Talk:Kathleen Blanco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rephrased criticism of Governor Blanco, removed the following sentence-

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

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

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

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

Modified this part:

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

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

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

In response to the situation I have taken appropriate action under State law and directed the execution of the State Emergency Plan on August 26, 2005 in accordance with Section 501 (a) of the Stafford Act. A State of Emergency has been issued for the State in order to support the evacuations of the coastal areas in accordance with our State Evacuation Plan and the remainder of the state to support the State Special Needs and Sheltering Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV and irrelevant.

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

irrelevant to Blanco article specifically, and needs a source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup references tag[edit]

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

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

This article used to be very well-referenced. Who removed the refs? 86.137.188.80 (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina not "most devastating"[edit]

In the opening section of the article, Katrina is called the "most devastating hurricane ever to make landfall" in the United States. This is not true. Several other hurricanes caused much higher loss of human life (the 1900 Galveston hurricane, for example). This should either be removed or edited to specify in what way it was the "most devastating", such as its monetary cost.

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kathleen Blanco/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Artile appears to be biased to me as well... perhaps some on can dig deeper and find the real facts. Citing what we stated in the media with the caviot that the statement was incorrect is not quite what I'd expect from a historical reference...


==This page needs to be protected==

The amount of bad language and negative personal oppinion on the page dedicated to the GOVERNOR of THE GREAT STATE OF LOUISIANA who is by the way a ROMAN CATHOLIC is shocking and distasteful. It has no place on this web site and I demand that it be corrected immediately or WIKIPEDIA will find itself in court for publishing Libel against a living person.

Last edited at 01:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kathleen Blanco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kathleen Blanco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kathleen_Blanco&oldid=1206330541"