be great. We've got the space and the responsibility to provide people with a sense of the city before this disaster. JoeHenzi 03:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No Longer the Largest City

I wanted to change "is" to "was," in this sentence: "New Orleans (local pronunciations: /nuːˈɔɹliːnz/, /nuːˈɔɹliːənz/, or /nuːˈɔɹlənz/) (French: La Nouvelle-Orléans, pronounced Image:ltspkr.png/la nuvɛl ɔʀleɑ̃/ in standard French accent) is the largest city in the U.S. state of Louisiana." Then, I saw this in a comment:

"Do not edit this page to say things like "New Orleans was...". It's not funny. You will likely be blocked."

I was just watching CBS News and they reported that Baton Rouge is "Louisiana's largest city indefinitely." I found news articles that call Baton Rouge as Louisiana's largest city. [3], [4] -- Win777 23:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As the person who added that warning, I see nothing wrong with this, with a caveat like "until its evacuation". I'd like other comments before changing though, as perhaps its population could still be considered to consist of everyone who's officially resident there. ~~ N (t/c) 23:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
That's an excellent point. Evacuees are still residents of New Orleans until they take up residence elsewhere. Dystopos 23:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
In this case you may want to change the warning comment to "Do not edit this page to say things like "New Orleans was destroyed ...". It's not funny. You will likely be blocked." to calrify it. By the way, watch out for vandalism, from here. SYSS Mouse 03:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to continue using the United States Bureau of the Census as the source for urban populations in the United States. Until updated census data is published, the current situation can be considered an aberration, the nature of which is fresh on everyone's mind. Therefore the practice of reverting unverifiable changes to the verb tense or population rankings is justifiable. Dystopos 23:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I agree with Dystopos. :-) I'll leave it as is ( although I see an anonymous user didn't hesitate like I did. :-/ ) -- Win777 16:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
That people from New Orleans have been buying or renting property in other cities, including Baton Rouge, is verifiable from news reports. By signing leases or mortgages, they become residents of these cities. The only thing we don't know is how many. Cities in-region untouched by Katrina have received new permanent residents at an unprecedented rate.
New Orleans is a city in southeastern Louisiana and, as of the 2000 census, it is the largest city in the state. That much we know. As of today, to claim that New Orleans is still more populous than Baton Rouge? Idle speculation. We don't know that and therefore shouldn't casually use "largest" as a qualifier without specifying 2000 US census or another quantifiable source to back the claims. I think "largest" (as a currently unverifiable condition) should be removed from the intro, keep it elsewhere only if you're willing to specify source of these numbers - if it's 2000's census, say so. --carlb 03:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Why remove the information that roads have been shut down?

Someone removed from this article a short paragraph in the "Transportation" section that noted that the interstate highways just described had been indefinitely shut down. I'm not sure why this information was removed, or what purpose it serves to keep this article just as it was before Katrina except for the one section on Katrina. This article on New Orleans (does anyone else hate this silly "NOLA" abbrevation?) should describe, throughout the article, N.O. as it actually is at the moment, not as a crystalized view of how it was before Katrina, with the Katrina section somehow set apart from the rest. In other words, the airport is shut down except for military/humanitarian flights. That should be mentioned briefly in the midst of all the otherwise present-tense descriptions of the airport in this article. And etc, all throughout the article. Thoughts? Moncrief 07:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC) 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to provide long-lasting information about something (be it a person, place, thing, or whatever). Yes, Hurricane Katrina is a significant factor in the development of the city. But there are two articles that discuss the effects of the hurricane itself on the city. The city will be rebuilt; the airport will reopen. Mardi gras will happen next year. Yes, the rebuilding will take some time, but people need to resist the urge to edit the article merely to "make their mark" on an historical event. Ongoing news updates on the Hurricane aftermath should instead be posted to http://en.wikinews.org/. Dr. Cash 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. The "NOLA" abbreviation predates the news coverage on Katrina by several years, if not, decades. Dr. Cash 17:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Wikipedia is a dynamic document. While the airport is closed, this article should note that the airport is closed to commercial traffic instead of referring to its flights in the present tense. When the airport re-opens to commercial traffic, then the paragraph that says it was closed can be taken out. That's what's so great about Wikipedia, and why it isn't the same as, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. (Sounds obvious to me, but I guess not you). I'm a little leery of individuals who say "we think" when really referring to what they themselves think, and not other people. This is in reference as much to Dr. Cash's comments below as above: the "We are doing..." stuff and the idea that only some articles in Wikipedia should document current events, and that the New Orleans article should remain in some pristine state because of what it might be like several years from now. Huh? And what is "The city will be rebuilt; the airport will reopen. Mardi gras will happen next year." Are you psychic? How do you know what will happen. And why not document the city as it exists now? There isn't any logical reason not to, when Wikipedia can and is updated constantly. It's your opinion (a relatively new user) that we shouldn't do so; your points are not based on any Wikipedia policy or precedence. Moncrief 18:47, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I fundamentally agree with Dr. Cash on this. Temporary conditions and closures should be documented at Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Permanent changes to the city are currently unverifiable. Notes about particularly important long-term deviations from normal conditions might merit a note here, but should be discussed in detail, if at all, in the other articles about this event. Dystopos 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I restored some text into the Transportation that had formerly been part of the defunct "Roads" section. The restored material includes detailed but verifiable histories of many of the major roads in the metro area. The roads mentioned may not be open or passable now, but they do exist and continue to deserve mention in the present tense until officially and permanently decommissioned. Wistlo

Denial

Sadly, this article seems to exhibit some form of collective denial about what has happened in New Orleans. Andy Mabbett 17:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

We're not in denial of what has happened. We're trying to maintain the page as to what the city was like before everything happened, since we DO NOT KNOW what will become in the next few years. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to write about current news, it is to document the bigger picture. We are directing all traffic and comments on Hurricane Katrina to the Hurricane Katrina and the Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans articles, which are current events. The city of New Orleans itself, however, is NOT a current event. Dr. Cash 17:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone spot the difference in these two statements: We're not in denial of what has happened. and We're trying to maintain the page as to what the city was like before everything happened? If you want to do the latter, move the page to "New Orleans before Katrina" Andy Mabbett 21:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
A sense of perspective would be helpful. Until permanent changes are planned and implemented, the current state of the city is a temporary condition. It is reasonable to steer coverage of temporary conditions to the article about the Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. The resolution to your proposed contradiction is in the other articles that deal specifically with this single event. As the permanent changes to the city are implemented, the article will be undeniably updated to reflect those changes along with a proportionally concise account of the impact of Katrina. Dystopos 21:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
However temporary the current crisis, it is not reasonable to act almost as though nothing has happened. The City of New Orleans article now states, correctly:

Because of damage to the states of Mississippi and Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina, Amtrak was forced in late August 2005 to cancel service to those states; until further notice, the southernmost terminus of the City of New Orleans is Memphis, Tennessee.

Meanwhile this article constinues to insist that the train serves New Orleans. How bizarre. Andy Mabbett 23:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I wish I could understand the rationale and mentality of the people who don't want to make any factual changes to this article (such as your utterly factual, verifiable Amtrak example above). Is it because they treasure the memory of New Orleans and want to keep this article as some kind of warped memorial? Is it because they don't understand the dynamic nature of Wikipedia and don't understand its brilliance is the very fact that it can be updated and updated again as situations develop? I wish I could get what their deal is. Moncrief 00:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm getting so sick of this argument.
Verifiablity and avoiding original research, mostly. It's too soon to tell what the damage is in most cases; so things like changing the population numbers should be avoided. --Carnildo 00:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
But nobody is changing the population numbers! What some people are doing is removing any reference to the fact that the entire city has been evacuated from the first paragraph - and frowning on any reference to Katrina apart from in the segregated Hurricane Katrina section. Moncrief 04:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm getting so sick of this argument. The page and site are here to provide information. If you want to look at information about the hurricane go to the darn page for that. If you want to know something about New Orleans come to this page. How hard is that? As far as "[trying to] keep this article as some kind of warped memorial" goes - please understand that this page is about the city and its entire history. It would be a terrible disservice to suddenly fill the entire article with information that is often false at best. The city is 287 years old and to use the article to discuss events in their progress would be a waste of time and effort. Look at what I find in the first paragraph:
The city was devastated by Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, and the subsequent flooding, and is currently subject to a mandatory evacuation of all residents, however, not all residents have evacuated, and authorities have not forced everyone to leave at the present time.
This part of the paragraph should be split into two sentences, at least, and spread out to direct people right to the article dealing with those events. It is interesting and important information but doesn't belong before the small history and trivia section that follows (paragraphs 2-6). This should be moved to be the last paragraph (and the NOLA sentence/paragraph/tidbit should be moved to the second paragraph. Hell, paragraph 3 should go before 2 and parts of 2 belong in 1... but I digress).
The point is that this event is not only ongoing but can't be allowed to dwarf the entire article about the city. I sure would hate to be looking for historical information and find nothing but the stuff I'm seeing on television. Hey, and why not link to Wikinews articles when possible or even refocus your desire to edit this article to death on creating better Wikinews reports? I understand that some facts have and will change, but to double the article size (at this point) would be foolish. Start on the Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans article on the updates, news and new facts - then start migrating that information to this page. However, don't replace the historical information with the new information. State that the population has changed (temporary we hope, right people?), tell us that the levees were breached, tell us what about the city has changed, but please contrast that with the situation before hand. I'd hope that if something like levee information changes we can still read about how they worked beforehand just as much as after. By the way, I'd like to nest the Hurricane Katrina header under 21st Century but that heading doesn't exist yet... JoeHenzi 07:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there some middle ground here? Is it possible to update the article in a way that accounts for the effects of the hurricane, but without suggesting one way or the other what the future of the city will be? I don't think large sections need to be deleted, or extensive hurricane details added when that already has its own article, only that certain facts be placed in the past tense if they pass two tests: that they are not currently true, and that it is not certain if they will be true again. —Ashley Y 08:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Header box

At the very least, this article shoudl have a header box, like the one here, stating that the content of this artcle is unlikely to remain factual, given the recent, tragic, events. Andy Mabbett 22:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

i agree strongly with at least the reason for that suggestion. there's a strange contingent editing this article which apparently presumes that the article must remain unchanged in some areas that don't reflect the real, destroyed state. as what — a memorial? i don't know, but the balance is off here. clinging to 2000 census numbers because they're "official", and making absurd tense debates... that's screwy. i detest the emerging trend at wikipedia to attempt to make articles updated by the minute, but moderate, restrained changes should be made to this article which is now, regrettably, significantly inaccurate and unlikely to be taken back to accuracy anytime soon. yes, farm out the endless katrina details elsewhere, but the attempt to preserve what is (in the real) world, no more seems quite pointless to me. when NO rebuilds slowly, wikipedia can update slowly. the destruction happened, and it is major. the article is stale. SaltyPig 22:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Well said. The faction that thinks otherwise seems to consist of one user. By the way, I think the additions to the first paragraph today are great, and reflect that the city is currently in a state of flux (to put it one way). Moncrief 22:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
In regards to the census numbers, there is no verifiable data on the "current" population of New Orleans. For the sake of verifiability and consistency with precedent set by other U.S. city articles, there's really no choice but to give prominence to census data. Whatever the "current" population may be, that is a very short-lived aberration and insignificant when discussing "population" which is typically not recalculated on a daily or weekly basis except as trivia. Much has changed in New Orleans in the last 8 days, but very little of that change is verifiable or encyclopedic outside of the Hurricane Katrina articles. Dystopos 22:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
that makes no difference to how the 2000 census numbers should be presented now (strictly as history). there seems to be some irrational clinging to "census" numbers as though they have magical power to withstand disaster — as if they're at least "official" in this time when little is known. the census numbers should be presented/labeled as what they are: no longer even close to usable. how that's done is debatable, but clinging to them as better than nothing is mistaken (as is stating that they deserve "prominence"). nothing would be better than pretending the population of NO is in line with the 2000 census (a census which is nothing but a semi-rigorous estimate in the best of times anyway). with regard to comparison to other U.S. city articles, please see here; other cities weren't just wiped out and deserted (by force, no less). this is exactly the sort of strange delusion i mentioned above. SaltyPig 23:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Much has changed in New Orleans in the last 8 days, but very little of that change is verifiable or encyclopedic [...]: That's as may be; but the article as it is now is verifyably unenclylopedic. My suggestion of a "New Orleans before Katrina" article was serious. Andy Mabbett 23:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken about what is encyclopedic and what is verifiable. And I think that the suggestion is a short-sighted. It is sufficient to point the reader to Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans for information about current events and use restraint while making changes to the content of this article to those which are verifiable and of encyclopedic interest over the long term. Dystopos 23:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There are several reasons for keeping the article as-is and directing Hurricane Katrina related information to other articles. First, at the rate that information is being passed and things are happening, it becomes difficult to determine what is speculation versus what is actually happening. News agencies often make mistakes and change information as new information comes through. I seriously doubt that anyone editing this article is actually anywhere near the city of New Orleans, so we're all most likely getting our information from similar sources. Until you actually go down into the city and find out exactly how many people are still there and haven't heeded the evac orders, or actually go to the refugee sites and interview people and ask if they're planning on moving back to New Orleans permanently, the census numbers should stay as-is. If I leave my city of residence for an extended period, and plan to return, should I be dropped from the census of that city? I think not, and I don't think the census bureau would do that either.

Third, I am strongly against including speculation in wikipedia. We need to report on the facts. Speculation does not belong in any encyclopedia, online or written. Until we have concrete details of something, any and all speculation should be removed.

Fourth, I remain against use of the 'current events' tag at the top of the page. In my opinion, the tag only seems to promote many of the nonsense editing and vandalism that has been done on the page since last monday.

Lastly, I do not mean for any of my comments or reversions to be taken personally, so please do not take them as such. I am just trying to make sure wikipedia maintains a certain sense of credibility and usability. The major reason I wish for a more slowly changing page is so that a) we maintain accurate information and b) I think it's important to provide information about what New Orleans was like before, so that people have a base of reference to compare to for what has changed. Dr. Cash 00:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some of the ways Dr. Cash suggests verification would be original research and therefore also unencyclopedic. Dystopos 01:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This article is not about "what New Orleans was like before." This article is about New Orleans as it exists today (except in the history section), with all the relevant information we have at our disposal. Are you honestly suggesting that people can't write about a place unless they are physically there themselves? That's ludicrious and, as Dystopos says, original research and unenyclopedic. What "speculation" are you referring to in this article? What information are you saying is unverifiable and inaccurate? Moncrief 01:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this will take BOTH of your brain cells to figure out. I was not suggesting original research at all! My major point about all the speculation largely stems from watching all the people in the past two weeks, who apparently have nothing better to do with their time than sit in front of their TV watching CNN or MSNBC or whatever, and write about every single fraking detail that's reported on the news. News media sources are entirely too biased to put information on here. Much of the speculation that has been posted (not necessarily in the past day, but in the past week or so) has been speculation of the population and the rebuilding that's been reported through the news media. That is wrong. That's what I don't like. Dr. Cash 01:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Derek.cashman, there is no reason the previous state of the city can't be in the article and covered fully; it just needs to be phrased accurately. re the flux tag, a couple of people have attempted to explain to you that you're misunderstanding, but from your edit summaries, it doesn't appear to be getting through. you keep referring to it as the "current event" tag. it's the flux tag, and it's designed for exactly this sort of situation (rapidly changing events re areas covered by the article). why you're hung up that it has the words "current event" in it is something i don't yet understand. it's for articles that document current events. this article documents current events. that's obvious. does it encourage too many edits? maybe. then please suggest a replacement, or point me to where you have already done so. there should be something to indicate that the article is degraded. if you don't like the flux tag, please try to have it removed from wikipedia entirely. as it stands, it seems to be well accepted, if not perfectly. thanks. SaltyPig 01:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, as far as the flux tag goes, I was confusing it with the currentevents tag. Both tags are very similar, though I think the text on the flux tag makes a bit more sense. When I think about it, I'm not sure if having the tag there increases vandalism or not. One could probably also argue that having the tag there decreases vandalism, as it tells the vandals that there are more eyes on the page than normal, so perhaps it's not a good idea to vandalize,... it might be worth looking more into that, though. But anyway, flux tag keep or go, I really don't care. I guess for now it doesn't really harm anything! Dr. Cash 02:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the personal attacks, "Dr. Cash." You can have a discussion about a Wikipedia article without resorting to insults. Again, I ask you: What information are you specifically objecting to? Who is filling the article with inaccurate details? What and where are these details? Moncrief 01:39, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
I did not intend to be personal, so I apologize if you took it that way. If you're referring to my, "brain cells" comment, I guess that was just weird sarcasm instead of a personal attack. The inaccurate information I was referring to was mainly the barrage of edits over the past week and a half (mostly before today) that people have been adding and wildly speculating on. But most of those comments seem to be being handled. Dr. Cash 02:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

overwikification of incomplete dates

date wikification is often overdone at wikipedia, and this article suffers a bit from it. if there weren't so many changes to the article right now, i'd take a sweep and fix the whole thing. until it slows down, please consider correcting wikified dates you come across that don't have at least a day and a month, and don't have special significance. from the manual of style:

If the date does not contain a day and a month, then date preferences do not work. In such cases, square brackets around dates do not respond to user preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it.

most of the time at wikipedia you see a wikified year by itself (e.g., 2002), it would be better plain. same with months and years with no day (e.g., August 2005). thanks. SaltyPig 00:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

population POV

this keeps getting put back in, sometimes with the claim that it's avoiding weasel words!

Some reduction of the city's population is expected,...

who says a reduction is expected? it's reduced now, but one could argue that population could increase temporarily over previous levels. construction crews and other temporary residents may offset reductions somewhat. where is the source for this speculation of a reduction? is there any reason to not leave all speculation? SaltyPig 02:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Please switch it back. This whole thing is bad for my blood pressure. What are "weasel words" anyway? How is a vague passive-voice phrase avoiding them? These are unanswered questions. Moncrief 02:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
i'd better lay off this article for a while. getting close to the 3RR threshold here and there. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms in this case refers to replacing "i'll bet the population shrinks" with "Some reduction of the city's population is expected". no real diff; lacking a source, both are original research. SaltyPig 02:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The specific phrase I was trying to avoid was "remains to be seen", which to me seems like an announcement that the subject of the phrase needn't have been brought into question at all (in the same way that flashing blinkers on a car say "Look at me! I'm parked illegally!")
More to the point, and for a variety of reasons, it *IS* expected that the population will be temporarily reduced. Students are enrolled at other universities. Workers are taking jobs elsewhere. Housing and employment are in reduced supply. A certain number of people are deceased. These facts are indisputable. To say that this loss will be offset by "temporary" residents is to again misinterpret what "population" means.
Truth be told, I don't think we need to have a "disclaimer" in this article about the temporary effects of Katrina at all. But since the apparent consensus is that it is a "sad state of denial" to not make note of information rendered inaccurate by natural disaster, I am trying to make something suitably concise and relevant out of it. Dystopos 02:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
i'm recommending that all unsourced speculation about population trends be excluded, not that the article get into my theory about offsets (used only to demonstrate another POV). and i agree "remains to be seen" should be zapped. if you have a semi-decent source for a population reduction estimate, attribute it and let fly. SaltyPig 03:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm deleting the references to evacuation and speculated effects on population in the first paragraph again. I'm further convinced that they simply don't belong there in the context of general information about the city. No one is updating the population of Katy, Texas or Tuscaloosa, Alabama to reflect the presence of evacuees who may relocate. To the extent that it's worth covering in an encyclopedia there are other articles more suited. Dystopos 22:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That is a particularly bad comparison. The entire city of New Orleans is currently evacuated; about 10,000 or fewer people remain in the city. How is that similar to several hundred (at generous most) evacuees in Katy, Texas? Having its entire population removed is indeed significant enough to earn a place in the first paragraph. When N.O. is no longer evacuated, then - guess what - we take out the information that it is currently bereft of population from the first paragraph. Your side acts as if Wikipedia is set in stone, when its very distinguishing characteristic is that it is so distinctly not. Moncrief 05:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not set in stone, but neither is it a daily log of the unverifiable movements of people. The comparison is made because the type of migration is the same, not the size. "Having its entire population removed" is indeed a significant fact, one that deserves prominance among the Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. It is not, however, a fact that bears on the verifiable population of the city. Another example: in discussing the size of the University of Michigan we say that it has an undergraduate enrollment of 25,000. If only 9,000 are enrolled for the summer term, we do not change the article to imply that UM is a school of only 9,000. Similarly, the size of New Orleans population, while likely to be significantly affected, has not yet done so in a way that is verifiable. Dystopos 13:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
But who is editing this article to try to account for "the daily movements of people." No one! You're removing the first-paragraph mention of the fact that the city is currently under a mandatory evacuation order, which is accurate and verifiable. That's the only edit I'm concerned with here. Keep that in and we're okay. Moncrief 17:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
My opinion is that it belongs with the other effects of Katrina rather than the introductory paragraphs. Dystopos 17:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Dystopos apparently still hasn't read this article, which explains briefly why these implied analogies to other cities and, egads, University of Michigan (LOL), are utterly fallacious and fail out of the gate. it is normal that schools are not always in session. it is not normal, however, for new orleans, LA to have been destroyed. supposing that normal criteria necessarily apply to unique circumstances is the pinnacle of "foolish consistency". if the already illogical claim is to be made that what another article has done defines the law, then the example article, at least, must have gone through somewhat similar circumstances. Dystopos has yet to figure out that this disaster is unprecedented in recent U.S. history, and simply requires logical thought (i.e., perhaps new solutions) to sort out here. it's ridiculous for the article to describe as extant things which are not, or to ignore the catastrophe which has destroyed much of the city (the city described, allegedly, in this article). i think Moncrief nailed it quite well above in attempting to help edit opponents understand that what can be removed may easily be returned — when it's accurate again. neither hopes nor delusion can undo what has happened. please stop thinking of editing wikipedia articles as working with stone. surely the edit history of almost any article should give comfort that the opposite, thankfully, is the case. embrace it. SaltyPig 17:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't appreciate you turning this discussion into a personal attack. From a wider perspective it is normal that New Orleans would be subject to extensive damage from hurricanes and floods. I am not arguing from "hopes [and] delusion". I am aware that major changes will be made to the city. My argument is that very little information about these changes rises above the level of temporary effects or speculation which are better suited to other articles. Dystopos 17:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought on the New Orleans page issue (not just with population). It might be a good idea split all of this into two pages, one for 'historical' New Orleans and one for current day New Orleans. This is not meant to make light of the tragedy and is by no means a continuation of the Lake New Orleans 'joke'. In all seriousness, whatever they end up doing to recover from this is going to take years. It is also doubtful that will be the same city. Thus a need for a current day page. Something to keep track of the progress. Something to show what the city looks like now. On the other hand, there are also going to be people who will want information about the city that was so loved, want to find out about the French Quarter, about Mardi Gras, etc. PerlKnitter 12:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree in principle. The proper article for documenting temporary effects, even those that last for months, is Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. As permanent changes are made, the New Orleans, Louisiana article will be edited to reflect them. Dystopos 13:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
You have a fundamentally different idea about Wikipedia than I do, and I daresay than most Wikipedia contributors do. Why do we need to wait to make changes until something is "permanent" (whatever that means; nothing in life is permanent), as long as we're describing an event or situation that is factual, accurate, and verifiable? Do you not get that information in Wikipedia can be and is to be added and subtracted quite easily and without penalty? What harm is it to say that a road (Interstate 10, say) this article refers to in the present tense is now closed, and to take out the information again once it's re-opened? That's the very point of Wikipedia, that information (again, accurate, verifiable, factual information) can be added and taken out as the event warrants. It's as if you don't see Wikipedia's very advantage and distinguishing feature, and are instead functionally fixated to think we have to act like editors of The World Book who have a yearly print run (probably being somewhat hyperbolic, but that's how it feels). That being said, let's all try to stick to specific examples from both sides. I don't see anyone attempting, for example, to blank entire sections; nor do I fear for the removal, anymore, of the Katrina info in the introductory paragraph. Let's not get hysterical about the conceptual differences, and instead talk about specific stuff we want to add and subtract, and why. Moncrief 17:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
And I think creating two pages, one for "Old New Orleans" and one for "New New Orleans," is a really bad idea. We already have an article about Katrina's effects on N.O. and we have this one, about the city itself. That's all we need. If someone creates another one, though, it will force a VfD (I'll nominate it if no one else does), which at least might have the positive effect of getting more people interested and involved in this debate. Moncrief 17:23, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
You make a very good point about limiting discussion here to specific items of content. That is good advice for all of us. I will venture, at least, to respond to the competing views of Wikipedia editorial policies. There is of course no problem with noting, in your example, that certain sections of I-10 are closed. The issue is where and how to make those notes; whether temporary closures should affect, for example, what we give for the total length of the interstate, or the total mileage of the Interstate system. Dystopos 00:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans and Orleans, France

The Orleans in New Orleans alludes to Orleans, France - not the "New" in New Orleans (the word "New," an English word, obviously wasn't even in the name of the city - La Nouvelle-Orleans - the French gave to what we call New Orleans). It's already been stated that New Orleans was founded by the French. Why the need to say that Orleans was "pre-existing" or "existing"? That's obvious. Doesn't it sound strange to you to say that "New York was named after the existing York, England." If something is named after something else, the "something else" by definition already exists. Moncrief 02:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

i'm not so into this edit. was more trying to preserve the intent of the previous "existing", which seemed to have been removed w/o full understanding (judging from the edit summary). i agree with some of what you say above (though i think you're wrong about "new" not recognizing the previous city, and the translation note is moot), but not in the context of the current structure of that section in the article. please rewrite that whole paragraph so you can actually say, "new orleans was named after orleans, france" or something similar. that'll be good. SaltyPig 02:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it is you object to. The city wasn't specifically named for Orleans. It was, as the article says, "named for Philippe, duc d'Orléans" and the city's name alludes to Orleans, where Philippe was duke (actually, that's the case with New York too: named for the Duke of York and, only by extension, York the city). The whole name of New Orleans alludes to Orleans, France. Not just the "New" (I'd say not the "New" at all, really, but right now the article says the name of N.O. alludes to Orleans). You'll have to break it down for me what it is in the paragraph that you object to, or think is inaccurate. Moncrief 02:41, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
you've basically demonstrated my point then. if the city wasn't named for orleans, france, then the only part that really has anything to do directly with orleans, france is the "new" (or french for new, whichever way you want to look at it). i think you need to decide what the city was named after, the dude, or the city that was named after the dude. here's what it says:
New Orleans was founded in 1718 and has played an important role in the history of the United States. The city was named in honor of Philippe, duc d'Orléans, who was regent and ruler of France when New Orleans was founded; the city's name alludes to the city of Orléans in central France.
who says the city's name alludes to orleans, france? an allusion isn't merely a coincidence, and often "alludes" is used when "refers" is correct (allusions are more sly and indirect). logically, according to the text above, the only thing definitely related to orleans, france is that they were named by the same guy, and the existence of the french city brought about the "new". to put all this yap another way, you've implied earlier that the section is tantamount to "new orleans was named after orleans, france" or the like. well was it or wasn't it? according to the article, it was named after a dude (who also happened to have a city in france named after him, which gave rise to the "new" in "new orleans"). i need a beer. SaltyPig 02:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Do what you want. Between your difficult-to-read usage of all lower-case letters and your use of "dude" here, I give up. Moncrief 02:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

that's the spirit, champ. set me up with "You'll have to break it down for me" (after i've been using lower-case the whole time), and then complain about some irrelevancy. can i say "champ"? is that against your "rules" too. lordy lordy. ...erm, can i say "lordy lordy"? can i say "erm"? SaltyPig 03:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • If you ask me, that whole sentence is unnecessary. Why not just sneak Orleans in there like this:
"The city was named in honor of Philip II, duke of Orléans, who was regent and ruler of France when New Orleans was founded." Dystopos 03:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

do it. SaltyPig 03:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • If I may, I think the phrasing you guys might be searching for is something like "the word New served to distinguish it from Orleans, France." (without italics in the actual article of course) Autiger 03:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It is better to avoid the phrase rather than to search for it, in my opinion. Dystopos 04:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The Present and the Past

Currently this article does not discuss New Orleans as it is today, but as it was at some point in the past, apparently on the grounds that the present state of the city might be a temporary condition. Worse, text pointing this out gets deleted:

This article discusses New Orleans as it was before Hurricane Katrina.

This strikes me as an epic act of denial. If you folks are going to write about how the city was two weeks ago rather than it is now, you have to say so. —Ashley Y 19:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, not supposed to be kept up to the minute. If there were a plane crash at Hartsfield-Jackson, and it were closed down for a few hours, would you suggest we edit the city article saying it's no longer a huge airline hub, the article that lists top airports have it purged for those few hours because it's no longer #1, etc? There is no denial going on - we are describing New Orleans as it is. That it is temporarily abandoned and flooded is worth mention, but it doesn't change that this issue is temporary. Furthermore, any statistics involving population, port tonnage, etc. has not been updated yet and therefore you cannot draw conclusions.
Furthermore, your premise is false - we spend a lot of text on how it is today. However, how it was yesterday is how it will be tomorrow, so are you proposing we purge it?
How about giving us a specific point of contention rather than making blanket complaints? --Golbez 19:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I just took a look at the article, Ashley, and I see very little in it that is incompatible with the events that have happened. Obviously the history and geography sections can remain, those haven't changed. The culture has not changed, even if the people have evacuated. Sports HAVE changed and I'll make a note of that. The infrastructure is still in place, if not used. It is still important in shipping, which is why the economy is suffering.
So I ask again - what specific complaint do you have? --Golbez 20:11, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
>>>Because this is an encyclopedia, not supposed to be kept up to the minute.<<<
I'm having difficulty understanding why people think Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopedia, can't be kept constantly updated, when that is exactly what makes it special and unique - and keeping it accurately updated is exactly what its users are supposed to do. Printed encyclopedias can't be continually updated, but Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia. The whole idea that this article shouldn't be updated with accurate and verifiable information "because this is an enyclopedia" is ridiculous. This is not the freaking World Book; it's Wikipedia. It is absolutely supposed to be kept updated, and updated again as situations change. Moncrief 20:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I keep Wikipedia up to the minute. However, what I meant was, just because something changes doesn't mean we should immediately change the whole thing, a la my Hartsfield example. There's no reason to, say, purge the demographics, or culture, etc. of the article because it's momentarily evacuated, if we're just going to put it back in later. I have yet to see a specific complaint. --Golbez 21:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
>>>I keep Wikipedia up to the minute.<<<<
But you just said above that Wikipedia is "not supposed to be kept up to the minute." Who is insisting that we "change the whole thing" or "purge the deomgraphics, culture, etc."? No one as far as I can see. Moncrief 22:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Stop fucking badgering me. As for what people want purged, how the fuck am I supposed to know, Ashley has yet to respond, so I have to assume for now she's referring to the whole article. Do you have any complaints about the article, or are you just hopping on to complain about what you perceive as my view of Wikipedia? --Golbez 22:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly it bothers you that I pointed out the obvious contradiction in your two statements. My main complaint with the article is that some people (person?) like to take out any reference to Katrina other than in the Katrina section, including the obviously-warranted first-paragraph reference. That's my main complaint. Oh, also it annoys me that anyone would assume that this article should "reflect New Orleans before the hurricane." Huh? Why? That's entirely a point of view without merit. If someone wants such an article, create a new article entitled, specifically, "New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina." This isn't that article. Moncrief 22:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the specific complaint. Oh, wait, no, you didn't make one. --Golbez 22:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Take a deep breath and count to fifty. Moncrief 22:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

In your example, if the crash were so bad that it looked unlikely that the airport would open again, it would be appropriate to use the past tense. The future of the city is uncertain, and items such as "the largest city in Louisiana" and "a major port city" are not true now and it is uncertain that they will be again. Given this uncertainty, it is inappropriate to continue to include them without some warning. —Ashley Y 00:36, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your suspicions are unverifiable, and in my opinion, overstated. Dystopos 17:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, any statistics involving population, port tonnage, etc. has not been updated yet and therefore you cannot draw conclusions.

This is utter rubbish. Just because we don't know something precisely doesn't mean we don't know some basic information about it. I have added a "disputed" warning, please do not remove it until this is resolved. —Ashley Y 00:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. You seem to be seeking to add speculative content or descriptions of temporary conditions to the article. The resident population of New Orleans that was last counted by any reliable means is what represented in the article. If you were to change the article to reflect the temporary conditions of the city as it is right this very minute, where would you stop? Right this minute, the city has no Media, no Education system, no Economy; do you wish to delete all those sections? To do so would be ridiculous as all that will all be back, because it's just a temporary condition. Autiger 04:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
The "temporary condition" is your POV, another POV might be that the city as such is gone forever. I'd rather take no position on this matter, and accept that there's a great degree of uncertainty as to what form "all that" will be in when it does come back. Rather than including incorrect facts, we should relegate our discussion to what is known to be accurate. That includes the fact that the city used to be the largest in Louisiana, and also that it no longer is. Whether it ever will be again is a matter for speculation, and we should not imply one way or the other but stick to what is known.
It's fair to mention the past population, of course, since that's useful information. But it needs to be notated as a past figure, since it's no longer a good estimate of the population for the foreseeable future. The notion that we don't know whether or not the figure is still accurate just because there hasn't been some updated official statistic is utter rubbish. —Ashley Y 06:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Far from "utter rubbish" it is the basis of Wikipedia policy on content. See WP:NOR. Dystopos 17:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, that too is utter rubbish, and I think you know that. We may not have an updated official figure, but one doesn't need to do any original research to know that the current figure is not a good estimate for the present count of people within the city limits. —Ashley Y 19:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
What's rubbish is inserting as fact amorphous, speculative, unverifiable info. The refugees in Texas etc. remain citizens of New Orleans until and unless they decide to become residents elsewhere. Greater Metro New Orleans (which is always the more important figure in these discussions) is 1.3 million, Baton Rouge 600 000 [5]; if 700 000 plus haven't moved back in a six or eight months go ahead and make the change.
This article absolutely should not be radically altered until there is some understanding of how New Orleans will emerge from this--and it will emerge if only because the French Quarter remains and it won't cease to be a place to go. We have side articles for a reason. For a useful discussion spot about this I've been touting check: Wikipedia:Recentism. Marskell 15:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that it is important this article is split - Old New Orleans and New Orleans, or something similar. However much it saddens us, this is one city that will never be the same again. Since if it does survive, it will be in a very different way then it once was, I think it's important for future generations to have a permanent Cache. And we had better do it quickly before my ghould of a brother hacks my account again and merely puts #redirect [[Atlantis]] on the page.

--Importancenn 15:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea (as I mentioned above). However, there's no harm in doing a separate article called "History of New Orleans" (see History of New York City among others), but it shouldn't just be a carbon copy, or anything like it, of the mid-August version of this article. I think such an article should just be an expanded version of the history section of this article. It's not in Wikipedia's interests to "preserve" versions of articles without allowing them to change, and especially not for sentimental reasons. Moncrief 17:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


The population figures given by the city and the metro area were given by the U.S. Census Bureau, in by which the figures are for permenant residents of the city and metro area. Unless these people make their residence elsewhere, the figures should not be dramatically altered. As long as these people live and pay taxes in the city of New Orleans, the U.S. Census are not likely to dramatically alter the figures. Moreau36 1349, 10 September 2005 (EDT)
Exactly. Marskell 18:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no need for radical alteration. However, we need to be telling the truth. That the evacuees are still part of the population of NO is a technicality that most people might not be aware of, so we should mention that. That it is a major port city is certainly wrong, and there is great uncertainty that it will be correct for years.

Things that are both inaccurate in the present and uncertain from a long-term historical perspective need to be placed in the past tense. The alternative is selectively pushing one possible POV about the future of the city. —Ashley Y 19:21, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

In what respect are we not telling the truth? There are half-a-dozen side articles dealing with the subject. Effects of... and Government response to... each have 3000+ words. That the evacuees are still part of the population of NO is as far from a technicality as I can imagine. When, round about a June, a good 25% of the pop of Paris takes off to south France for two months should the pop of Paris be altered on Wiki and then reverted come September? No. Should the population of Medina be altered for the days of pilgramege and then reverted? No. Should wiki have removed the section on Tourism from the Maldives after the Tsunami? No (even though I betchya tourism was jack-shit for months).
And this shouldn't be altered either. It's an established piece. Let the mess come down on side articles and be slowly added as verifiable evidence warrants. No one is pushing a POV about the future--allow the subject as it stands to stand until the future becomes clear. By your logic we shouldn't even list New Orleans as the second largest city in the state. Why not the hundredth largest if you have some OR proving that many people have left? Shit, if it's a ghost town why not delete the article altogether? Marskell 23:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
The side articles are fine. But allowing inaccurate information to stand "until the future becomes clear" certainly is pushing a POV. It merely needs to be placed in the past tense until then. I'll thank you to avoid straw men arguments in the future. —Ashley Y 03:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Stating the the city is, "currently evacuated," while important, is not something that needs to be mentioned in the in the infobox. The purpose of the infobox is to state quick facts, up front. The fact that the city is evacuated, is not relevant, as the city's population remains at the 2000 census levels, until another census is taken. It is also hugely inaccurate, since the city is not 100% evacuated - there are still people that have remained in their homes and have refused to leave. Dr. Cash 23:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My point exactly, thank you very much Dr. Cash and Marskell for trying over and over to explain to others this point. Moreau36 1929, 10 September 2005 (EDT)
I accept that the population figure may remain simply because they have not resettled yet and may return. However, this is a technicality and needs to be pointed out for the sake of clarification. The future is uncertain, and we should no more assume that those people will all return as we should assume that they will all stay away. The note is relevant in the infobox because it's directly relevant to current and future population figures. —Ashley Y 03:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
No, you are just plain wrong. First of all, the infobox is for technical data only. Information about the 'evacuation order' DOES NOT BELONG in an infobox. It does belong in the actual article text itself. Secondly, the city is NOT 100% evacuated, so saying that it is "evacuated" next to the population column is misleading. Many residents have not heeded the evacuation order, and are not leaving. And they have not forced anyone out yet. There are also several parts of the city (for example, Algiers) which have not flooded and are still populated. So putting a note next to the population saying "evacuated" is just, simply, WRONG! Please stop reverting this. Dr. Cash 04:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see the source of your confusion. Yes, the infobox is just for certain basic facts. However, when those facts have serious caveats, as the population currently does, then they must be annotated or else risk misleading the reader. You can see similar caveat annotations in the CIA Factbook, such as here.
You're right that the pop is not entirely evacuated, I shall thus amend it to "mostly evacuated". —Ashley Y 07:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans will recover

Unlike the hysteria from some, according to some news sources, parts of New Orleans city are drying up and in some suburban communities are already semi-operational. This reminds me of the Chicago fire of 1871, the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, and Hurricane Andrew, which destroyed most of Miami's southern suburbs; where most of the respective cities were destroyed but the people moved back to the area with resolve to rebuild. I think the people in New Orleans and surrounding communities will have that same resolve. Moreau36 1859, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

CNN also has an interesting story about the recovery of the city. The city is not 100% flooded, as there are entire sections and neighborhoods left above the flood. Many residents of these areas have not left, and authorities are not worried about convincing them to leave, either. Plus, new reports indicate that the city may be drained in as little as three weeks, instead of the original 80 day estimate. Dr. Cash 23:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's question of it it will recover it's how will it be after it recovers. I think, personally, it's safe to say that that the New Orleans as we know it, pre hurricane, will not be that same as when it will "rebuilt". Now thats not to say that their will not be aspects of the city that will remain intact, like the French quarter which received compared to the rest of the city not a devastating of damage as say the sixth ward or lakeview. But rebuilding the city is going be more then just buildings, streets and leaves, i think the main question is what will be the character of the city after the rebuild. I could go on more, but i dont want to give up to much, and it's just my opinion. --Boothy443 | comhrá 00:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's all speculation and we should be careful not to imply one way or the other. —Ashley Y 07:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
The only thing I'm attempting to say is that, the city can be rebuilt and most people with resolve can move on past this event to a "better" New Orleans (and surrounding area). Sure most areas will not look or feel the same, but, there may be some light that comes during or after the reconstruction. Old or new, these people will one day, call their city home. ;Moreau36; 08:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
How is that relevant to this article? Or are you just sharing your personal beliefs? Moncrief 08:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Although the previous statement is just a matter of opinion, I don't think that the article should be dramatically altered. If you want to create the "city after the hurricane" article, fine, I have no problem with that, but just to revamped the article only "cheapens" it. Moreau36 08:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely everything you've said is speculation and your POV. I'm not sure how reporting factual, verifiable information "cheapens" anything, but I get that that's your POV. Moncrief 16:42, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
The point being that the orientation, structure and balance worked-out through previous consensus can be lost if a thousand and one edits are made to revamp this in light of recent events. Articles can get worse; this was actually a very good, nicely-balanced and readable piece prior to the hurricane and subtracting from it or qualifying everything (particularly moving observations to the past tense, which is a truly stupid idea) may just leave a mess when it finally becomes clear the status of the city. Marskell 17:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Please be more specific, rather than conceptual and general. What are you objecting to, specifically? Moncrief 17:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
The city is the city after the hurricane. There's no need for dramatic alterations, only certain things need to be updated or placed in the past tense. —Ashley Y 20:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
But the POINT being is that a few "minor" changes in the tense leads to other changes, which add up over time and lead to the article being completely rewritten. And due to the present situation right now, a lot of these "minor" edits are happening at an increasingly fast pace, which if not handled carefully and reading each one, will cause the article to spin out of control, and lead to the need for a major overhaul eventually. There's so much media coverage about this right now, that chances are, things that are relevant today won't be relevant tomorrow, so adding something to wikipedia just because it "appeared on CNN" will most likely just result in its being deleted after a day or two or a few. Dr. Cash 22:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Paranoid much? Where is this happening? Why not deal with what's so rather than what could possibly happen (Wikipedia is pretty good at self-healing, so I don't know quite how this doomsday domino theory scenario will occur). Moncrief 22:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

It is not acceptable to leave facts in the infobox unqualified when there are serious caveats attached to them. —Ashley Y 20:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however, most of the information in the box derives from the latest census counts, which was in 2000, and until the Bureau releases the place's population estimates for 2005 on June 30th, 2006 or dramatic population shift remain three to four months from the present, the infobox should remain as is, besides, according to various news sources, some communities in the area are allowing people back; in other words, let's wait until the "smoke clears" until we can truly speculate about anything that protrays the future of the city and it's suburbs. --Moreau36 21:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not proposing changing the USCB numbers, only adding an appropriate caveat that does not portray the future one way or the other. —Ashley Y 21:16, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean, wait until the "smoke clears"? Wikipedia is updated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It should reflect current information. When that information changes, then (duh) the information in Wikipedia is changed again. No one believes we should put anything speculative into this article, so your assertion that we should wait before we can "speculate" is odd. We are talking about inserting factual, current information- information that can be taken out again when it is no longer accurate or current. Moncrief 21:41, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Your "serious caveats" still just don't add up. The city is not "evacuated". There was a mandatory evacuation order, which many residents heeded. Yet, there are still people that remain. There are also emergency services personel that have not left either. So the evacuation condition is temporary, and should be treated as such. Temporary conditions should not be mentioned in the infobox. Of course, the real debate may be on just what the meaning of the word, "mandatory," is, because I think it probably means something different to both the residents there and the authorities,... but that's for another debate. Dr. Cash 22:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
>>Temporary conditions should not be mentioned in the infobox<<
On what Wikipedia policy or precedent are you basing this assertion? It's not a universal truth. To me, it sounds like your opinion. Moncrief 22:25, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
It's mostly evacuated, which is what I put most recently. The order itself may be temporary, but the future condition of the population is far from certain. The idea that they are all returning is just one POV, whereas we need to account for the uncertainty. —Ashley Y 22:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

To repeat the first clause of Ashley's start out point on this talk header: "It is not acceptable to leave facts in the infobox unqualified." Does unqualified mean we should insert unsourcable info or conjecture? I don't need to cite a guideline to say no. The pop of Greater New Orleans is 1.3 million until you provide otherwise. It's all here in talk but I'll repeat the main point: refugees are citizens of the city until and unless they become permanently resident elsewhere. Marskell 22:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well, I shall add a source for my annotation that the population is currently mostly evacuated. Then will you please leave it alone? —Ashley Y 22:49, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
No one is disputing the fact it is mostly evacuated. The point made amply, completely, totally clear above is that even if evacuated these people remain New Orleanians. Your caveat is made clear in the third sentence and does not belong in the infobox. Infoboxes provide sourced info, not talking points, and all your source provides is a statement of the temporary situation which does not provide proof of a need for alteration in the New Orleans pop. To repeat again: the population of Greater New Orleans is 1.3 million until you provide otherwise. That is what the infobox should state. Marskell 23:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad that you now accept that I am inserting undisputed information rather than "unsourcable info or conjecture" as you earlier accused me of doing. I'm not disputing the population of NO, but that is a subtle technicality that needs to be pointed out. A lot of people might reasonably assume the population of NO is much less, not being aware of the definitions. A simple clarification is therefore in order to avoid misleading and confusing the reader. That is, after all, the whole point of Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 23:40, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


What I referred to as conjecture was the idea New Orleans was suddenly the second largest city in the state. That is unsourcable. Three or four times you've stated that the fact that the refugees are still New Orleanians is a "technicality". Now we obviously fundamentally disagree about what constitutes a technicality but I'll go with this one: "a detail that is considered insignificant." [6] The fact that they are still citizens is as significant as can be. And FYI:
  • There will be no forced evacuations.
  • Yesterday, "in a reversal from two weeks earlier, long lines of cars waited to enter suburban Plaquemines Parish, which re-opened Sunday." [7] Marskell 07:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The point is that it is not obvious to everyone. That is why a simple clarification is warranted next to the figure. Please leave the annotation alone. —Ashley Y 07:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
If a Greater New Orleans parish has residents returning as we speak than perhaps we need a caveat to your caveat. Note: currently mostly evacuated except where it isn't. The fact that the mandatory evacuation will not be forcible and that parts are opening up this early on underscores everything that's been said here about avoiding changes based on temporary knowledge. I'm sorry I'm reverting this. Marskell 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
That's what "mostly" means, actually. "Currently mostly evacuated" is still correct, and we don't know whether or not the bulk of evacuees will return. Please stop assuming this is merely temporary until there's good evidence for that. —Ashley Y 08:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

To spin the wheels once more, let's go over this. The lead paragraph states:

  • "The city was devastated by Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, and the subsequent flooding. As efforts continue to rescue survivors, drain floodwaters, clean up debris, and restore infrastructure, the city remains off limits to most of its residents." Crystal clear caveat off the top. Your concern, that "the point is that it is not obvious to everyone" is misplaced.
  • The fact that a large number of New Orleanians are evacuees does not alter the population of the city. Third chance to get a handle on this sentence: the population of New Orleans is 1.3 million until you provide otherwise.
  • To repeat a point made numerous times to Ashley Y specifically: "the infobox is for technical data only. Information about the 'evacuation order' DOES NOT BELONG in an infobox." You are misunderstanding what an infobox is.

In general, I fail to understand how assuming its temporary is unacceptable but assuming its permanent isn't. Work on the side articles if you want a placeholder for the day-to-day changes. Reverting again. Marskell 08:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • That's irrelevant.
  • Second chance to get a handle on this sentence: I'm not disputing the population of NO.
  • Infobox data should be minimal, but first it must be accurate and non-misleading, with possible confusions addressed. Clarification information DOES BELONG in an infobox. You can see clarification information in, for instance, Paris, Monaco, and Singapore. In fact I think I should adjust the annotation to follow the same "superscript numeral" form.

In general, it is unacceptable to assume it's either temporary or permanent. That's why the word "currently" is there. —Ashley Y 09:22, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Point one is irrelevant despite the fact that you've used it as justification in every single comment you've made on the topic? If I may paraphrase: "we need a caveat..., we need a caveat..., we need a caveat..." We have one. In the first paragraph of the article proper. The notes in the examples you sight are jurisdictional and political and simply confirm what's repeatedly been said to you: the infobox is for technical data only. Marskell 09:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Other reasons for keeping the infobox as-is without clutter include minimizing clutter. Adding all of your words, even the amended words, are too long and wordy to be included in the infobox, and IMHO, appear as bad form and unprofessional. Not to forget the fact that, as has been stated numerous times before, it is not needed there as it is present in other parts of the article, namely, the opening paragraph. The other reason to keep the infobox as-is is because people want to come to this article for information and facts about New Orleans, to know everything that has been displaced by the hurricane (population & businesses displaced, etc). When people move (once we KNOW that), or when businesses confirm that they are relocating, THEN and ONLY THEN, is it appropriate to remove them from the page, and those details should be noted in the History section. But adding things to this article just because, "I heard it on CNN," is unacceptable and will continue to be reverted.
Also, your argument about Paris, Monaco, and Singapore doesn't hold up. Those types of annotations are all permentant variations in population, or something like, "the city is a city-state," and they are not temporary conditions. Until we have positive proof that residents have, in fact, permanently relocated elsewhere, the population stands.
I must say, too, that this argument seems to be going nowhere. So far, it appears that we are reverting these "population caveats" continually, with the only argument presented by Ashley Y as, "we need a caveat," over and over again in droid-like fashion. Dr. Cash 14:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
That they are temporary conditions is uncertain and your POV. I am merely pointing out that clarifications in general are acceptable. What's not acceptable is to leave confusing or misleading information unclarified. Until you have proof that it's a purely temporary condition, we cannot make assumptions one way or the other.
Have a look at Singapore, for instance. The clarification is that it's a city-state. But why? Everything in the infobox is accurate. The capital of Singapore really is Singapore. And, indeed, it already mentions the caveat that it's a city-state in the text of the article. So why mention it there in the infobox as well? The reason is is that someone looking at only the infobox might wonder about whether they were separate entities or what. Just as someone looking at the NO infobox might assume that was still a good estimate of the actual number of people to be found inside the city limits. So that precedent demolishes your argument that it's unnecessary because we already have a caveat in the article text.
The one point I will concede is that the present form of the annotation looks ugly. I shall change it so it's of the same form as the ones in the others, with a superscript next to the figure and the actual text of the annotation below. Please leave it alone when I have done so.
I must say, too, that this argument seems to be going nowhere. So far, it appears that you are reverting the population caveats continually, with the only argument presented as "it DOESN'T BELONG in the infobox", over and over again in droid-like fashion. —Ashley Y 19:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
No, wait, you have made other arguments. It's just none of them have any merit:
  • "The population is still 1.3m" -- which I don't dispute
  • "The city is not entirely evacuated" -- see the word "mostly"
  • "This is just a temporary condition" -- which is purely speculation
  • "You are implying that it's a permanent condition" -- see the word "currently"
  • "You don't have a source for this info" -- which I provided (but I think is unnecessary)
Am I missing any? —Ashley Y 19:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone? Bueller?
If there are no further arguments by 19:26, September 13, 2005 (UTC), I shall assume this is no longer contended and restore the annotation in the same style as the ones on the other city infoboxes. —Ashley Y 05:55, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Am I missing anything?" Yes, the point. "The city is currently mostly evacuated" is non-technical data that doesn't belong in an info-box; the two adverbs just underscore the fact it's a weasely un-pin-down-able point. Your diversion to Singapore etc. is off-base. That it's a city-state is a more or less indefinite fact. The status of evacuees is just the opposite. Do we even know whether "mostly" is appropriate for the Greater Area or just the city proper? May, I point out finally that you appear to be a minority of one on this point. Myself, Cashman, Golbez and Moureau have all commented and agree it doesn't belong. That's how consensus works. However I do finally agree with you on something (below). Marskell 09:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your points, one by one:
  • "it DOESN'T BELONG", "it DOESN"T BELONG"
  • "un-pin-down-able" = "You don't have a source"
  • "Other people agree it DOESN'T BELONG"
Seems like I'm not missing anything. Does anyone have any real arguments? —Ashley Y 16:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
WP:POINT. Read it if you haven't already. Dismissing "'Other people (five people by my count) agree it DOESN'T BELONG'" without addressing it is bad faith.
The fact that it is non-technical data is a real argument—again, the other city examples are political and jurisdictional qualifiers—and you've addressed it nowhere. If you wanted to add a note to Area "xx% of New Orleans is below sea-level," sure—as with Singapore being a city state its a more or less indefinite fact.
Do you know whether "mostly" is appropriate for the Greater Area or the city alone? Your source doesn't prove either. In fact, your source makes no estimate of how many people are or are not in the city because its impossible to properly quantify. And that, actually, was what "unpindownable" referred to—not a lack of a source but the fact that the info is necessarily amorphous. Marskell 17:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Given that I haven't touched the article for more than 24 hours, it's hard to see how WP:POINT applies. And none of the other people have actually provided any further arguments (well Dystopos did, but the same ones I already addressed). See bandwagon fallacy. I think you're clutching at straws now.
You do have one argument which I addressed before but left off the list:
  • "The degree of evacuation cannot be known precisely" -- and yet we know it's enough to caveat the population figure.
I think I shall use this [8] as a more descriptive reference. But I'm willing to consider others, of course. —Ashley Y 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

From the first sentence of Point: "discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies." You have been reverted eight times over the last fifty changes and no one commenting on this issue agrees with your stance on the infobox yet you continue to insist that you will place the note in (and of course be reverted again). This strikes me as an obvious example of acting unilaterally to demonstrate your disapproval of the consensus.

Making an edit for reasons given does not count as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please be sensible. —Ashley Y 19:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

And I'm not clutching at anything. I'm repeating the same fundamental point you simply sidestep in each of your responses: it is not technical data. God, it's not data all—it's two adverbs and a (partially inaccurate) adjective. Marskell 19:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it is not by itself technical data. It is a caveat to existing technical data. The existing techincal data is misleading and there is confusion surrounding it. You keep sidestepping this point in each of your responses, which sidesteps I have listed above. —Ashley Y 19:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

(continued below) —Ashley Y 20:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Current event cruft

I think this article should largely reflect NO historically until things settle down. We have Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, lets put a nice link at the top and say the article reflects the old info and call it done. Perhaps a {{out-of-date-event|[[Hurricane Katrina]]}} that tells people whats up and ask that they not try to keep this page up to the minute. If anyone needs help reverting users trying to insert tons of current event material, drop me a line if you see me editing. --Gmaxwell 05:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried this, but everyone complained. :-( —Ashley Y 05:57, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I'll go a step further and suggest we roll the article back to a good version right before the Hurricane or right after, insert a notice sending people to the effects article, and protect the page so that it can act as a historical reference for people who don't know how to use history. If there is interest in doing this, discuss it here and let me know. --Gmaxwell 06:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I know denouncing recentism is fashionable among certain sections of the Wikipedia user base, but this is going a little far, don't you think? —Ashley Y 06:05, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

It is too far. First, the link to Effects of... is already on the top. Rolling back any articles two weeks is a bad precedent. And really it's not cluttered with too much. One sentence in the first para which can be altered as events unfold and a Hurricane section in the history which is appropriate and provides a base for further changes. Marskell 09:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I also think that would be going too far. In general, the article should be protected from "recentism", but that can be done by editorial policies already operating rather than by fiat. I agree with Marskell's opinion. For what it's worth, I disagree with Ashley Y about the infobox. I think that the statistical information shown there should only come from authoritative sources and that the "caveats" are well known and well-described elsewhere in the article, elsewhere on Wikipedia, and foremost in the minds of most readers. Dystopos 17:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The statistical information there will not be altered. Likewise, that Singapore is a city-state is well known and well-described elsewhere in the article, elsewhere on Wikipedia, and foremost in the minds of most readers reading about Singapore. —Ashley Y 17:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
"Protecting from recentism" isn't actually an established editorial policy, is it? —Ashley Y 17:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The editorial policy I refer to is the policy of allowing editors to edit freely (as opposed to one editor creating a policy that restricts other editors). So if there are 2 or 3 editors who agree that the infobox should be preserved and only one who wants to insert caveats and disclaimers, then existing policies will uphold the consensus without need for protecting the article. That, and my opinion both being made clear, I don't wish to argue further on this page. Dystopos 20:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that freezing the article in the past is obviously a bad idea. It's not a matter of how many people suggest it, though, it's a bad idea anyway. But what about "protecting from recentism"? What is the editorial policy that justifies that?
I'm delighted to hear you will no longer contend my infobox note on this page. I assume you will also not revert such an edit, as edit wars without discussion on the talk page are generally a bad idea. —Ashley Y 21:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
You misapprehend. I have never said there was a policy regarding recentism. The policy to which I refer is the one that allows me, and the other editors who disagree with you, to continue reverting your edits. As long as you remain in the minority, the burden is on you to make an argument here on the talk page that convinces others. If you continue making the change without building a consensus, then the conflict is more like vandalism than an "edit war" (which assumes that no consensus exists). The burden is not on me to continue defending the current consensus on the talk page. The arguments have already been made. Additional editors who are new to the dispute already have all they need to make up their own minds and, by the "existing editorial policy", edit accordingly. Dystopos 21:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism before making any further reversions. In particular, note the line Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. I am trying to improve the page in good faith; your accusation of vandalism is incorrect and unhelpful.
If you are going to participate in this debate, you should do so here on the talk page rather than in the article edit history. Please contend my arguments below or leave the issue alone. The alternative merely promotes an edit war.—Ashley Y 22:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of vandalism. Repeatedly making a change that has been rejected by a consensus on the talk page is difficult to justify as a "good faith" edit and therefore resembles vandalism. There is no question that you believe the article would be improved by changing the infobox to reflect current events. The issue now is that you appear to be alone in that opinion. Changes that uphold a thoroughly-argued consensus position demand no further elaboration on the talk page. Until you find some people who agree with you the debate is effectively over. Dystopos 22:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
If people choose not to contend my arguments I can only assume they no longer object to the change. When no-one does, the debate will be effectively over. —Ashley Y 22:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"If people choose not to contend my arguments I can only assume they no longer object to the change. When no-one does, the debate will be effectively over." OK, I really can no longer assume good faith here. This exteremely unilateral comment strikes me as failing to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. You have no consensus; you don't even a second or third vote. I agree with Dystopos that it becomes a form of vandalism when you disregard consensus so completely. You have no right to decide when the debate is "effectively over" and you certainly have no right to decide a debate in your favour when six people object and you are the only person holding to your point. Marskell 22:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't decided the debate in my favour, that is still being argued below. Only one person is actually debating me, the two of you seem to have realised you have no good arguments left, but refuse to let go for some reason. One might argue that making a reversion without discussing it on the talk page, as Dystopos seems to be threatening to do, is also "a form of" vandalism. —Ashley Y 22:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
An editorial consensus is not formed by one editor continuing to demand counterarguments until she is personally satisfied. Consensus is formed by consent. If the wider community of editors is satisfied with a decision, no further answer to your argument is necessary. It is not because we "have no good arguments left" but because the relevant arguments have already been made. I have not labeled any of your actions so far as vandalism, but continuing to ignore consensus will be increasingly hard to justify. Dystopos 03:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that three vs. one counts as consensus, especially when two of those will no longer contend the arguments. Of course there are earlier editors, which might make it six vs. two, but they no longer seem to care about the matter. I invite any of them (and you) to discuss the arguments below, of course. I am very interested to find out what the objection is, but it seems you will only repeat arguments already addressed below. I think you know this and I am having trouble assuming your good faith. You are free to prove me wrong, of course.
But in any case, I am more concerned that you will revert my change without discussing it here, rather against the spirit of Wikipedia. If there really is a consensus that it should be removed, someone else will contend my arguments for it either now or when they choose to revert. From Wikipedia:Resolving disputes: The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. -- and yet you refuse to do so. Vague accusations that such an edit are "like vandalism" because there is a "consensus" are not helpful. —Ashley Y 04:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The issue has been discussed already. Whether or not the outcome was to your satisfaction is moot. Whether my characterization is helpful to you or not, I stand by it. Dystopos 19:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The issue is being discussed. If you don't wish to participate, don't expect that your judgement on the matter will be respected any more than your unusual characterisation. —Ashley Y 21:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The fact that you are do not accept other opinions is moot as long as the editorial consensus is unchanged. I will violate no policy by continuing to revert already-discussed changes without further comment. Dystopos 23:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Unless you or others wish to contest it here on the talk page, I shall assume there are no further objections to the (revised) infobox addition, which Marskell has now made in the article. If you revert the change without discussing it here, I shall immediately restore it. —Ashley Y 02:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The revised solution seems ok to me. I reworded some of the phrasing in the note under the demographics section to be a little more precise. My principal objection was to changing the population numbers or implying that they were invalid. The compromise solution preserves the verifiable figures.
That said, I still don't think you understand how discussion works and are continuing to act as if your own satisfaction is the only criteria for closing discussion and reaching consensus. I encourage you to re-read this section and the relevant policies with a more receptive mindset lest all this jabbering go to waste.
Red beans and ricely yours, Dystopos 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


Infobox caveat summary

Mockup
New Orleans, Louisiana
Image:US-la-no.jpg Image:NO city seal.gif
City flag City seal
City nicknames: "The Crescent City", "The Big Easy", "The City That Care Forgot"
Image:Orleans Parish Louisiana.png
Location in the State of Louisiana and the United States
Parish Orleans Parish, Louisiana
Area
 - Total
 - Land
 - Water
350.2 mi² (907.0 km²)
180.6 mi² (467.6 km²)
169.7 mi² (439.4 km²)
Population
Total (2000)
Metropolitan
Density		 note
484,674
1,337,726
534.4/km²
Time zone Central: UTC–6
Location 29°57′53″N, 90°4′14″W
Mayor C. Ray Nagin
City website

OK, here is an updated list of arguments presented against a caveat note in the infobox, and why they are wrong:

  • "Technical data should not be changed or added without authority" -- I'm not proposing changing or adding technical data
  • "It isn't technical data" -- correct, it's a caveat to currently misleading technical data
  • "The figure isn't misleading" (not sure if this has been presented, but someone might) -- the difference between "population" and "current inhabitants" is something that confused me, at least
  • "We already have a caveat in the body text" -- so do Paris, Monaco and Singapore for their infobox caveats
  • "The information is already well known and found elsewhere in Wikipedia" -- so are the infobox caveats found in Paris, Monaco and Singapore
  • "The population is still 1.3m" -- which I don't dispute
  • "The city is not entirely evacuated" -- see the word "mostly"
  • "This is just a temporary condition" -- which is purely speculation
  • "You are implying that it's a permanent condition" -- see the word "currently"
  • "You don't have a source for this info" -- which I provided (but I think is unnecessary)
  • "The degree of evacuation cannot be known precisely" -- and yet we know it's enough to caveat the population figure
  • "A number of people think it doesn't belong" (five vs. two apparently) -- bandwagon fallacy: I'm simply arguing that it properly belongs in the article

I have ignored such things as references to WP:POINT as I don't think I've been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and couldn't really make much sense of this argument. —Ashley Y 20:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your overuse of the word, "caveat," is making me dizzy. Please for the love of God, find another word! ;-) Anyway, as for the real point of my response, it should be pointed out that the population figure for just about every city on the planet is a continually evolving figure. People are constantly migrating here and there. Some cities are rapidly growing in population, others are rapidly diminishing in population, still others may remain fairly constant with a small loss or gain over the years. This is the precise reason why we take regular censuses of people, to find out these trends. And these trends in migration do belong in the text of the article, when talking about population. But when you list the population itself, as a figure, you go with the most recent official census data that you have. It is impossible to take a census of the current population of the city after a disaster like this, so currently, we have the 2000 census numbers. Dr. Cash 20:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm not proposing to remove or change the 2000 figure. It should remain in-place as the last authoritative figure. It seems to me you are arguing that it is not misleading? When one sees a date population figure, one assumes it is a reasonable estimate of the current population (and of the number of people actually there), with an error based on the date of the figure. If you're wondering how many people there are in Atlanta, it's quite reasonable to look at the 2000 figure in its infobox and say "about 400,000". But if you try that with the New Orleans, you'll be seriously wrong.
Don't think of the annotation as threatening the authority of the 2000 figure. It merely clarifies some of its implications. I shall call it a "clarification" if you prefer. —Ashley Y 21:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I have added a mock-up just to show that it's not as intrusive as some people seem to think. —Ashley Y 00:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree strongly on that. "currently mostly evacuated" is just too cumbersome and there's too many adverbs to appear to be making any sense whatsoever. Dr. Cash 04:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Is it just the wording, then? How would you describe the present disposition of the population? —Ashley Y 04:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
You still seem to be missing the point here. It's not needed and not appropriate for the infobox. The present disposition of the population is covered perfectly by the following sentence in the opening paragraph: "The city was devastated by Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, and the subsequent flooding. As efforts continue to rescue survivors, drain floodwaters, clean up debris, and restore infrastructure, the city remains off limits to most of its residents." Dr. Cash 04:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
It's needed because the figures alone are misleading, as I pointed out. Are you contesting that the figures are misleading? Or are you saying that it's acceptable for the figures to be left misleading?
It's in the article too, of course, but that's standard practice for warning annotations in infoboxes, as I also pointed out. See Singapore, etc. You seem to be rehashing the same arguments already addressed. —Ashley Y 04:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have placed a long note at the beginning of demographics. Insofar as the population is 1.3 million (as you have agreed repeatedly) then no, the figures do not mislead. It's 1.3 and it says 1.3; anyhow, to clarify that not currently inhabiting does not mean non-citizen I have left the note on demographics which is a fair compromise.

"How would you describe the present disposition of the population?" It's not our place to use qualitative descriptions in infoboxes of which we are unsure—you still haven't answered whether "mostly" is appropriate for the Greater area, for instance—but to leave only quantitative facts from appropriate (preferably governmental) sources. Marskell 10:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mostly is appropriate for the greater area, as you can see by counting up the figures from the link. If necessary I might be able to find a definitive source. I am rather alarmed by the implied argument that no information is better than information with a degree of inaccuracy. However...
The demographics note is good. Could we link it from the infobox? I have adjusted the mockup accordingly, this is surely a minimal change and doesn't put anything you find untoward in the box. (It just points to the Demographics section on the same page, so won't work here.) It certainly addresses my concerns. —Ashley Y 22:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I did total the numbers from your link—I may have missed one, added one twice etc. but it was apx 450 000 and thus well below 50%+1 for the greater area (which I take as the min threshold for "mostly"). The fact that you or I might sit and total numbers on a BBC map page to arrive at authoritative data for an infobox seems to me to prove that altering the info at all is unwise. BUT!:

I'm a relieved you feel a note to reinforce the uncertain nature of things is good. I added the page-internal link, double-checked the syntax and it seems the little note beside population links to the appropriate spot. Please, if you don't mind, don't change "note" to "currently mostly note" or some such thing. A single word—"note," "status" or "current"—is appropriate. Marskell 23:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

My only concern is that it looks like a single phrase "Population Note" when actually the two words point to different things. If you think it's better on the left, you might want to put "(note)" or "note" instead. —Ashley Y 23:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I added brackets, plus "see;" thus (See note). Now, this is two words not one but "see" is a simple verb you can't argue with. I also bolded "note" under demographics; thus if I'm going to see the note I'll see note in bold and think "shit, this must be the note I have to see." My only other note is that I'm going to sleep. I actually dreamt about wikipedia last night and I must say I blame you for the fact Ashley Y. But we can debate that later ;). Marskell 23:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

See Note

A note is NOT needed in the infobox, period. The note under the demographics section is sufficient. The infobox needs to remain simply. Please stop adding notes and subclauses (or "caveats", as you would like to put it). Given the fact that the city is set to start re-populating this week, no notation is really necessary. Sure, some people may choose to relocate permanently elsewhere; but until that count is official, we cannot say anything yet; doing so would be pure speculation and POV. Dr. Cash 15:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

We aren't saying anything yet. In fact, the note specifically states that we aren't taking it upon ourselves to say anything. As I said in the edit summary if it doesn't make things worse do not remove. The page-internal link introduces no ambiguity, adds or detracts nothing from the figures and may indeed be helpful to the many who look at the first couple of para's and infobox and nothing more. Marskell 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, and agree that the note should remain in demographics. However, the infobox needs to remain clear and clean, and introducing the page-internal link is unnecessary. The infobox should remain as-is with no notes or links or anything of the sort. Stop reverting this. Dr. Cash 16:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
You have yet to cite a Wikipedia precedent or guideline rule or anything other than your own opinion to make the case that the infobox can't be changed. I understand that you don't want it to be changed and you think it should always be kept as is, but that is just an opinion, just your belief system about Wikipedia's infoboxes. It's not based in anything more than that. Moncrief 16:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you do. You're presenting an opinion as an argument and, while I have defended the infobox myself, you're taking an extreme position on changes to it without actually providing a reason (sorry, clear and clean is not an argument unless your problem is infobox aesthetics) and without any consensus.

May I also say you're using the imperative voice too much. You're last edit summary states "this seriously detracts" (without saying why) and then just shouts an order at the rest of us. Anyhow, I'll revert again tomorrow. Marskell 18:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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

A vote is not necessary in this case. This is really a petty argument over something that really will ultimately be a temporary condition. Heck, this is better than the old note of, "currently mostly evacuated," which was absolutely horrible! Anyways, I reverted myself! ;-) Dr. Cash 02:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Folk etymology

I removed this section:

  • "Orle is the Old French word from which the name Orleans was derived. Orle stems from the word oral as in mouth of a river. In the Old English it also means beginning, origin or front."

This bit of nonsense is not just one mistake, but so full of gross mistakes that I'll enumerate them here so it never shows its face in the article again....

  • Orle is the Old French word from which the name Orléans was derived: not true. Orléans derives from Latin Aurelianum.
  • Orle, a relatively rare heraldic term, in any case does not derive from oral (or more properly if it were true, from os, oris) but, via *orulare, from a different Latin word, ora, meaning, not a mouth, but a seashore or an edge.
  • There is no "Old English" cognate; which, in any case, if any of this argument were true, would be a French word, and thus not in Old English which had almost no French in it. At any rate, no word like this meant "beginning, origin or front".

Bill 20:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Poverty exaggerated?

The last line of the second paragraph says "More residents of New Orleans live in poverty than any other large American city except Detroit."

Isn't that obviously false? Given that the definition of "poor" is people who live below the poverty line, there are obviously more poor people in New York, LA, etc.

People below the poverty line:

New York = 1 696 000

New Orleans = 373 023

Unless, of course, the author is talking about percentage of poor people. But even then, there are several cities with higher rates of poverty, like Miami, Atlanta, Newark, etc. (according to [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1473961/posts this article], which seems to contradict many of Wikipedia's statistics).

Colonial population

Someone deleted the innocent statement in the article that in colonial times the population was about 10,000; on the grounds that it was unsourced. There are of course umpteen unsourced statements thruout this article and Wikipedia: more generally, encyclopedia articles do not customarily include footnotes with sources for every statement made in them.

But, yes, the population was about that — whoever put that in was most reasonable in not inserting some precise figure — here are the kinds of figures given by Kendall in his History of New Orleans, large chunks of which are going up on my site these days: population in 1722, immediately after foundation, about 500 • population in 1744, about 3000 • number of buildings in 1803, about 4,000 • population in 1806: 12,000 Bill 13:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Article title: "New Orleans, Louisiana"

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

Copyvio note

The recent edit by 209.82.97.138 (talk · contribs)--which was quickly reverted for npov reasons--looked an awful lot like a magazine article to me, style-wise. Sure enough, when I googled a sentence from them they came up as a copyvio of this. Just posting it here so people will know if it's re-inserted. --Aquillion 15:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Separate reconstruction article?

I think a separate entry on reconstruction efforts is needed.

An unpleasant topic -- police corruption

Isn't New Orleans perceived as one of the most corrupt cities in the USA? There was an article in the Washington Post this week, about fatigue in Washington, about funding further reconstruction, because of the perception that New Orleans is corrupt.

A google search of the Washington Post website produced many hits, including these ones:

Even if the perception is a misconception, it is so widespread that, in the interests of completeness, the article should address the issue of corruption. -- Geo Swan 15:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans has been notoriously corrupt since the mid‑19c: elections, lawmakers, quite a few mayors, and police. (I'm the guy putting up Kendall, one of the books covered by the "History of Louisiana" link in "External links" at the bottom of this article, and he's been a real eye-opener to me!) Any discussion of it should be even-handed in the sense that it shouldn't just focus on the current corruption. Bill 15:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I think details should go into the "History of New Orleans" article. -- Infrogmation 21:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Time machine

Okay, maybe I'm confused, but since when has the Wiki had a time machine?

"New Orleans was completely destroyed by Hurricane Katrina when it made landfall on August 29, 2005."

I'm going to get rid of this... I'm not quite sure why it'ps even there.

- 68.56.32.129 04:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The revert is certainly justified. It's just a bit of nonsense. The possiblility of it happening is a good reason for precautionary evacuation to preserve life. But hurricanes are fickle and a thirty-mile variance in one's path could make a huge difference. Pollinator 05:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Alas, it was prophetic
And the anonymous who left the last note, of course, said something very foolish. It takes a lot to destroy a city completely, and New Orleans hasn't remotely approached total destruction: the French Quarter, the Garden District and Algiers are by and large undamaged; even the upper Ninth Ward is not in that bad shape; and the land under the city has not been swept away. Once a large city is built, it's exceedingly rare for it to vanish. Bill 14:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)