Talk:Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina

DES (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

otorhinolaryngology
hopiakuta 03:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Disgrace corrected
I have just done a clean up and update on this article, which was in a truly disgraceful state. It had false statements, claims unsupported by the accompanying citations, massive WP:BLP violations, etc. Much of this was inserted by a SPA,, in October 2008.

I added some important facts to the article: the charges against Dr. Pou have now been expunged, the state will reimburse her legal costs, and "several lawmakers have apologized for the accusations against Pou", sourced to this AP story.

This article is still quite bad, but at least it is no longer an abomination.

Several questions remain:


 * Does anyone know which lawmakers apologized? Should we mention them in the article?


 * Does anyone know what happened to Dr Pou's suits against Charles Foti and the state Office of Risk Management, as reported in this 2007 Times-Picayune item? If anthing came of them, should we mention them in the article?


 * That 2007 item reports that Dr Pou's lawyers accused Foti "of playing politics with her life and the dead from Katrina" and "improper and unethical activities". The SupportDrPou.com website states that Foti staged her arrest for maximum news impact after agreeing to let her quietly present herself to authorities. I did not add anything about this to the article. Should we mention it?


 * Given that the article is really about the failed prosecution of Dr Pou, not about Dr Pou herself, should we rename it?

CWC 17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
I've decided that the answer to my immediately preceding question is "yes", so I've renamed the article from "Anna Pou" to "Anna Pou case". Then I went further: instead of just changing it from a Biography to an article about a (non-)murder case, I rewrote the whole thing. Why? The article previously had lots of detail about some things (eg., what Dr. King said and did) and not much about others (eg., the conditions at the hospital during Katrina, the political process by which Louisiana decided to pay Dr Pou's legal fees). So I rewrote it in a chronological fashion, trying to achieve an even tone and pacing.

This also let me work around several links that had gone dead, and incorporate some useful information from a forthcoming article in the New York Times magazine. (Incidentally, that article is a classic case of what would be called WP:SYNTHESIS here.)

Another change I was glad to make was to include a good quote from James Varney, a Times-Picayune reporter:
 * [the arrests] ignited a furious debate in New Orleans and elsewhere about whether sharp ethical boundaries can be drawn around decisions on patient comfort made in a crisis.

I'm no expert in assigning Categories to articles, and I'd be grateful if some knowledgeable could check/correct the categories I used. And its very likely I made mistakes I haven't noticed yet, so feel free to improve my edits. Cheers, CWC 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've fleshed out the article with some information from the ProPublica/New York Times article, and restored some information deleted, such as the patients' names and ages and the initial reports on the grand jury. I think that's pretty relevant. I also included some quotes from some of the experts consulted in light of the quote from Varney and from Pou herself.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrongful death suits
It should be mentioned that she and her colleagues are still facing numerous wrongful death suits for ruinous sums. It will likely be easier to prove the accusations given the lower burden of proof in a civil trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.238.133 (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should mention the lawsuits. (The ProPublica items says there are three of them.) I added a short, vague sentence at the end of the article. That sentence is really just a placeholder until someone can add more detail. Has there been any press coverage of the 3 lawsuits? Cheers, CWC 05:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Continued / Attack Page
This page clearly attacks one person: Dr. Anna Pou. The title of the page is "Anna Pou case." The "Anna Pou case" does not exist. The title of the page is misleading. A grand jury unanimously decided to not indict the individuals involved... More than one person was involved... Not just Anna Pou... Again, the title "Anna Pou case" is suggesting the case was singular... Furthermore, it never became a case since the grand jury unanimously decided to not indict... This page was created to promote a book, an article and political agendas after the worse natural disaster in the history of the United States. U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman noted that the motivation behind the article and book was "ghoulish, driven, in part, to sell a sensational topic like the use of euthanasia in disaster." See William Armington, M.D. vs. Sherri Fink, et al, Civil Action 09-6785, Eastern District of Louisiana, Doc. 33, p. 12. The title "Anna Pou case" had nothing to do with the article. This page/article was written to attack one person: Dr. Anna Pou. Most of the information cited is not accurate. Affidavits were submitted by individuals quoted explaining the information written was fabricated. Individuals also submitted affidavits saying they were exploited. Schwartzenberg (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This page is supported by multiple reliable published sources. It may be that other sources support contradictory information, and if som thast should be added and those soruces should be cited. Note that court depositions, as primary sources, are strongly disfavored and generally cannot be used in Wikipedia articles -- they are much more disfavored than most primary sources are. Given the multiple reports in reliable media sources on this topic, i don't see this as an attack page, nor a hoax. I have therefore removed all of the speedy deletion tags, and most of the maintenance tags that you had added to the article, leaving only the POV tag. Can you cite reliable secondary sources that challenge the account currently in the article? DES (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your suggestions. What about G10? "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." There was never an "Anna Pou case." This matter was taken to federal court, William Armington, M.D. vs. Sherri Fink, et al, Civil Action 09-6785, Eastern District of Louisiana, Doc. 33, p. 12. An out of court settlement was reached when appealed to the United States 5th Circuit. The page/article was written to attack one person: Dr. Anna Pou. Most of the information cited is not accurate. Affidavits were submitted by individuals quoted in the articles explaining the information written was fabricated. Individuals also submitted affidavits saying they were exploited. "This page is supported by multiple reliable published sources. It may be that other sources support contradictory information, and if som thast should be added and those soruces should be cited. Note that court depositions, as primary sources, are strongly disfavored and generally cannot be used in Wikipedia articles -- they are much more disfavored than most primary sources are. Given the multiple reports in reliable media sources on this topic, i don't see this as an attack page, nor a hoax." I referenced the court case to show the evidence supporting the statements were show to be fabricated. Nevertheless, there was never an "Anna Pou case." In one instance, the author of a book written falsified her credentials -- she claimed to be a physician. There were scores of situations that happen after Hurricane Katrina, such as a the one titled "Anna Pou case." All of which are very poorly sourced and/or fabricated. I can site secondary sources that challenge the account. The article is also in the categorized in the Biography articles of living people, Start-Class biography articles and WikiProject Biography articles. The article is not a biography. Please correct me if I am wrong. The Louisiana State Legislature apologized and passed an appropriation to pay all of Dr. Anna Pou's legal expenses. Any suggestions you have are appreciated. Schwartzenberg (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , "Fabricated" is a very strong charge. Is there any reliable secondary source -- not court documents or affidavits -- that supports this? I do not see this as a valid G10 speedy deletion, this page serves more purposes than to attack or disparage one individual. Indeed, given the wide reporting on the incident at the time, even if there are sufficient sources to establish that the statements and accusations were fabricated, I suspect the matter would still be notable. It might be that the page name should be altered so that it does not include Pou's name. DES (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In future please do not duplicate posts from article talk pages at my talk page, a mere pointer to the discussion, or a ping, is sufficient if you fear I might not notice it. DES (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the first article I have recommended to be deleted. I did research before I made the the recommendation.
 * "I must say that the laundry list of speedy deletion reasons you placed on the article, including A1 (no context) does not increase my confidence in your opinion. You are not a new editor -- how could you possibly think this article had not enough context to make it clear what it was about or to enable a reader to find further information on the subject?"
 * I used A1 (no context) since the title of the article "Anna Pou case" does not support the context of the article.
 * There was never an "Anna Pou case" ... I based it off of the definition, "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed ... the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning."
 * G10 Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose
 * These "attack pages" may include libel ...
 * Libel -- "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." In the article titled "Anna Pou case," some of the content cited is false, such as the King statement. Therefore, it can be considered "libel".
 * G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion
 * Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.
 * Dr. Anna Pou and the two nurses were arrested on July 17, 2006. The page was created on July 21, 2006‎. I looked at the dates and the way the article was written and concluded it could be construed as "promotional" for the prosecutors. It was later discovered that prosecutors used blogs and other Websites to sway public opinion. The Websites used were redacted from the documents. The same situation happen in other cases, bother federal and state, such as the Danziger Bridge Case and the case against the former Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin. This is one example.  In the article titled "Anna Pou case," it says:
 * King publicly charged that one or more health care workers had killed patients, based on conversations with other health care workers. King told CNN that when he believed that a doctor was about to kill patients, he boarded a boat and left the hospital.


 * No where in the referenced article does King "publically charge" that one or more health care workers killed patients.
 * I understand the policy in regard to court documents being used as a source:
 * "An article about a person: ... Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." Usually not acceptable primary sources, since the person listed on the document could be mistaken for another individual.  Since the word usually is used and there is without a doubt the individuals referenced in the court documents are the "subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name," I did not see a conflict.
 * "I suspect the matter would still be notable. It might be that the page name should be altered so that it does not include Pou's name."
 * I respect your decision. This is the first article I marked to be deleted. I should have stated my reasons in detail. As I stated above, this is how I construed the policies. Nevertheless, the article titled "Anna Pou case" saying King "publically charged" that one or more health care works killed patients is serious. King does not "publically charge" anyone with murder. This is one example information that is false in the article. What would you suggest? I appreciate any assistance you offer. Thanks, Schwartzenberg (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

, I think you have significantly misunderstood some of the speedy deletion criteria Please do list here any citable sources you are aware of, outside of court documents, that cast doubt on or refute any of the statements currently in the article, so that we can improve it promptly. DES (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD does not refer to a mismatch between the title and content of an article. Taht can be solved by editing the content, or by a WP:MOVE to change the title, or both. A1 refers to the case where there is so little information that there is no way to find sources to expand or improve the article. Classic cases are "Spot is a wonderful dog, he loves to run and jump" and "The Barber is a masterwork of representative painting." With so many dogs named "spot" and so many paintings called "The Barber" and without the name of an owner or artist, there is no way to know what dog or picture is meant, and so the "article" lacks context. That clearly is not the case here.
 * It is, apparently, accurate that the statements quoted or refereed to in the article were made durign the aftermath and the various investigations. That is a fact, even if the people making those statements later recanted or changed their statements, or other evidence seems to indicate that they lied. Wikipedia should not in such a case come to a judgement on the facts, but recount what reliable sources have stated.
 * There are more problems with court documents and affidavits than the issue of identity. WP:BLP says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."
 * Promotion. It may be that the prosecutors and other officials attempted to promote themselves by bringing cases. But This page does not promote them, it reports on what they did, including the fact that the Grand Jury refused to indict, which hardly enhances their reputation. (It has been famously said that "A competent prosecutor should be able to get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wants to.")
 * Thank you for helping me understand. I am going to work on the article and verify all of the citations. I just ordered the book that is cited twenty-four times to check the citations. In my opinion, the name of the page "Anna Pou case" is misleading and the name of the page needs to be changed. The name of the hospital was Memorial Medical Center. One major issue that immediately stands out in the article: "King publicly charged that one or more health care workers had killed patients, based on conversations with other health care workers" ... Nothing in the article cited supports this. I really appreciate your assistance. Schwartzenberg (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Schwartzenberg may be attempting to falsify an important episode in American history. There should be no name change on this page because there was indeed an Anna Pou case: State of Louisiana vs. Anna M. Pou: http://www.nola.com/katrina/pdf/072006_nolacharges.pdf. There was no criminal case against the hospital and therefore changing the name as has just been done would make it inaccurate. Also, reading the Judge Feldman reference, it refers to a case that predates the book's publication by many years, so Schwartzenberg's comments about this also appear inaccurate. The court documents show that the judge dismissed the case by Armington under the State's anti-SLAPP statute, finding no basis in Armington's claims against the author and the New York Times and ProPublica and awarding them attorney's fees. The Armington case also appears to have nothing to do with Anna Pou. It may be notable that Schwartzenberg made simultaneous changes to the page of the author of the book that appear to be a personal attack against the author. This is concerning.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories supporting attack
Support showing the article was clearly an attack directly toward an individual. The article titled "Anna Pou case" was put in three categories: Biography articles of living people, Start-Class biography articles, WikiProject Biography articles  Schwartzenberg (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is a personal attack. The article is based on numerous references and has been here many years. It concerns a public figure who was arrested for second degree murder and not indicted, and whose case inspired articles, a book, and a television segment. The doctor has an active career speaking about her arrest and this case. It would be a shame to allow this editor to rewrite history.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , please use the talk page appropriately. Please stop removing documented references that are cited from reliable sources.  No one is disputing the individuals were arrested for second degree murder and not indicted.  Please stick to the facts.  Please cite the "articles, a book, and a television segment."  Please cite where the information in regard to "the doctor having an active career speaking about her arrest and this case can be found."  No one is attempting to "rewrite history."  Nevertheless, we are working to make certain the facts are correct and documented.  There was information on this page was that factually incorrect.  The title of the page suggested the case was singular when more than more person was involved.  Everyone involved needs to be documented.  Reliable sources with documentation can not be erased.  The sources were properly cited and up to date.

It is quite true that this article started as an attack on Dr Pou. When I came across it in 2009, it was a disgrace to the whole Wikipedia project, so I tried to clean it up. I also renamed it from Anna Pou to Anna Pou case, which I now regard as a poor choice of name on my part. I should have fixed the categories when I did that, but I just forget. Sorry! (For details, see my comments above under Disgrace corrected and August 2009.)

So: the article was an out-and-out attack, clean contrary to just about every policy Wikipedia has. My edits changed that, but I don't think the article has ever been properly neutral. On the whole, I think we probably should delete this article, for reasons I'll explain elsewhere on this page. Cheers, CWC 13:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Schwartzenberg and Chris Chittleborough|CWC were right. The article did have multiple issues and was in sore need of some TLC. I have now gone through and supplied missing references, fixed errors, and attempted to make the article neutral. Hope this helps. The Anna Pou case was an important episode in recent American history and it deserves to be told fairly and accurately.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Individuals involved
All of the individuals involved need to be properly referenced. The previous title suggested this article was singular. Schwartzenberg (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. The article will remain at Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina. One person opposed mentioning Anna Pou in the title on grounds of BLP, while others asserted that this is how the case is generally known. This closure doesn't rule out a further proposal for a more appropriate name that would still be recognizable, but including 'Anna Pou' in the title in any form appears to be a tough sell. One editor stated "There was never a murder case brought by the State of Louisiana against Anna Pou." It is argued that she has been exonerated by the legal proceedings. One editor gave sources to show that the term 'Memorial case' is widely used. This might be considered as an option for a future move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina → Anna Pou case – Requesting reversion to the longtime name of this article, which was recently changed without editorial discussion. The new name Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina is inaccurate. This article is clearly about the well-referenced and famous murder case brought by the State of Louisiana against Dr. Anna M. Pou. The Anna Pou case is important American history. It was written about extensively in the mass media and in respected medical and legal journals, as the many references to this article show. For example, according to CBS News, "The case continues to resonate and raise questions about ethics, and compassion in what has been described as battlefield conditions. As correspondent Morley Safer reported last September, at the center of it was Dr. Anna Pou." This article has existed for many years and sees heavy traffic under the previous name Anna Pou case. There is no reason for moving this article to a different name. Suggest undoing this move and restoring the accurate name Anna Pou case. Others agree? Reference links supporting this request: http://www.nola.com/katrina/pdf/072006_nolacharges.pdf; http://www.cbsnews.com/news/was-it-murder/; http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0707917AccuracyObsessed (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support reverting the recent move. Regardless of of the merits of "Anna Pou case" as an article title, this was an undiscussed move to a less useful location. I do not necessarily oppose refining the previous title through discussion. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose reverting the recent move. There was never a murder case brought by the State of Louisiana against Anna Pou. Accusations were made by former Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti. A grand jury has to return a "true bill" for a charge to become a case. On July 24, 2007, a grand jury declared that the allegations were "not a true bill."  A judge expunged Anna Pou's record because a "case" was never filed. "A judge agreed Thursday to erase the criminal record of a doctor arrested but never charged in the alleged killing of patients at a sweltering, flooded New Orleans hospital after Hurricane Katrina." "The attorney general's investigation is closed, there is no continuing investigation, no one is targeted," Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen said. "This case is closed.'" This was an investigation into what happen at Memorial Medical Center during and after Hurricane Katrina.  "The reference link supporting this request: http://www.nola.com/katrina/pdf/072006_nolacharges.pdf" is not a signed document and the authenticity of the document can not be verified. The previous document referenced is only filed after a grand jury returns a true bill and the grand jury did not return a true bill.  Everything that happen at Memorial Medical Center needs to be discussed. Therefore, the title of the article can not single out one person.
 * This was discussed. Please read the discussion. "I suspect the matter would still be notable. It might be that the page name should be altered so that it does not include Pou's name." Schwartzenberg (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That quote from my comments in the section "Multiple Issues Continued / Attack Page" above are accurtate, but they hardly constitute a full page move discussion, and in particular did not suggest any specific name for the page. Note also the qualifying "might". I wish that had initiated a consensus discussion before doing the move, but better now than never. Let us discuss the merits of one name over another, and not the procedure through which it was moved. DES (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support reverting the recent move, per WP:TITLE. First of all, the current title is vague to the point of uselessness.  It's not a plausible search term in any way.  Secondly, sources refer to the "Anna Pou case" regularly.  Obviously we can't call the article "Anna Pou" because of WP:BLP1E, and referring to it as a case is the usual solution for this, as in "the killing of X" and so on.  Here are a few sources out of many, many examples, which show that the old title is the one in common use:
 * -- An entire chapter called "The Case of Dr. Pou."
 * -- Discussion of the case in a chapter called "The 2000s: Post-Millennium Case Studies." You can't do a case study if there isn't a case to study, can you?
 * -- Again, there's Anna Pou and she's got a case.
 * The former title may not be the only sensible one, but (a) the current title is useless and misleading and (b) the old title is informative and compliant with the MOS&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The former title may not be the only sensible one, but (a) the current title is useless and misleading and (b) the old title is informative and compliant with the MOS&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is why I suggested the name change. The previous page was created by one person with a conflict of interest. I am open to changing the name but it needs to be accurate and reflect the subject. It was never the "Anna Pou case." The "Anna Pou case" suggest it is singular. I live in New Orleans, I know what happen. I want to get this right. There was a lot more to this than one person.  As a person who survived Hurricane Katrina and returned to New Orleans, I know what happen. Furthermore, no one pays me to do anything. A lot of my contributions have focused on New Orleans because I live in New Orleans. I have taken pictures and donated  the pictures to the public domain to avoid copyright infringement issues. It was my contribution. The referenced documents below support my reasons:




 * I have approximately one hundred articles I read through at the New Orleans Public library in regard to the Memorial case. I queried "Anna Pou case" and only found three newspaper articles using "Anna Pou case." I was going to start working on the article and then the title of the article became an issue. I will submit the other articles in the next few days.  Schwartzenberg (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support reverting the recent move
 * There are even more references calling it the "Anna Pou case" or, for short, "Pou case". A few samples below.
 * In addition to the fact that more references appear to refer to the case in this way, Dr. Pou's second degree murder case was the only one brought before the Orleans Parish grand jury (the district attorney gave the two nurses immunity and there were no other arrests) . Louisiana law was later changed by the efforts of Dr. Pou, who refers to her case in arguing for legal reforms to protect disaster medical workers.
 * AccuracyObsessed As nominator (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AccuracyObsessed As nominator (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AccuracyObsessed As nominator (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AccuracyObsessed As nominator (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AccuracyObsessed As nominator (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AccuracyObsessed As nominator (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AccuracyObsessed As nominator (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You can not vote twice. You have voted two times. You have to support your claim the case was called the "Anna Pou case." Cite more articles. Schwartzenberg (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , you're thinking of some other process. The guidelines for requesting a controversial move, WP:RM/CM, state explicitly that After the nomination has been made, nominators may nevertheless add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, but should add "as nominator".  At most,  should have made it clear that they were the nominator, but there's nothing wrong with taking an explicit side here.  Now that your remark has made it abundantly clear to whoever closes this that AccuracyObsessed is the nominator, there's probably not even any reason now to do that.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining, . Just added "as nominator" for transparency.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just offer one more reason that Dr. Pou is worthy of having her case as a subject and title--she is the only one who became a public figure after her arrest, choosing to speak at influential venues around the nation and to lobby successfully on behalf of state disaster reform legislation to immunize medical workers as a result of her arrest and her case. AccuracyObsessed (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose reverting back to previous name. Change to Memorial Case. 98.163.229.83 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Laurie Diamond
 * Comment: For your consideration, in further support of reverting to the longtime name "Anna Pou Case," and in light of the article titling policy, please note that page views dropped dramatically in the seven days following the undiscussed move to "Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina", even as editors were viewing the article in consideration of the controversial move. See: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Memorial_Medical_Center_and_Hurricane_Katrina vs http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Anna_Pou_Case. This is further evidence that the new name is not relevant to the content and is ambiguous, unrecognizable to readers, and inconsistent with common usage, whereas the original name was concise, precise, and consistent with other articles.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC) as nominator.
 * I'm not completely sure, but I'd guess that that's because Anna Pou Case is now a redirect page, and probably the page view counter counts views that come to a page through a redirect as views of the target rather than the actual redirect page. Maybe someone who understands this better can clarify.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * supportreverting back to previous name which is most pertinent to the s subject, Anna Pou pageMinerva1927 (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose reverting back to "Anna Pou case", which violates at least the spirit of WP:BLP. It was I who chose that name back in 2009. I was in a hurry to fix a disgraceful, defamatory and dishonest article, but I wish I'd taken longer to choose a better name. (Hmm. Need to mention Katrina; probably better to say "Hurricane Katrina". "Hurricane Katrina hospital deaths"?) It is important to remember that Dr Pou has been exonerated about as thoroughly and officially as she can be. Wikipedia should not have anything to do with the continuing efforts of a few people to destroy her reputation. CWC 10:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversial Move
Moved here from my talk page just now.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please help me understand the reasoning behind reverting the name change back to the "Anna Pou case"? This was a large investigation that had many aspects and "characters." Why single out one person and name the page after a person? No one had worked on the page since 2009. The page focused on Anna Pou's involvement. The document she is citing is only filed after a grand jury returns a "true bill." This document should have never been drafted until after a "true bill" was returned. The document is not even signed. Furthermore, grand jury proceeding are confidential. If confidential documents are cited and information is cited from users that have knowledge in regarding a matter that was sealed by the court and/or confidential, the end result will be similar to the nola dot com blog postings. There were many "characters" but the article focused on Anna Pou. The user who made the request has only edited and participated in the article about herself and the she is requesting to be reverted. If she wants the page reverted back and deletes edits she feels are not in her favor, it is not worth spending time doing the research to work on the article. Thanks. I appreciate any guidance you are able to offer. I would like to understand the reasoning. Schwartzenberg (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We decide on whether the subject of an article is notable using the criteria described in WP:N. You can read that to see the kinds of arguments that are relevant in a discussion of whether there should be an article on a given topic. Once it's decided that there should be an article, we decide on its title using the criteria described in WP:TITLE. You can read that to understand the kinds of arguments that are relevant in this discussion. You're right that anything from a grand jury is not relevant here, but you should read the relevant policy and guidelines and try to make arguments that address the issues that are singled out there as dispositive. The rest of it is a distraction and will, ideally, be ignored by the closer of this discussion. That should be true for irrelevant arguments on both sides of the discussion. I hope this helps.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also it's really not helping your case to accuse editors of having a conflict of interest without some kind of evidence. If you have any you can present it to impartial editors at WP:COIN, but if you don't, it would be better if you'd stop making the accusation.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does help. I appreciate your assistance. Schwartzenberg (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Whither this article?
There is a major problem with this article. We rely heavily on the Pro-Publica report, but do not mention the strong attacks Dr Pou and others have made on the credibility of the report and its author, Sheri Fink, at http://www.drannapou.com/ (the whole website, not just that page). (It is also possible that http://www.memorialhospitaltruth.com/ is a citeable primary source.) For NPOV, we should mention those attacks. But doing so will tend to turn the article into a he-said/she-said mess, which
 * 1) is a problem, because readers of the article will not know who to believe
 * 2) is sorta The Right Thing, because readers of the press reports and books and websites and so on will not know who to believe, either.

Another approach is to trim the article down to uncontested claims. It would then be a lot shorter, perhaps short enough that it should be merged into Ochsner Baptist Medical Center. A first-draft outline: (Actually, AFAICT, Louisiana regularly pays the legal bills of exonerated state employees, so #6 is somewhat redundant, but is simpler than explaining the context.)
 * 1) People died.
 * 2) Foti tried to prosecute Dr Pou
 * 3) but couldn't get a grand jury to indict (!).
 * 4) The coroner accepted Dr Karch's advice, and did not categorize any oHere are some unarguable facts:f the deaths as homicides.
 * 5) The state government expunged the charges (a declaration of innocence)
 * 6) and paid her legal bills.

As I write, our article is too close to an attempt to re-prosecute Dr Pou. (A close reading of the Pro-Publica article will show that it was written as an attack on Dr Pou, then toned down during editing to be less assertive. It is easy to construct an attack on Dr Pou by picking out bits of the PP article which were not toned down. Such an attack has no place on Wikipedia, and ought to result in instant banning.)

So I think we should have a discussion about what kind of article we want here. I'm sure there are options other than the ones I've spelled out above. If necessary, we could hold a formal RFC. (I don't have much time for Wikipedia at present, so won't be able to participate heavily in this discussion.)

What do other editors think? Cheers, CWC 13:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think dropping 2K of text on the talk page suggesting that everything needs to be fixed and a discussion should be had but you don't have time to participate in it is ludicrous. Articles get written when editors discuss changes in the text one at a time in detail.  If you're not planning to do any of the work or even talk about it further, why should anyone care about your grand theories of the structure of the article?  Also, your feelings about http://www.memorialhospitaltruth.com/ make your whole theory suspect anyway.  If you don't want to edit the article, don't edit the article, but don't expect anyone to pay attention to your opinions about the article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am likewise troubled by the suggestion and attempts over these past two weeks that we make the history of a disturbing episode simply disappear. We can have deep empathy for Dr. Pou because she was put in a terrible position during Hurricane Katrina. At the same time we must strive for clarity, honesty and fairness in the portrayal of these consequential events. We have an ethical duty to portray them accurately, not to whitewash them. It would reflect everything that is wrong with the echo chamber effect of extreme or interest-conflicted views on the internet to equate, in an encyclopedia, the integrity of the two sources discussed above. One is an article and subsequently a book written with a neutral and sympathetic point-of-view by an author with no connections to anyone involved in the events--in other words, no reason for bias. It was published in respected publications, based on years of research, and its accuracy has never been challenged in any substantive way. There has not been a single correction or retraction. The book, at nearly 600 pages, was extensively referenced and end-noted. Both have received objective accolades, often with comments about the fairness and sympathy to Dr. Pou. Again, fairness and empathy do not mean a lack of clarity or honesty about her actions. The website, by contrast, while it contains attacks on the character of the author, certainly contains no evidence that would cast doubt on the accuracy of her article or book, let alone any of the details in this Wikipedia article. Anyone attempting to make major changes to this article by reading an attack website without having read the 600-page book would be doing a disservice to history. My $0.02. AccuracyObsessed (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is making an attempt to change history. This has nothing to do with empathy for Dr. Pou. There are people who say the author of the book and article has a bias. It is important to identify any biases that any authors may have toward the subject matter. The author takes a certain perspective in regards to the information. There are people saying they never said what the author wrote. "We can have deep empathy for Dr. Pou because she was put in a terrible position during Hurricane Katrina" What position was Dr. Pou put in? "fairness and sympathy to Dr. Pou" this is not about Dr. Pou. A lot of the sources in the book are hearsay. Nevertheless, I support working to make certain the article is accurate and fair, which means discussing everything that happen and everyone involved on the talk page. Schwartzenberg (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120825230018/http://www.abc26.com/news/local/wgno-news-pou070109-story,0,4892289.story to http://www.abc26.com/news/local/wgno-news-pou070109-story,0,4892289.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927225952/http://www.wdsu.com/news/13744299/detail.html to http://www.wdsu.com/news/13744299/detail.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Cost of forensic pathologists
The "Outcome" section contains some rather detailed costings of various forensic pathologists hired by the Louisiana Attorney General. It's not clear what the point is of stating how much each individual was paid, especially with the highlighting of some specific expenses. It reads like a undue criticism of either the AG or the pathologists, and more than a little tabloid-ish. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

- (Sorry for the late response) I think the Outcome section is necessary in the article, although I agree that some of the expenses listed and stating how much each individual was paid is unnecessary. If you want you can go ahead and rewrite the section yourself. 67.233.63.152 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * nobody ever followed up about this but since i agree, ive edited this out.
 * Hiring consulting MEs does not itself appear notable, and moreover, mentioning their pay does not either. kept the part about a dissenting opinion who was seemingly shut out, as that is relevant. this section seems to exist solely to put on airs of corruption and malfeasance about the mere existence of an investigation, and based on the tone of this talk page, it seems attempts to make coverage of this topic fair have overcorrected into whitewashing these events. 2601:18E:C180:9161:58F4:B823:FA52:BFA3 (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)