Talk:Tempers flare over New Orleans tragedy

This article is a place to put all the various highly POV quotes which would clog the development queue over the next couple days, and cause numerous POV wars. - Nyarlathotep 15:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems the Kanye West article got polished up already. We should remember to update the link from it to here.

TV edit

I need sources for Paula Zahn (CNN), Scarborough (MSNBC), Bill Oreilly (FOX), etc. as I only know about these 2nd hand. BTW, we should link these inline and not waist a source line on every piece of video material of some reported yelling at some politician. - Nyarlathotep 15:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title edit

We need a better title for this article. - Nyarlathotep 16:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed it to Blame rampant over New Orleans tragedy, but I doubt that's enough. -- NGerda 16:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "Tempers flair over New Orleans tragedy"? Does not include the religious commentary, but that is okay.. or could get its own article. - Nyarlathotep 16:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WIKINEWS, WHERE ARE YOU? edit

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?

POV edit

"Poor handling of the devistation left by Hurricane Katrina has prompted harsh criticism of American politicians, especially President Bush, for verbally pandering to public opinion, while doing little about the tragedy."

Sheesh... if you fail to understand why that is POV I suggest you move to your local indymedia site. I stopped reading immediately after the first sentence.

  • Yes, "poor handling" would ordinarily be considered POV, but it is objective in this case, as is "doing little". "Pandering" is POV by connotation but I was trying to save space, it could be fixed by adding quotes. Thanks for the helpful part of your comment. - Nyarlathotep 20:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, you're right. It is up to wikinews to decide these things for me.
  • So assuming your being ironic. No, you descide for wikinews through honest discussion and argument on the talk page. I claimed it was objective, you could ask me for proof. I'd probably descide to ignore you when I eventually get around to real work later tonight and tomarrow.  :) But your comments would start a big flame war on the talk channel come monday, and something reasonable would emerge. My guess is someone would write my one sentence as two sentences which could more easily be made NPOV.

Religious POVs edit

Can anyone find a few more religious people to quote? We could make a seperate article on the various religious POVs, contrasting the statments of several Rev. Bill Shanks types with the statments made by the "witchcraft workers", "gays", etc. It could be a nice little article. - Nyarlathotep 22:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Each paragraph og this could be expanded into a seperate article. Tis' only a question of if anyone spends the time on it. But, as this goes live on Sunday, people could still write Monday articles on any of these topics.

Landrieu accusation edit

For many reasons, I feel Landrieu accusation diserves a better expostiion in its own article (more NPOV that way, major accusation by major players, etc.). I doubt think she made these comments out of emotion (frustration, anger, confusion, disgust, etc.), which is what this article focuses on. But, as she might have, they should be mentioned here too. Moreover, I'm happy to see them fully documented here while the other article is protected. But once the other article has been unprotect and published, we should consider thinning out the paragraph dedicated to her comments.

Please do not de-publish _this_ article due to someone's addition of those comments. I'm sure you can find more benign refinements, possibly even moving them to the talk page for editing. I also point out that a consensus has been reached on the talk page of the article dedicated to these comments, so it should not remain protected indefinitely. If you wish to work on the future version of Landrieu accusation which will be included here, you might consider doing so in an html comment after the current one. - Nyarlathotep 18:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the accusation should remain in this story. Every accusation, every controversy, doesn't need a story of its own and we should be trying to present a full picture of what is going on and how people are feeling. It's not for Wikinews as a collective body to react in anger to the obviously appalling response by the US government, it's for others on blogs, campaign sites etc, drawing their own conclusions from the news they read here and elsewhere. ClareWhite 14:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice that Landrieu was implying that there should be more equipment at the site, but all that was shown on TV was a line of dump trucks dropping rock across the hole. Of what use would more equipment have been? Photos of the breach show little open space nearby, so dump trucks would have had to build a platform for more equipment. Indeed, the photos must have been on the dry west side of the canal where there is open space. We don't know whether non-truck equipment was needed earlier or was moved there for photo-op. Landrieu, however, was demanding equipment be brought which may not have been needed. News reports mentioned sheets of metal being used, which implies a crane took over the pathway after the gap was closed. (SEWilco 16:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Blog link edit

An anon added a link to a blog to the article. Though I don't think it's relevant here, the blog link is interesting, containing links to pictures from the ground in New Orleans. I'm wondering if there's another place for it.

Maybe Wikipedia? --Ardonik.talk(*) 06:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, we need a story about that blog, everyone has been following it. If it does not deserve a Wikipedia entry, but it should be discussed extensively on the disaster's wikipedia entry, as it was a major part of many heavy internet user's experence. - Nyarlathotep 10:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inaccurate description of Agape Press article edit

The Wikinews article states:

Some responses, however, have concerned themselves not with criticizing the response, but praising the hurricane itself. The American Family Association's Agape Press published praise for the hurricane's destruction as an instrument of God's mercy, in that it "wiped out rampant sin".

This makes it seem as if the Agape Press article praised the hurricane because it wiped out sin. That is completely wrong. Here's what the Agape Press article actually states:

Rev. Bill Shanks, pastor of New Covenant Fellowship of New Orleans, also sees God's mercy in the aftermath of Katrina -- but in a different way. Shanks says the hurricane has wiped out much of the rampant sin common to the city.

It's simply reporting what Shanks said and is not taking any sides on the statement. The two sentences from the Wikinews article should be altered to clarify this. 67.135.49.116 02:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to "Tempers flare over New Orleans tragedy" page.