Talk:Federal response to Katrina a "national disgrace"

Latest comment: 18 years ago by SEWilco in topic Bush Photo

Good title! Provacative but just NPOV enough. But, to keep this title, the article's subject matter must be changed. It could be a good article, but I'm not going to fix it, at least not until tomarrow. - Nyarlathotep 16:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: People's harsh statments should be included in "Tempers flair over New Orleans tragedy". Critisism of (or support for) the U.S. refusal of foreign aid should be included in "Many nations offer material aid to hurricane victims; Bush refuses to accept". All three of these articles should contain one line blurbs aluding to the content of the others, and reference one another.

Okay, I went ahead and did it, but I had a harder time staying NPOV here. Sorry, please try not to kill the content if you lighten the langauge. - Nyarlathotep 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Where the hell are you? Every other media org is covering how incredibly late the Federal govt.'s response was to this disaster. But not a peep out of WIKINEWS. By now, EVEN Bush has admitted the response was inadequate. WIKINEWS seems to be very late in the game on things like this. I'm very dismayed in it's approach here with a headline that looked like it came striaght out of the onion or the classic '1984' novel.

I have to wonder if there is a lot of conservatives here who rabidly delete/edit factual news and headlines and hide behind a bullsh|t NPOV to promote their agenda here?

  • See if you'd actually understood anything about wikinews, you would have read the article, and moved it to publish, from develop. I clearly didn't want to move the article myself due to having written lots of it myself. But you could have done it. OTOH, I suppose I can publish this one since I didn't start it, but I also made it too POV, so I'd rather wait. - Nyarlathotep 20:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would write or move to publish an article, but I already know through experience here that it would be removed and/or drastically edited by conservative admins here. I'm not referring directly to this article. I'm referring to the fact that all the other media has covered Bush's late response (even Fox News) and yet there is NOT ONE article on WIKINEWS that directly reports on this. If I honestly thought I could cover this and it wouldn't be removed from here immediately by conservative admins here, I would certainly do it. I think it's very telling that there is no article about the late response and the Bush admin.'s pulling of funding for the levees -Cowicide 23:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cowicide, once again, you really can't come here and try to attack a wiki for not containing the information you want. You also might want to take note that Wikinews does contain several articles that discuss a late response from the federal government. So much for all the "conservative" POV from the admins, eh? Cllewr 00:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to have survived thus far.  :) I agree that conservatives have tried to censor content via the NPOV policy, but I've yet to see a situation where said content could not be reinserted in a way to mute their objections. So problems occur when you have IMC types who can't or won't rewrite. I feel this is a cultural flaw created by IMC's polcies, including the fact that IMC is not a wiki. - Nyarlathotep 01:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cllewr, I was just surprised to see that there was not an article that was solely about the late response with details of how.. why.. etc... you know? Just like I've seen everywhere else in the media here and abroad DAYS ago... but strangely, not on WIKINEWS... until now. -Cowicide 02:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bush Photo edit

We should include a picture of President Bush which demonstes in action after the hurricane. Are we allowed to use AP photographs like the following?

Nope, sorry. Fair use does not cover photos from other news groups --Cspurrier 02:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found a public domain image. (SEWilco 06:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]

NPOV dispute edit

This article is disputed because it doesn't present a neutral POV. Local officials are at least as much to blame as the national officials for the outcome of this disaster. This story unfairly attempts to paint a picture that the national officials are primarily to blame for the results of this disaster. - User:Busted (Comment moved by Amgine/talk 06:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I've discussed local officials in the last sentence of the article, which should be enough distinction to be "fair" as "Controversy over whether New Orleans Mayor failed to follow hurricane plan" exists and is linked. Feal free to expand on my commentary, but I don't feel the need to do much work so long as their is a seperate article on it. Do we want to vote on merging the two articles? My vote is no, as their is a very good first hand story about state officials which will not be merged, so why not keep all three seperate? In adidition, I propose that both the federal and local articles be deamed NPOV enough to publish as people have done good work on them. What else needs to be done on this article? - Nyarlathotep 13:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it true that, as the article said, schoolbuses "were to be used" in the evacuation? I thought the arguments over the schoolbus were just that they COULD have been used, not that they WERE TO have been used. I didn't edit the article because I'm not sure what the facts are, but someone should if they know the facts better.
Return to "Federal response to Katrina a "national disgrace"" page.