Talk:New Orleans, Louisiana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Orleans, Louisiana is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified New Orleans, Louisiana as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Esperanto language Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by Lionheart1979, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "important and interesting subject".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.

New discussion goes at the bottom of the page.

Archive
Archives
1) Nov 2002 - Jan 6, 2006
2) Jan 6, 2006 - Jan 27, 2007


Contents

[edit] Racist idiocy

"from Mexico, currently residing in New Orleans" ...this is wrong and ridiculous. undocumented workers are here from a host of countries and are referred to generically as "Mexicans" by fools and talk show hosts. the NY Times article only says "many are from Mexico" in the context of calling out this racism. Any time i make changes they get reversed b/c i'm not an accountholder, so could the next reader please fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.99.120 (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject New Orleans

I started a WikiProject for everything New Orleans: Wikipedia:WikiProject New Orleans. Please join and contribute! Staroftheshow86 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messed up Reference links

For some reason (I'm not entirely comfortable with the wiki syntax yet) but after footnote 11, it gets all html-y, I imagine from a missing " but I don't know exactly what it is. Mikelj 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • fixed Mikelj 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] city motto?

it is surprising the city doesn't have a motto. Paris By Night 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it "Laissez les bons temps rouler!" ("Let the Good Times Roll") Not sure where that should go on the page or if it needs a source.--Justfred 15:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I searched the city's Web site, to no avail. I've never been aware of any official motto. -- Muffuletta 15:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with other countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at New Orleans instead of New Orleans, Louisiana, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a mass of cities which do not have unique names. This proposal would create endless fighting over who gets to own the name. Moscow, Idaho Vs. Moscow, Russia... Richmond, Virginia VS Richmond, Indiana... etc. The ensuing popularity contests and edit wars would not be worth it, IMHO. Just because countries ouside the US with fewer cities have cities with names that are unique within their own boundaries do this now, does not mean that it's a practical measure for a naming convention within the US.-Matt 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Article Changes

I've noticed an alarming amount of change in the New Orleans article lately, with an alarming lack of discussion to explain or even address it. Substantial portions have been deleted with little or no explanation at all. Usually this is considered vandalism, and until it has been fully justified, I suggest we consider that possibility in this case.

Wbbigtymer 10:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Propose Lockdown on topic?

This article has become increasingly cluttered and hard to read. This is most likely due to the fact of New Orleans' publicity from hurricane Katrina and access to the internet, which would cause about 1.5 million New Orleans residents to each want to add something to the section.

I propose adding the following rules to the New Orleans aricle: Editing of this article by unregistered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

I also propose all discussions of Katrina and Rita be moved to a new topic, or to the end of the article. They are out of place in between history and current facts. When they are history and the city is normal again, they can be removed and a much shorter version of the two Katrina sections of this article can be placed in the history.

New York City's New_york_city article should be a model for New Orleans' article, as it is much smoother to read. Megastealer 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest mini-edit Before dropping in here I inserted a slight change: where the text read "although the hurricane (Katrina) passed east of the city...", which would be a gross rewrite of history, I modified it to read "hurricane's eye". Seemed like a no-brainer.

[edit] Semiprotect?

There have been many junk edits by anon users, though I've seen a few legitimate anon contributions as well. Other opinions on semi-protecting this article for a while, to disallow edits by not logged in users? If there is consensus to do so, I can take care of it. Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 09:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we semiprotect this article. An unregistered user also claims anything I do to the article is incorrect and removes my changes. Coincidentally (not really), I'm only correcting grammar. Also, to fit the pictures closer to the text they correspond with, it is most useful to move some images to the left side. It makes the page read and flow better. Once again, someone keeps reverting my changes and I am not going to have an edit war with anyone.Megastealer 04:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: IPs 24.215.140.225 and 81.63.140.37 need to be banned from editing wikipedia. -- Megastealer 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with protection. The article draws a lot of edits from extremes. I have no problem with my edits going through an review process. Sagredo 02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Florida

Am I wrong in recognizing that New Orleans was never a part of West Florida? It seems that I recall that the "Isle of Orleans" was maintained and traded as a separate entity from West Florida. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nolaham (talk • contribs) 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC).


The City of New Orleans was not part of west Florida; it is not one of the Florida parishes.Vesago1978 04:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)jme1

[edit] Tribute City

Unless there is any serious objection, I think I'm going to delete this part of the Culture section. The Culture part is already really long, and there doesn't seem to be any important reason to keep this in the main New Orleans article. Staroftheshow86 21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. A mention/link in "Culture of New Orleans" or "New Orleans in fiction" might be appropriate, but discussion is tangential to main article. -- 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Staroftheshow86 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, again. Staroftheshow86 05:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No PD?

The NOPD is an enormous source of controversy in these post-Katrina days, and I'm surprised not only by the lack of an article for it on Wikipedia, but by the terseness of the single sentence devoted to it in the main NOLA article. I'd very much like to participate in creating a page, but it would be my first entry or editing in this noble and enormous project beyond the simplest of edits, and I don't trust myself to create such an important page on my own. If anyone relatively experienced in this is willing to work jointly with me in this, e-mail me(malenkylizards@gmail.com) and at least point me in the right direction.  :) Thanks! Malenkylizards 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that an entry for the NOPD should have its own separate wikipedia entry, maybe with a link to it in the "see also" section of this article. Megastealer 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not anyone's personal soapbox to bash any particular public or private entity. So a section on dealing with 'controversy' of the NOPD is probably not acceptable here. There's already a good deal of well-written and well-sourced articles on Hurricane Katrina, so many of these concerns are probably already addressed there. In that group, there's also a sub-article on the Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. [[Specific, well-sourced, non-Katrina-related issues might be placed in the Government section; but please keep from ranting. Dr. Cash 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics Gobbledygook

The 'demographics' section should be re-worked using a chronological format, showing the historical population shifts of New Orleans over time, not a 'local boosterism' approach. Misunderstanding of census methodologies is not informative content. Sure 'sampling' misses households...it also ESTIMATES what is missed. So, sampling has little to do with numbers being undercounted. It is clear that New Orleans took a major hit in 2005, and the city is now more hispanic and less African than before the hurricane. Let's not forget, however, that the city already existed since 1718 and the 'demographics' section should reflect not just the last year but general trends over the last three centuries as well.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In this regard, I just reverted a change to the population figures made by an anonymous user. I have no reason to believe that this change was malisciously motivated, but such changes in figures should be discussed here first, and there need to be sources. Are their any reliable figures for the city's current population? And what are Wikipedia's policies for notability of sources for such things? Are we restricted to using numbers from the US Census Bureau? ---Charles 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article status?

I removed the 'demoted GA' tag from the talk page. Looking at the article history, I noticed that ScienceApologist added the GA tag on Jan 27, 2006. For some weird reason, it was removed the following day by an anonymous IP editor (69.192.9.65). Given the current cleanup tags on the article, I just think it's best to remove the tag and we'll nominate for GA status when the article is decent. Dr. Cash 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education

At the same time, the apparent low quality of public schools in New Orleans has encouraged middle class families to educate their children in private or parochial schools. This has contributed to major underfunding of the public school system.

This is blatantly PoV and I recommend that it be deleted. It asserts without evidence that the public school system is "underfunded," as opposed to "plagued by rampant fraud and graft." Rather than hold the argument on the main page or weasel-word through this dispute, or even attempt to prove it one way or the other anywhere, I recommend that those two sentences just be deleted. --Gordongekko909 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest changes

I have fully protected the article for 72 hours. Please discuss the changes and get an agreement. Both are to be warned about the three revert rules. If by the time the protection expires the edit war continues, I will block you both instead. -- ReyBrujo 02:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food

The article claims that 'Like its jazz, New Orleans is blessed with the only truly indigenous local cuisine in the nation.' This is not only unsourced and generalized, I believe it to be completely untrue. What is meant by 'truly indigenous' is not clear, but New Orleans food was influenced by other types of food, as were countless other types of food. Chicago-style pizza, Chocolate chip cookie, Barbecue, Hush puppies and, if one takes 'indigenous' to mean truly native, Cornbread. There are countly other examples. I believe this needs to be deleted quickly. 75.23.116.249 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. I have modified the section. The text also made the too common mistake of thinking Cajun was part of New Orleans tradition (30 years ago Cajun food was as unknown to most New Orleanians as it was to the US as a whole except for people who regularly traveled to Cajun country). The section needs more work. -- Infrogmation 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

The repetitive addition of the information about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt moving to the French Quarter is becoming unbearable. I was under the impression that the nickname portion of the article is for an overview. This information is both available later in the article and too detailed to be present at this part of the article. Something needs to be done to make this stop. Either decide to keep it with the nicknames or with the information about the film industry, not both. --Bobster687 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this does not belong in a general overview of New Orleans. -- Infrogmation 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I too agree, the Brad and Angelina comment does not belong in the general overview. VerruckteDan 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree Staroftheshow86 13:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Guard

Is the section on the National Guard relevant or necessary to this article? In my opinion, it is not. I am going to remove this section. Staroftheshow86 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most Unique

What does "most unique" mean? Doesn't "unique" mean "one of a kind"? Are there comparative and superlative forms of one-of-a-kind-ness? Can something be more one of a kind than something else? Just curious. Ikilled007 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think "unique" here is being used more as "different" than "one-of-a-kind." --Bobster687 03:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Presenting: the dictionary.--Loodog 03:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
haha thanks --Bobster687 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Presenting: | The Dictionary of Jack: Unique. I agree with Jack. Unique has a binary meaning.. it either is or isn't.-Matt 21:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "unique" should never be used with a modifier. The phrase "most unique" is grammatically incorrect and only used by the uneducated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.115.53 (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Allowing that inane phrase "the most unique city in America" to remain in the article only supports the notion that New Orleans is populated by idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.115.53 (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of small changes to intro

I've made a couple of small changes to the intro: [[1]]

Sentence flow is dramatically improved and sounds more "introductory". The removed information still appears in the body of the article, where it belongs. Bits removed:

  1. statement that southern accents are " (rare in the city)", disrupts sentence flow, is misleading and is unnecessary within first sentence.
  2. statement: "according to a population study completed in March 2007 and released on May 2, 2007 is once again the largest city in Louisiana" presumes prior knowledge of hurricane Katrina as article has not introduced this yet so I shortened sentence to say simply "the largest city in Louisiana" which is more appropriate for an introduction.
  3. statement: "The Port of New Orleans is at the center of the "world's busiest port complex"." makes little sense if not explained, which is done later in the article. Also, the preceding sentence already states it is a "major United States port" so the removed sentence is a repetition of a statement which is already put in a format more suitable for an introduction.

I think the introduction still needs a fair amount of work done to it though, as it currently reads as though knowledge of hurricane Katrina is presumed and in fact is only mentioned in relation to population fluctuation. Also, the recent fluctuations in population figures is presented in far to much detail. In particular the many percentages & figures should be moved to the relevant section of the article's body). Canderra 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some weeks ago, I added a small paragraph to the introduction making reference to Hurricane Katrina, but it was reverted or deleted sometime later. I don't know why, but I believe it address the fact that you mentioned that the introduction presumes previous knowledge of the disaster. Thief12 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography: New Orleans is within a polder.

I'm thinking since there are already pieces about geography in New Orleans, that it should be mentioned that this form of geography below sea level (or lake level or what have you) is referred to as a polder.-Matt 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography: The only city on both sides of the Mississippi?

The city is located in the Mississippi Plain on the east and west banks of the Mississippi River and south of Lake Pontchartrain. New Orleans is the only city located on both sides of the Mississippi River.

This statement needs qualification as both Minneapolis and St. Paul straddle the Mississippi.

Rijkstra 20:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime Statistics

User:Taco325i edited the article and replaced Murder with Homicide. This has made all the crime statistics invalid. -- Cameron Dewe 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The term 'intentional' homicide should be used IMO. Power Society (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate

New Orleans has several locations that report weather conditions and keep records. Which one of the locations below does the averages refer too?

  • Louis Armstrong International (Official temperature/records for the city)
  • Audubon Park
  • Lakefront Airport

You may want to make a note saying something like "At Louis Armstrong Int'l Airport". --Bdj95 05:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your climate chart is bass ackwards with respect to units - the chart shows average temperatures in C but says they're in F (33 F max temp in July!) and then shows them in F but says they are C (91 C max temp in July!). Rainfall amounts are similarly misslabeled - average June rainfall is listed as 173 inches (and you thought Katrina was bad!) or 6.8 mm (this isn't the New Orleans I know - maybe it's the amount per 15 minutes in June). Oh, by the way, the metric units used are not SI - the SI unit for temperature is Kelvins, not Celsius and length is meters, not millimeters - "metric" would be correct. -jmdeur 22:17, 2 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Very correct. I have moved this wildly wrong table here to the talk page until it can be corrected. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Climate chart for New Orleans
J F M A M J J A S O N D
 
 
5.9
 
62
43
 
 
5.5
 
65
46
 
 
5.2
 
72
53
 
 
5
 
78
58
 
 
4.6
 
85
66
 
 
6.8
 
89
72
 
 
6.2
 
91
74
 
 
6.2
 
91
74
 
 
5.6
 
87
71
 
 
3.1
 
80
60
 
 
5.1
 
71
52
 
 
5.1
 
65
46
temperatures in °F • precipitation totals in inches
source: Weather.com[1]
Metric conversion

[edit] Up to date?

In the section "Post Disaster Revival", there is a reference to a conference, and it is referred to in the future tense. However, it also states that this conference takes place in March 2007, which is obviously in the past now. There might need to be changes to its tense, and its relevance to the article should reconsidered.

Be afraid of the seattleite-Joshafina

03:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

I'm a wiki neophyte, but a 43-year resident of New Orleans who was there during and after Katrina. I refrain from even trying to say anything about the article's handling of the disaster, because it raises my blood pressure and it's just another soapbox. However, I was a student of the city's past, and I can talk about that with some authority and without a soapbox...

The name Crescent City goes back well over a century, to the Civil War, and long before the limits of the city (which absorbed a great deal of the neighboring parish, what the rest of the states call a county) extended far enough to allow much 'snaking through the city' as a whole. However, that is a common modern misconception routinely dispensed by taxi drivers and horse-drawn-carriage drivers. The Crescent in question is the extremely sharp bend in the river right in front of the Vieux Carre (French Quarter).

The city started there for three reasons. Number one, there was a large patch of high ground (relatively speaking), which later became Congo Square and then Armstrong Park--that is, it was possible to build a city there. Number two, there was a Choctaw Indian portage from that high ground to Lake Ponchartrain (the quick way to good fishing and to the Gulf) which had been in continuous use since the 1400s. Number three, the sharp bend makes it possible for defenders on land to see far up the river in both directions, making defense much easier. And number three was the reason why the Bienville Brothers founded the city there, it was how Andrew Jackson knew the British were coming when he saved the city, and it is also why one of the first Union actions in the Civil War was to take the city, and thereby deprive the Confederacy use of the Mississippi River.

The actual name Crescent City was supposedly coined by its Union Military Governor, General "Spoons" Butler, but that may be apocryphal. (He got the name because one of the first things he did after conquering the city was to steal everyone's silver.) What is certain was that the name appears in the media from the Civil War onward. Before the Civil War, the population was so heavily French that other Americans assimilated if they moved there. After the Civil War, the influx of Northerners (the so-called Carpetbaggers) brought the city into linguistic parity, and I suspect the popularity of the nickname was mostly a matter of Anglo-assertiveness--to the Anglos, Gen. Butler was a hero, but to the French, he was a scoundrel.

And that's what I know, annotated so the article writers will know how much is authoritative, how much on the edge, and how much simply my conjecture. I hope it helps. Lamabillybob 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

I'm not great with IPA, but I don't think either of the listed pronuncations reflects the way that locals pronounce the name of the city, which is much closer to "na'awlinz", with a hint of an "r" buried in the long "a" sound. Is there someone more familiar with IPA out there who could try to capture this? Rkstafford 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be how the residents pronounce it, but that is due to their accents. The "proper english" way to say the name is what we should put on Wikipedia, and possibly a mention of how the locals say the name if it is encyclopedic enough. (I think it is)64.230.5.75 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no "proper" pronunciation, nor is there just one "native" pronunciation. --Dystopos 02:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I assure you that there IS a proper pronunciation of the word "New", so there's a start. For the Orleans bit we could look at the pronounciation of the French city of Orléans. Quite frankly I find it laughable that you claim there is no "proper" way to say the name. By your reasoning I could pronounce any city name in any way I wanted and still be technically correct, because you have no reason to your claim. I do however agree that there is not just one "native" pronunciation. 64.230.5.75 18:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • If you wanted to really get into the "proper" way to pronounce "New Orleans" you have to take into too many variables to be useful. You would first have to account that New is English, while Orleans is French so you would have to reconcile two languages, then you still have the issue of dialect. Between any two or more dialects there may be several "proper" way of saying any combination of words. The Boston way of saying it, is no more or less valid than the Seattle, or Houston way of saying it. If you were to have to try and 'force' a particular pronunciation, as a proper noun (like other names), it should revert to what the locals use, and as mentioned above, there are several different pronunciations for the city even within its own city limits. Anyone who feels their pronunciation is superior, or somehow more correct than another's, is somewhat pompous. (D.c.camero (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Can New Oleans be saved?

The facts speak for themselves. The Mississippi Delta is subsiding at at rate of ~1m/100yrs. Global warming will likely raise sea level considerably over the next 100 years. Dams on the tributaries of the Mississippi, From Montana to Tennessee, are filling with the sediments that were once carried to the delta. The Federal government does not the money to pay for a massive delta restoration project, Sad, but true. Dansample 21:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is money set aside for this project- its called the OCS revenue-share plan. You might also look at Louisiana's CRPA plan for reengineering south Louisiana.
It is not up to us to determine for 1.3 million people that their 300 year old city cannot (or should not) be saved. This forum is not the appropriate place to convey the personal view that New Orleans is hopeless-there are many people, scientists and experts included, who would respectfully disagree with you (the National Science Foundation, the LSU Hurricane Center, the ASCE, etc).
Lastly, the geography section in its original form adequately addressed New Orleans' topographical reality without coming across as alarmist. Overstating and oversimplifying complex geological realities to fullfill a pessamistic viewpoint omits the fact that other major US cities face the same difficulties.
The original form of the section glossed over the hydrological problems faced by the city. I considered it to be very biased if favor of reconstruction. The head of the USGS is qualified to have an opinion. As is James Hansen. My own opinion doesn't appear. All I did was do the math. Note that I didn't use (but could have) the Slate article "Don't Refloat - The case against rebuilding the sunken city of New Orleans." http://www.slate.com/?id=2125810&nav=tap1/ There is debate about reconstructing the city. A separate section could be justified.
re: the OCS revenue-share plan? & Louisiana's CRPA plan for reengineering south Louisiana? Find references for these and put them. Then I'll read them. (Believe it or not I do have an open mind.) I suspect that they will work out just as well the levee system did in 2005. And grow into piecemeal version of the Delta Works on a river that's 8 times a big. Where there doesn't seem to be a subsidence problem. Amsterdam's tide guage shows only 1.5mm/yr of sea level rise compared to 10mm/yr for Galveston. Plus they don't have hurricanes in the North Sea. And the Dutch are still plenty worried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#U._S._Tide_Gauge_Measurements

Alarmist? - It's too bad that the alarmists weren't listened to before Katrina.
The fact that other cities face similar albeit generally much smaller rises in sea level in no way changes the threat to New Orleans. Houston is the only other U. S city with any amount of subsidence. Other cities face a far lower rate of sea level rise and are more defensible, if the rate of rise of sea level doesn't increase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#U._S._Tide_Gauge_Measurements
Many Wikipedia articles have sections titled Controversy or Debate on ???? where both sides are presented. Dansample 21:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A section on the public debate about New Orleans' sustainability can surely be justified. It would be best if Wikipedia's discussion of these issues held closely to authoritative studies rather than summarizing the speculations of every popular journalist on the matter. (See also WP:OR on the use of one's own calculations) --Dystopos 23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. We could very well have a seperate secion that discusses both sides of New Orleans' sustainability.

It is not, by the way, biased to state that what happened to New Orleans in 2005 was due to the fact that a federal infrastructure project failed. It was supposed to withstand Katrina's surge (and Katrina missed the city) but it collapsed under design specs. The only "alarmists" that could have helped before Katrina were the people of south Louisiana who were begging the Corps to take our protection seriously.

Secondly- the entire city of New Orleans is not subsiding. Portions of Lakeview and Gentilly are.

If you can't read those studies on your own before making statements regarding New Orleans' sustainability than you are not qualified to write about it in the first place. Quoting journalists is not the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.76.229 (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The quotes I put in the article are from qualified scientists. James Hansen may be controversial, but is undoubtedly qualified. that quote is from here. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/2/2/024002 The math is in the scientific articles, too. I'm partially done reading the CRPA plan. It promises to cost tens of billions to protect from 100 year floods. After devastating floods in 1953 the Dutch started building to protect against 4000 year floods in rural areas, and 10,000 year floods in urban areas. Rates of subsidence do vary. Many of the levee failures were in locales with very high subsidence. The fact that so many of the levees collapsed at less than their design specs doesn't give me any confidence that building a whole bunch more won't just lead to more failures and loss of life. Dansample 04:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the key here is that it doesn't give you any confidence. This is presenting one side of a multifaceted argument. I favor a section on the debate using third party sources to tell both sides of the issue in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Qualified, controversial, or not, the published studies of one scientist are nothing more than his own viewpoint, and he does not speak for everyone. To avoid bias, if there isn't confirmed data from third party sources, I think it would be best to give a wide perspective. Wikipedia ought not favor one or another argument in an ongoing debate. All that should be done here is a straightforward presentation of what that debate consists of. Dansample, you may be right, but we won't know that until it happens, so we can't forward conjecture as if it were fact. Baronplantagenet 05:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The CRPA plan is no less conjecture than Hansen's statement. It hasn't happened yet either. Unfortunately, Hansen looks to be the better bet. That frightens me, and I live at 5000'. It might be better to do a totally separate article. It would catch all the BS that now resides on the talk page of MRGO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mississippi_River-Gulf_Outlet_Canal . It will make for a garbage article, but would divert the worst crap from NOLA. The NOLA article is still in need of a good clean up. I don't pretend to comprehensively know the city, but I quickly spot things that are wishful thinking, areas where a blending of pre and post- Katrina information occurs, etc. I suppose that every "local" article gets written mostly by people from the area, which tends to make for a bias. Although that would be very hard to get around. Dansample 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Just for fun, here is an excellent piece on why New Orleans must be saved (with reference to COE/Federal culpability). It was written by non other than Newt Gingrich and John Barry, Time Magazine, March 6, 2006:

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2761.

The CPRA plan is a long-range plan that proposes restoration of critical wetlands and flood protection infrastructure. Your understanding of 100 year protection is a little skewed, but my point was to educate you on the fact that the state has a plan and funding stream to implement it.

You're right, the US haven't committed to the level of protection that they have in the Netherlands. Dr Ivor van Heerden (not a "controversial" Professor on the fringes but actually the head of the LSU Hurricane Center)has said many times that it can be done. Yes, it will coast money, and yes, there are debates regarding the details of how it should be implemented. But it can be done.

By the way, "Katrina" could happen in Sacramento, St Louis, Tokyo, and other cities. It was nothing more than the failure of a Federal infrastructure. Not a "big bad storm".

In fact, here are some sources in that regard:

Here are the results of van Heerdan's study about the failure of the federal flood protection system in New Orleans:

http://www.publichealth.hurricane.lsu.edu/TeamLA.htm

An executive summary from an independent study done by the National Science Foundation/UC Berkeley that also states it was poor design that caused the 2005 flooding:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/11/02_levee.shtml.


A GAO report to Congress on the feds role in the disaster due to systematic failures in how federal infrastructure is funded and implemented:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06244t.pdf.

This is the American Society for Civil Engineers commenting on how the Corps' designes failed well below design specification. (and if anything, they tend to be biased towards the Corps):

http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/erpletterformat.pdf.

Lastly, let me say this. New Orleans is a large city. Many neighborhoods have been there for 300 years and will be there 300 more despite "rising sea levels". Other neighborhoods are more low-lying. To call the whole thing "Atlantis" shows an ignorance of complicated issues- its topographical subtleties, and the complexity of the situation.

Wiki is clearly not the place for editorials. Rather it should address the various issues in their full breadth. If the article appears biased towards reconstruction, as you say, then perhaps it is because when one lays the facts on the table, New Orleans should be rebuilt, it can be rebuilt, and it shouldn't have flooded in the first place.

Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.76.229 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Post-disaster recovery

A distinction should be made between what has been accomplished[citation needed], what is merely in planning[citation needed], and what is simply hoped for or speculation probably should not be included. Sagredo 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update template

Template:Update is in use on this page. Can anyone summarize what needs to be updated? Photouploaded 13:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A distinction should be made between what has been accomplished, what is merely in planning, and what is simply hoped for or speculation probably should not be included. Because of the Katrina disaster some editors have become very defensive of the city. A mention of flooding with a reference gets an uncited addition about "federally funded levee breeches" and things like "in parts of the city that never flooded before." (How are the deltas built- of course, by flooding - That editor is probably so emotional that he/she believes that never flooded is correct.) I don't see $ figures on Katrina, these were there at one time and have been removed. Read the sports section. It's like a garden that hasn't been weeded for a month. It needs the spin taken out. Infrogmation is a local who seems pretty fair, likely a good source for what is happening. I was browsing a NASA website, found an appropriate image about the elevation of the city. To find an appropriate spot, I read through the geography section and it read like propaganda to me.I added some unpleasant information, some what inflamatory, but it was verifible. This stirred up a hornet's nest. (I'm no longer naive enough to try to achieve a balance by following proNOLA POV with something strongly negative, even if it has a good source.) The article needs a good fact checking, and then will require long term maintenance to keep it accurate and NPOV. I don't expect an article that isn't somewhat promotional, but it shouldn't into (Katrina) holocaust denial, scapegoating the Army Corps of Engineers. The projects they build are usually local ideas. MRGO was.Sagredo 17:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"Population demographers, the mayor's office, and others believe, after discussions with still-displaced residents, that residents will gradually return to the region throughout the next couple of years.[19][citation needed] A University of New Orleans poll showed public sentiment is so bad that 29 percent of the current resident population may leave.[20]'

Both statements are POV. I'd be agreeable if both were deleted. Sagredo 21:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed a section reading "One editorial writer said that University of New Orleans poll "showed public sentiment is so bad that 29 percent of the current resident population may leave".[2]" At first this was not labeled as a being from an editorial; I changed the wording to reflect this, but on second thought I am removing it entirely for now. A reference to the original poll IMO would be much more useful than a reference to an editorial quoting it. Certainly there are many factors making residents think of leaving, ranging from fear of more incompetent flood control work by the ACOE, crime, rising insurance and rents, economic opportunity, etc. However saying "public sentiment is so bad that" is POV editorializing-- no doubt some editorial writer could spin the opposite way and say something like "public sentiment is so good that" 71% are not planning to leave despite such significant problems. Also, there is presumably a base percentile of people thinking of leaving town in any US city; without stating what that is and how different the figures in New Orleans are from national average the figure is of diminished usefulness. -- Infrogmation 14:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but please note that I didn't use something like, "New Orleans is my home and it's dying." I was going for the survey result. Might I please have your opinion of the first statement? Sagredo 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
And now there's this by Duece22
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Orleans%2C_Louisiana&diff=prev&oldid=164205453
I really see that I was wrong. I do apologize, and I'll be more careful in the future. Sagredo 17:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planned Shinkage Policy?

If you review the wiki article on Planned Shrinkage, it seems that we are seeing on a grand scale the evolution of this policy. Has anyone done any scientific comparisons of the reality of New Orelans and the Rand predictions of this model?

71.114.163.55 —Preceding comment was added at 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "It should be noted"

I removed the following text from the introduction:

(it should be noted that San Francisco, California took several years to recover from the 1906 earthquake)

We don't need to make excuses for or justify the slow recovery in New Orleans in the introduction. The introduction should just give a basic synopsis of New Orleans. If this is readded, it should be done in the Demographics section or a recovery from Katrina section and when readded, it should also have a source. Ufwuct (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination failed

According to the quick-fail criteria, any article with cleanup banners, such as the one in the lead section, must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy this issue before choosing to renominate the article. Thanks you for your work so far. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Also note that the nominator failed to properly complete the nomination by placing the appropriate template on this talk page. VanTucky 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I forgot to put the template on the talk page. And of course I know that it must automatically fail if it has a cleanup banner, but I had removed it, apparently under the misconception that was the way it was to be removed. I worked on the article quite a bit and cleaned up all issues I could find that had been previously mentioned, along with removing many redundancies and lots of unnecessary information. How can this banner get removed? It seems strange to leave it there if there are no glaring inconsistencies with wikipedia's standards - just some minor issues.--Bobster687 (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Banner

I've removed the cleanup banner from the article for a couple of reasons. First, whoever added the banner never listed an explanation on either this talk page or on the Wikipedia:Cleanup page. This is required when adding a banner so it can be decided when cleanup is complete. In addition, extensive work has been done on the article since February 2008 when the banner was added. While the article is still in need of some help, I believe it's not bad enough to warrant a cleanup banner. If someone thinks it should stay, please do so but also list an explanation so those trying to cleanup know what needs to be addressed and when the banner can be removed.Bobster687 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not put the banner there in the first place, but I started editing the article when I saw it was there. When someone removed it, I believe I was the one to put it back, because I think the article does need some serious attention. Here are some reasons why:
These superlatives are unsourced and possibly inappropriate even if sourced:
  • New Orleans is world-famous for its plethora of unique architectural styles
  • New Orleans has always been a significant center for music
  • New Orleans is world-famous for its food
  • New Orleans is the home to one of the largest and busiest ports in the world
  • New Orleans is an industrial and distribution center and the busiest port system in the world by gross tonnage
Much of the article reads like a cross between a tourist brochure and a Guinness Book of Records entry.
It has serious deficiencies with citations. In addition to the superlatives above, entire sections have no citations [or very few; I may have missed one or two], such as:
  • Cityscape
  • Architecture
  • Film
  • Events
  • Sites of Interest
  • Music
  • Food
  • Sports
The article is also quite long, and may be an appropriate candidate for breaking up into [more] smaller articles. Arts & Culture is probably a good place to start with that. Demographics is another.
Don't get me wrong - I think this is a great article, but I also think it can be better, and I don't think it is yet an article that deserves the GA designation. I've been working on it, as others have. I'm not putting the cleanup banner back, but I am going to continue working on it. These are just my opinions. Isaacsf (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

I'm thinking of removing several paragraphs from the Demographics section...they are statistics that can be found in external links and don't really add to the article. They just make it long and boring, in my opinion. I'm thinking of removing a total of three paragraphs starting with:

There were 188,251 households ....

ending with:

... 4.1% of the population was Hispanic or Latino of any race.

Comments? Isaacsf (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree in removing this information. The statistics provide a snapshot of the demographic makeup of the city, that certainly adds to the article. Statistics such as these are more or less universal in articles about US cities, towns, etc. and shouldn't be wholesale removed because one editor finds it boring. VerruckteDan (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This issue was raised a year ago and then again in my comment above. When I got no response, I went ahead and made the change. I have more than one objection to that bit of text:
  • It is dry statistical information that only a geek could love.
  • As noted by others, NOLA is definitely a city with vibrant and varied culture. To attempt to nail it down to a point in time is really beside the point.
  • There was unsourced/WP:OR material.
  • The copy was awkward at best.
That last point may be the main one, because Wikipedia is built on consensus, not ownership. So if the consensus is that it belongs, I want to at least insist that it be readable and concise. If it is restored, I would probably advocate for it to be in a separate article.
My interest in this article is to create a readable snapshot of the city. Knowing how many households there were/are/will be in NOLA is not really part of a snapshot, IMHO. That's hard-core statistician material. Isaacsf (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the demographic section can be reworked into a better flowing text. That's more in line with the comments from last March, a reworking of the section, not a removal. My objection is to the complete removal of the paragraphs.
  • You may find it a dry statistic, but its inclusion provides more information about New Orleans' population than not providing any of the statistics.
  • I don't think the demographic section detracts any from the vibrant culture of the city. The culture is discussed in other parts of the article.
  • I'm not sure which part you are referring to as unsourced or original research, I'm only objecting to the the removal of the sourced information from the Census.
  • Yes, the wording of the paragraphs could be improved, and should be.
Wikipedia is built on consensus, and I think the inclusion of the demographic data is the consensus. This data has been part of the New Orleans article since its creation and is data that is found in articles for pretty much every US city, town, etc. The Census data is sourced and allows for a consistent comparison to other US locations. Additionally, the guidelines of WP:USCITY reflect the consensus that Census data should be used, but also points out the benefits of more dynamic prose.
More specifically to New Orleans, facts about the racial makeup and socioeconomic makeup of the city are important as they are both products of the city's history and for better or worse are factors that also effect the city's history. So ultimately, I think the material should be re-added and perhaps a cleanup tag added so that multiple editors will feel inclined to work on improving the section. If it becomes much more developed, then I'd agree with you that it could be spun off as it's own article Demographics of New Orleans. VerruckteDan (talk)
Agree. WP:USCITY provides a nice guideline here saying automated statistics should be kept by default until editors get around to finding more interesting trends to incorporate into prose.--Loodog (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm not going to stand in the way of putting the info back, but I really think it should be put in carefully and thoughtfully. I'm very much of the opinion that small, good additions are far better than bad, large additions. (I'm not pointing any fingers anywhere...just commenting on a trend that editors seem to think "more is better.") At any rate, I think if there are going to be long lists of dry statistical information, they should either be in tables, or they should be in readable prose form that doesn't dance all over the place. If we are covering demographics and income, that should go in one section. Demographics and race, or sex, or age, or whatever...let's group together.

Regarding uncited and OR information, here are two examples from just before my chop job:

  • "(thus, any pre-Katrina/post-Katrina analysis should use this figure, rather than the 2000 figure)"
  • "A more precise population number will not be known until the Census Bureau's official population count in 2010."

I didn't advocate for removal of the section, just cleanup. I only deleted what I thought was really the low-hanging fruit, without changing the general tone of the section.

Having said all that, I encourage other editors to be bold. I really think this article has a lot going for it and I'd like to continue to improve it, so I'm not giving up! Isaacsf (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Largest city- Baton rouge or New orleans?

according to their wikipedia articles, the population of New Orleans in 2006 is 223,388. the population of Baton rouge is 229,553 in 2006. both of these figures match the census bureau's american fact finder stats. Unless someone has a recent figure that they can cite and footnote, I'm thinking the "new orleans is the largest city in louisiana" and "Baton rouge is the second largest" claims need to be reversed. thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.103.201.130 (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been a fluid situation still since Katrina, and estimates differ. However it is certain that New Orleans has continued to gradually regain population. The Greater New Orleans Metro surpassed Greater Baton Rouge by last year. The population within the city limits seems to have different conflicting estimates, but it is certainly higher now than it was in 2006. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I almost made this change, but then I looked for more data. I think in 2006 you were correct (probably 2005 as well). But it looks like in 2007 NOLA has increased enough. Check the link (from the NOLA article): Nagin urges census revision - here's a quote: "The census data, released Wednesday, indicate the population in New Orleans increased from 210,198 in July 2006 to 239,124 in July 2007, a jump of 28,926. But city officials said they believe the 2007 figure is closer to 300,000." Either one would surpass Baton Rouge.  Frank  |  talk  01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cajun

The repeated addition to New Orleans as being culturaly Cajun is incorrect. The Cajuns were settled in Louisiana to the West of the city, mostly rural and small town, and a historically and culturally seperate people from the Louisiana Creole people. Certainly since Paul Prudhomme came to New Orleans from South West Louisiana and made Cajun food world famous, the local tourism industry has found it profitable to slap the label "Cajun" on lots of things, but there was no significant Cajun presence in the city until recent generations (a good number moved to the metro area during the oil boom), but they are still not one of the city's largest ethnic groups. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a new main image?

i'm not really into editing articles but, i think headline picture of new orleans is somewhat boring. I mean take a look at new york city's or hong kong's main city picture. those are awesome and make me interested in reading about those cities. Can anybody get a better picture, maybe one at night time by the river showing the city lights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoo orleans (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the city that care forgot?

I noticed the nickname in the infobox and thought it had some reference to Katrina or something. Upon further research, I found that its origins go back quite deeper. Should we mention this on the article? Perhaps an "origins of nicknames for new orleans" page would work? "The Big Easy" could use some explaining too, or something. --yuor faec (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)