Talk:New Orleans/Archive 2

Population
Why is New Orleans now stated as being the second largest city in Louisiana? Despite the evacuations, the city's census population has not changed. The evacuations are temporary. Aside from that, there is no way for anyone to know how many people are actually in the city. Any revised population count is wild speculation at best. --L. Pistachio 03:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC) --Moreau36 1557; 2 September 2005 (EDT)
 * Totally agree. To label New Orleans as a "ghost town" surely does not change the census numbers. Don't trust the numbers that come from any other source(s).

New Orleans is no longer the largest city in Louisiana. We might not like the fact, but a fact it is. Media reports ever since the diaster clearly state that Baton Rouge is now the largest city in Lousiana, and it will remain so for years to come; if not forever. 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I evacuated to Baton Rouge, my wife is a native, and I've lived ten years of my life there. I like Baton Rouge but it very definitely will not be the largest city in Louisiana forever.  Despite decades of serious urban problems, Baton Rouge still very much wants to maintain its character of being a rural town.  That's much of the attraction for many of its residents.  Mostly, Baton Rouge doesn't want to be the biggest city in the state.  In fact, they didn't even want us there after a couple of weeks.  New Orleans is going to become a much better place to live in a couple of years: better schools, cleaner and safer streets, and reorganized and accountable local government are all well on the way to being part of the permanent character of this old town.  The challenge is to hold tightly to the good stuff of the past while improving what was lousy.  Mardi Gras this year has been more subdued and family-oriented than it's been in many years but the parade crowds are impressive and I don't hear anyone complaining.  Former residents, new residents and tourists (future residents) continue to arrive daily.  Repopulation obviously will take time but it will definitely happen eventually.  As far as what media reports "clearly state," well... Economy1 18:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Economy1. Any objective analysis would yeild the conclusion that New Orleans has historically been the most populated city in the state and will certainly become so again. The issue isn't whether that will happen, but all the issues that arise from that happening! Also, I have seen reports that Jefferson Parish is now the most populated in the state. Whether you regard JP as its own "city" or just part of the metro area of NO, it is NO LONGER ACCURATE to say that Baton Rouge is the largest city in the state....it IS NOT. I leave the references for this to be found by someone else, but trust me, the greater New Orleans area now has more residence than the greater Baton Rouge area. As far as a single parish-by-parish comparison, I have seen reports that Jefferson is now the most populated, but they were just estimates.Wbbigtymer 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Time Magazine estimate
The addition of Time Magazine's recent estimate of the number of people currently residing in New Orleans has been added (in the context of several changes which are, at best, premature, such as calling New Orleans the second largest city in Louisiana.) You can see above that I have repeatedly argued that changing the population numbers is unwarranted and would require speculation or original research. This is a separate issue, though.

It should be obvious that the census does not account for the current situation in New Orleans. To whatever extent the census population, or the number of New Orleanians, may ultimately be effected by Katrina it is impossible to say. There should be information here, to the extent that sources can be found, about the number of people currently and actively occupying the city as residents. That's an important reality and not to be ignored just because the 2010 census hasn't rolled around. To say that "TIME has estimated that there are 60,000 people currently residing in the city," with proper citation, should be a valid statement in Wikipedia. Their estimate is neither our original research nor is it unverifiable. If there are better, more informed estimates than TIME's, then use those. Dystopos 21:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is of interest--200,000 residents http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL030706tppop.1fa55e4.html

Largest city in Louisiana
I changed the wording to "historically the largest city in Louisiana", which I think summerizes the long term and current situation. We shouldn't get too bogged down in details in the introductary description. The section on Hurricane Katrina can go into more detail. As largest city in Louisiana we're talking about the situation for some almost 3 centuries verses the situation for some almost 3 months, and the situation in New Orleans is changing rapidly every week. If/how long Baton Rouge will maintain its first time in history status as Louisiana's largest population center remains to be seen, and IMO its too early to proclaim the latest info on a fluid situation to be the new status-quo. -- Infrogmation 21:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Taking into account the above quoted, "status as Louisiana's largest population center"....  this is the kind of confusion that we need to avoid folks. Yes it is/was the largest city, but Baton Rouge is NOT the largest population center by ANY measurable means, considering that even the post-Katrina M.S.A. of Greater New Orleans continues to be larger.

Reconstruction link
If no one objects, I'll replace the current link at the top with
 * For information on the ongoing reconstruction of the city, see Reconstruction of New Orleans. The reason it was put there was because it documented a current event, it no longer does. New Orleans is still in a state of flux,o the same rationale makdske put a link to the reconstruction article there.

I vote that nothing goes up there anymore TrafficBenBoy 07:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nickname The Magnolia
User:Joececchini added the nickname The Magnolia. I reverted. The nickname needs to be properly sourced before being allowed back in the artilce. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  09:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Google suggests it was nonsense.... Bill 13:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. I was dubious about the nicknames attributed to some cities, but didn't know whether this ine had any validity. In any case, it was unsourced. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  14:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of "The Magnolia" in all my life living here but "The Big Easy" is a fairly modern coinage and "Crescent City" has been in use for generations. The bridge across the Missisippi River is called the "Crescent City Connection".   And Katrina has pretty much whittled it back down to that early crescent shape. If we really need to be limited to a single nickname, I never heard about a "Big Easy" before the horrid movie by that name.  However, I need coffee before I Wiki further. Wiki tags. Ugh.  --Economy1 12:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. "The Big Easy" slightly predated the film, I think it was proposed in the 1970s or right at the start of the '80s as a counterpart to "The Big Apple" for New York City which was being heavily marketed at the time. (I recall "the Big Tomato" was also suggested.) It's not much used by locals. -- Infrogmation 12:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a new nickname which I suspect some will question. "The Dirty Dirty" is one that I think unlike many others, IS primarily used by locals and probably very little by others. To my knowledge it is a derivative of the phrase "dirty south," and is probably very closely linked to brass bands like rebirth and the city's underground hip-hop crowd. In this case, a Google search will promptly yield affirmative results that I think confirm what I've said.Wbbigtymer 23:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I lived in New Orleans for eight years and I never heard the name "The Dirty Dirty." Tulane97 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because you roll with the tulane crowd! Of course I'm joking here, but my point is that this is not a mainstream nickname that any outsiders of inner-city new orleans culture would be familiar with. Honestly, I lived in New Orleans for 20 years (I am 20 years old) and I've only been hearing this nickname recently. I think it's pretty well established, though, and I invite you to use google and any other resources available to you to verify it for yourself. It is less famous than the city's other nicknames, but it is becoming more widely used and I'd actually be surprised if more of the preppy Tulane crowd hasn't already started using it themselves, considering the way this kind of slang usually evolves.Wbbigtymer 04:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's caught on. And if it's only used by one segment of the population, then I don't think it should be included, just like we wouldn't include any nicknames that are solely used by Tulane students. Tulane97 19:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I see a smattering of uses on google that apparentlly support it, but I think it needs some kind of source (or at least an explanation of how new it is and where it comes form) otherwise tons of people will read the article and go "wtf I never heard that!", (just like we did) and you will have to constantly guard it... keith 10:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed "The Dirty Dirty", as it's certainly not common nor widely used, and we don't need a list of every nickname any every used by some small group of people, certainly not in the infobox. (We don't even have such well doccumented terms as "Queen City of the South", "America's Most Interesting City", there, much less "The Big Tomato", etc etc) -- Infrogmation 02:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely not going to get into an edit war, but I wouldn't be surprised if, down the road, someone else decided this nickname had gained an elite status worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Let me just put it this way: the phrases "Big Easy" and "Bling Bling" started out almost exactly like this... in this city, mind you, and look at them now... just trying to keep the article current, guys Wbbigtymer 22:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A great thing about the wikipedia is how you can find more obscure and regional info that a standard encyclopedia wouldn't have. Perhaps you can work it into the text somewhere deeper in the article, like a sentence about other less widespread nicknames that includes the others mentioned, or in the section about the part of the city where it's used. keith 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * actually that's a really good idea, though I'm not sure if I could pin down a certain section (i.e. neighborhood or ward.) Believe me if I could, it would be there. Perhaps it would be best to leave this task to somone else, but otherwise I may go ahead and do my best on adding it into the text of the main New Orleans article. Wbbigtymer 13:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Infrogmation edit, 7 Jan
Estimates of "current" population are still speculative and the situation fluid. Citing a specific estimate by a specific source in the text of the article is fine, but IMO it's inappropriate to put some estimate in the table as if the number is well determined and stable. I also removed the wildly wrong statement "Hurricane Betsy wiped out the 9th ward"; see articles in question for a better description. -- Infrogmation 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rv nonsense
Jazz-tlantis is a fabrication: see Google results Bill 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

21st Century (Hurricane Katrina) section
The section called 21st Century (Hurricane Katrina) seems like an awkward name to me. I think a better name for the section is Hurricane disaster September 2005. Gilliamjf 12:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

current population
the current population estimate should be added to the population infobox &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalmia (talk &bull; contribs) 21:43, January 18, 2006 (UTC).
 * Some anonymous editor changed the population statistics for a couple of cities without sourcing; the changes need to be verified somehow, I think. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  03:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of populations figures
User:66.64.156.146 deleted several years of population figures from the table in Demographics, with an edit summary of, "these numbers are fakes. Someone please add in the real census numbers. For example, 559,000 in 1980." This does not seem to me to be the best way to handle this. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't seem to provide historical information (just 1990), so I marked it with fact. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  01:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That works for me. :) --  Dalbury ( Talk )  04:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

is one of the oldest and most historic?
The phrase [New Orleans] is one of the oldest and most historic cities in the United States. has been re-added to the article. I'm not going to engage in a edit war, but the sentence is very awkward and smacks of POV. To claim that New Orleans is one of the oldest cities in the U.S., you need to include at least forty cities in the list of oldest cities. The claim that 'if the statement is in the Boston article it can be in the New Orleans article' ignores the fact that Boston was founded 88 years before New Orleans. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  18:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree about the awkwardness. A brief factual sentence about the founding of the city would necessarily communicate the age to the reader. How do you feel about adding a List of Cities in the United States by age or something like that? I can't immediately find a similar resource online. --Dystopos 19:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps, even better, a way to generate metadata from the Infobox to create a sortable database of cities. Just a thought. --Dystopos 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The list exists (despite my vote in AfD), List of North American cities by year of foundation. As for your second idea, I'm not familiar with programming in Wikipedia. A category could generate the list, though. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. As most of the AfD contributors noted, it is an unwieldy and messy concept to generate a list from. I'll work on ways to rein it in. (I think a good start would be to limit the list to cities that are extant major cities, by some reasonable population standard). --Dystopos 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Levee Breach Date Incorrect
We now know that the levees were breached early in the morning of August 29, shortly after landfall, but the article continues to say that they were not breached until August 30. In fact, the correct information can be found in this article [] &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.234.149 (talk &bull; contribs) 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in!  (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --Golbez 05:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Name
Is there a source for the statement that New Orleans was named after the Duke of Orléans and not the city of Orléans? Why name it *New* Orleans if it's after a person?--Sus scrofa 21:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The all-time correct census figures
I have no idea why they were changed, but I decided to add a link to each and every figure to make sure that whoever wants to argue needs to argue with the census bureau. --One Salient Oversight 11:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

True color
Can someone explain what a "true-color" satellite photo is? I assume this means the colors are accurate to something, but how that's important or what it's opposed to is a mystery. Is there an article that can be linked to? Ken 05:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Most satellite imagery is processed as a false-color image with the visible spectrum re-mapped to make the difference in wavelengths between, for example, different crops, more evident to the viewer or to make visible things which would normally be invisible (temperature, cloud-penetrating radar signatures, etc). --Dystopos 16:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Television references
I moved the (quite incomplete) list of tv show references to the New Orleans in fiction article, as it seems more relevent there. -- Infrogmation 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Building Heights
I'm not certain but I believe Energy Center should be spelled Entergy Center.
 * No, it is the Energy Center. Entergy is the power company in New Orleans, but its building is not among the tallest.  -- Tulane97 20:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

References need fixing
This huge article has no properly formatted references; it just has lots of embedded external links. I would recommend to any editors here that the format? &mdash; Muffuletta 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Almonaster
Why does a search of "Almonaster" lead to this page? He is significant enough to have his own page on wikipedia, and directing a search of Almonaster to the New Orleans page just creates an obstacle for someone to create a wikipedia page for him.Wbbigtymer 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't any longer. Why didn't you do it yourself? Bill 01:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Couple reasons: I would have to research how, I wasn't sure why it was done in the first place, and I wanted an actual answer to the question I asked from someone who knew.Wbbigtymer 03:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC) BTW, thanks for starting the article


 * Ah; "be bold" is the Wikidictum on that one. Does my little stub (or the links provided) contain the info you wuz looking for? If not, what was it? Bill 11:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The stub is an excellent start and you were more successful than me at scouring the net for info on this historical figure (it helps that you apparently read Spanish!) If I were doing a more thorough scholarly search on him, I know there are many valuable books that would be relevant, but for a quicker and more accessible source, the wiki stub is definitely a great start. Thanks again.Wbbigtymer 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite news
I provided a citation for one item and changed another external link to  form, but there are dozens more needing attention. I urge everyone to familiarize themselves with the various citation templates. They're not all that hard to use, and an article like this is kind of useless if it doesn't cite references. Here's one of the newer templates, specifically for sources like newspapers:

So, the following...

... yields a little footnote number like this in the text, plus the following at the bottom of the page:



More about the news template here, and all the other templates here. If you've ever added something to this article without citing it, you could go in there right now and cite it! &mdash; Muffuletta 15:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

geographical information table is wrong
Someone converted the table to snazzy new format which apparently uses metric system. As a result the numbers are now in the wrong units. We need to make it give both like it used to. I certainly don't think it should be converted to all-metric. keith 07:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing Articles?
I noticed that the linked articles appear to have been deleted for LSUHSC and NOMA. Anybody got any idea why or where they went to? I'm still a wikinewbie and don't understand some of the decisions made sometimes. Infrogmation? Any help as to why those articles for those important and notable local institutions might have been nulled? --Economy1 18:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked New Orleans Museum of Art, and I don't see any record that we ever had an article on it yet. Do you remember previous articles? I thought it was just one of the subjects we havn't gotten around to writing articles on. When you see important subjects without articles, feel free to make a start on the topic. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A Troubled City for Sure
"Long before this suburb west of New Orleans was shaken by Hurricane Katrina, it was notorious for its fierce political infighting, for name-calling and mudslinging, for charges and countercharges of cronyism and corruption." In Louisiana, Graft Inquiries Are Increasing

"But the city’s decline over the past three decades has left it impoverished and lacking the resources to build its economy from within. New Orleans can’t take care of itself even when it is not 80% under water; what is it going to do now, as waters continue to cripple it, and thousands of looters systematically destroy what Katrina left unscathed?" Will New Orleans Recover?

"A year ago Total Community Action, an anti-poverty activist group in New Orleans, issued a devastating whitepaper that warned that poverty in the city had reached epidemic proportions. This was not another anti-establishment grouse by a fringe group of activists. The figures on the city’s poverty were appalling. The poverty rate was nearly triple that of the national average. More than 40 percent of public school kids were illiterate, and half would drop out before graduation. Many of them would wind up in Angola state prison, an antique facility that, in a throwback to an Old South plantation, forces inmates to do manual farm labor at peon wages." The Real Reasons New Orleans Is So Poor

"Sure, New Orleans regularly leads the league in all the wrong categories. It's been the fattest city, the most corrupt city, the most murderous city, and so forth." Notes from Under Water

"New Orleans also has some unique leadership problems. The city is one of the most corrupt in the nation. Residents consider themselves survivors not only of the climate and weather, but also their own elected officials. The police force often provides ugly headlines about corrupt cops, and other city officials aren’t much better. It is a wild and lawless city even in the best of times. The murder rate in the city is one of the highest in the nation, ten times the national average, and higher than many cities in Iraq." 

"Rather than handing over the reconstruction to the same corrupt elite that failed the city so spectacularly, the effort could be led by groups like Douglass Community Coalition" Let the People Rebuild New Orleans

"New Orleans, top to bottom, was the most corrupt city I ever lived in." [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/720343/posts (New Orleans) City Hall corruption sweep begins]

"The corruption in city hall was horrible, and it was the same thing at the levee board," Peggy Wilson told Cybercast News Service. "The corruption in Louisiana and in the City of New Orleans goes down to the bone." New Orleans Corrupt 'Down to the Bone,' Former Pol Charges

"What left so many at the mercy of Katrina was poverty. In the greater New Orleans area, 65,000 minority residents lived in poverty before Katrina, compared with 85,000 whites. " The Hurricane Hit That Hit the Poor

"The FBI says Louisiana last year ranked third in the nation in public corruption cases" Why is Louisiana so poor?

"New Orleans is still the lowest paid department" 2006 POLICEPAY Index Just Released

"New Orleans is always at or near the top in the national ranking for murder rate. The rate of murders per thousand residents there has been ten times the national average in recent years. This high murder rate cannot be explained by poverty, and demographics. New Orleans’ murder rate is also ten times as high as New York City’s, a city once thought ungovernable, which also has a large majority of non-white residents."

"But the city, in which corruption and crime has always been rampant, was unusually ill equipped to deal with the kind of catastrophe." [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1478664/posts New Orleans myths: The numbers tell a different story]

Is New Orleans changing colors?

"The North Shore region is NOT Baton Rouge and NOT New Orleans" 

Understand the Recruitment and Retention Needs and Challenges of the New Orleans Police Department

"New Orleans is among the bottom fourth of 200 U.S. metro areas in a ranking of the country's best performing cities." New Orleans is No. 167 in 'Best Cities' list

"By almost every statistical measure, New Orleans is a bad place to be poor. Half the city's households make less than $28,000 a year, and 28% of the population lives in poverty.

In the late 1990s, the state's school systems ranked dead last in the nation in the number of computers per student (1 per 88), and Louisiana has the nation's second-highest percentage of adults who never finished high school. By the state's own measure, 47% of the public schools in New Orleans rank as "academically unacceptable."

And Louisiana is the only one of the 50 states where the state legislature doesn't allocate money to pay for the legal defense of indigent defendants. The Associated Press reported this year that it's not unusual for poor people charged with crimes to stay in jail for nine months before getting a lawyer appointed.

These government failures are not merely a matter of incompetence. Louisiana and New Orleans have a long, well-known reputation for corruption: as former congressman Billy Tauzin once put it, "half of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment."

That's putting it mildly. Adjusted for population size, the state ranks third in the number of elected officials convicted of crimes (Mississippi is No. 1). Recent scandals include the conviction of 14 state judges and an FBI raid on the business and personal files of a Louisiana congressman." Why we couldn’t save the people of New Orleans


 * And North Dakota is number 2 and Alaska is number 4. In 2002.  Florida and New York round out the Top-10. (NYDAILYNEWS must not have felt it was important to mention being ranked tenth.) And the D.C. corruption rate is TEN TIMES higher than Mississippi, but it was left out of the ranking because that corruption is really a federal problem rather than belonging to the District itself.  Sure.  That's reassuring.  Is there a point to this quote other than to say that Louisiana is bad?  God knows it's better off than North Dakota, that well-known hot-bed of corrupt government.  I'd take Louisiana over Alaska despite the awful weather in New Orleans.  Survey: Mississippi leads in Corruption.

"On the other hand, Houston is a nagging example of the prosperous city New Orleans could have become, but probably never will." New Orleans: I Have Seen the Future, and It's Houston

"New Orleans has one of the highest murder rates in the country. By mid-August of this year, 192 murders had been committed in New Orleans, 'nearly 10 times the national average,"

"The Sept. 4 New York Daily News reported "Louisiana and New Orleans have a long, well-known reputation for corruption... Adjusted for population size, the state ranks third in the number of elected officials convicted of crimes"

New Orleans City Council President: 'Maybe God's Going To Cleanse Us'

"The city has a 40% illiteracy rate, and over 50% of black ninth graders will not graduate in four years. Louisiana spends on average $4,724 per child's education and ranks 48th in the country for lowest teacher salaries. The equivalent of more than two classrooms of young people drop out of Louisiana schools every day and about 50,000 students are absent from school on any given day.  Far too many young black men from New Orleans end up enslaved in Angola Prison, a former slave plantation where  inmates still do manual farm labor, and over 90% of inmates eventually die in the prison.  It is a city where industry has left, and most remaining jobs are are low-paying, transient, insecure jobs in the service economy."

"Louisiana politics is famously corrupt, but with the tragedies of this week our political leaders have defined a new level of incompetence"


 * "Images of New Orleans' hurricane-ravaged population were transformed into black, out-of-control, criminals. As if taking a stereo from a store that will clearly be insured against loss is a greater crime than the governmental neglect and incompetence that did billions of dollars of damage and destroyed a city.  This media focus is a tactic, just as the eighties focus on "welfare queens" and "super-predators" obscured the simultaneous and much larger crimes of the Savings and Loan scams and mass layoffs, the hyper-exploited people of New Orleans are being used as a scapegoat to cover up much larger crimes.


 * City, state and national politicians are the real criminals here."

Notes From Inside New Orleans

"New Orleans is, and for a long time has been, the opposite of a city that works. It perennially ranks near the bottom on practically every basic measure of civic health." IN THE RUINS

"but those efforts could be undermined by forces that have long beset the city -- a tradition of corruption and dysfunction and a weak economy that clouded New Orleans's future years before the rains began in August." [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1519259/posts Burdens of Past Limit New Orleans's Future]

"New Orleans has one of the highest poverty rates of any of America’s big cities. According to a report by Total Community Action, a New Orleans public advocacy group, nearly one out of three New Orleans residents live below the poverty level, the majority of who are black. A spokesperson for the United Negro College Fund noted that the city’s poor live in some of the most dilapidated, and deteriorated housing in the nation." Looting New Orleans and America's Poverty Crisis

"The second job is less obvious. New Orleans’s immutable civic shame, before and after Katrina, is not racism, poverty, or inequality, but murder—a culture of murder so vicious and so pervasive that it terrorizes and numbs the whole city.

In 2003, New Orleans’s murder rate was nearly eight times the national average—and since then, murder has increased. In 2002 and 2003, New Orleans had the highest per capita city homicide rate in the United States, with 59 people killed per year per 100,000 citizens—compared to New York City’s seven. New Orleans is a New York with nearly 5,000 murders a year—an unlivable place. The city’s economy has sputtered over the past generation partly because local and state officials have failed to do the most elementary job of government: to secure the personal safety of citizens." Who's killing New Orleans by Nicole Gelinas, City Journal

"Gotham, economically and fiscally, is New Orleans' polar opposite. New Orleans has long had a weak economy and thus a weak tax base, while New York draws resources from some of the richest taxpayers in the world." N.Y and New Orleans

"While many indicators regarding New Orleans' economy are disturbing at best, Reynolds finds plenty of positive impact resulting from the gentrification trend." Best of New Orleans 09 30 03


 * This is an interesting collection of opinions, statistics and facts, but I'm not sure of the overall purpose of the entry. Some of the quotes are taken out of context so that you can't really understand what they mean.  (E.g. "The second job is less obvious." - What was the first?)  There is a great variety of quality of sources here, not of equal weight by any means.  (E.g.  NYT vs. the freerepublic.com blog vs. cnsnews.com - Peggy Wilson, quoted extensively in the cnsnews piece, is currently running for mayor of N.O.)  There is also a clear trend among these quotes towards an extended comparision between NYC and NOLA, which isn't really fair on multiple levels.  (A comparison with Houston would be a lot more approprate in my opinion.)  Finally, quotes from the Jackson Free Press and qumsiyeh.org expressly compare Louisiana's Angola prison to institutionalized slavery - a debatable proposition at best and not very relevant to a discussion of crime problems in the city.  (The local criminal justice system was not nearly effective enough to spark much concern over the disposition of the comparatively few adjudicated fellons!)  The twin horrors of New Orleans crime and corruption are things that far too many locals had come to simply accept and it's probably a good thing to keep those ghosts before us as we set about rebuilding.  However, we can now legitimately call that "the past" and work to prevent it from becoming "the future", which is exactly what we are doing day by day.  However, this anonymous Talk posting smacks of a finger-wagger blaming us for our current plight.  As the editorial page of the Times-Picayune repeats on an almost daily basis now, we are in this fix because the federal levees failed.  Had they properly functioned according to ACOE specifications, we wouldn't be having this national conversation.  The only reason this part of the story hasn't gained traction is that it's created an awfully expensive mess for the nation's taxpayers, which has created a terribly difficult situation for federal politicians.  Regretable as that may be, I'm reminded of a quote my father was fond of: There are none so blind as those who will not see.  Economy1 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Army Corps of Engineers has finally admitted its culpability: Corps chief admits to 'design failure' --Economy1 11:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Jackson Square image
I removed the recently inserted Image:New Orleans - Jackson Square.JPG from the 19th century section. As the photo shows a group of people dressed in clearly late 20th/early 21st century fashion, it doesn't seem to fit for me. If one wants a modern image of Jackson Square without people in front of the statue, one can at present be seen on the French Quarter article (and other images can be found on the Commons). However someone with access to a working scanner can probably upload an actual 19th century view of the Square from many New Orleans history books if they think the subject warrents it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

DAB page
There are several other works that have the same title; there are many songs, and no doubt some other art, such as short films and documenteries, stories, poems, paintings and photographs. My feeling is there is nothing with the same name as the city that wasn't directly named after the city. I'm not an expert on wikipedia protocol, but it isn't technically ambiguous to refer to something with just a single origin just because other things have been named after it. I definitely think it cheapens the article to have the current note on top about this obscure film that hardly anyone would deliberately search for on wikipedia. Wbbigtymer 07:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why I initially deleted it. Mikkalai has finally found something else to go in the dab page, though, so now no problems... --Golbez 15:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Crypts
"Because of the city's high water table most of the cemeteries in the city use above ground crypts as opposed to underground burial, and houses do not have basements."

Not necessarily true. Above-groud crypts in New Orleans were originally introduced by the Spanish as a it was a common custom throughout Iberia and later Hispanic America. To say that they exisit BECAUSE of the City's high water table is false, perhaps that is why they have continued to exist perhaps, but remember, before the 20th Century most New Orleanians who could afford a crypt did not live in flood-prone areas (like today) and could afford to bury their dead on higher ground (I.e. out of Parish, in a private crypt etc.) In many ways, New Orleans' crypts are just another "it's how we do it down here" aspect of this great city.

Therefore, I'm taking this out.

sports teams
What was the effect of Hurricane Katrina on sports teams?
 * Doesn't the article say? The Hornets moved to Oklahoma City for the season, the Saints kind of moved to Baton Rouge... --Golbez 15:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1965 population
What's the source of the note about the population in 1965? I do find it believable that a hurricane could wipe out a lotta poor folk and reduce it that drastically between 1965 and 1970... but I have trouble imagining the increase between the 1960 census count and the unsourced 1965 count. Passdoubt | Talk 20:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The 800+K figure is totally out of whack. Must be a typo.  In fact, this Cato Institute page gives a 1965 population estimate of 610,000, which is lower than the 1960 census figure.  I googled the 800K figure and found this lone Web site, the Ignatian Solidarity Network.  Never heard of it.  Wikipedia editors need to start verifying & citing their contributions.  Otherwise it's all a bunch of junk. -- Muffuletta 21:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead
Please shorten the lead to comply with WP:LEAD
 * Good idea. Went there, did that.  I severely truncated the lead.  Before anyone has a cow, look for your favorite text elsewhere in the article.  I moved most of the material into relevant sections, and basically didn't throw out anything unless it was repeated elsewhere. -- Muffuletta 13:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Way too way too long
This article's basically a mess. (Didn't mean to be rude. I meant that the article has become unnecessarily lengthy and somewhat disjointed, with a lot of superfluous or unreferenced material.) I think we should start by shortening it. Two suggestions: First, if you've used two sentences to say something, try saying it with one sentence. Second, a lot of the material should be moved to separate, existing articles. For instance, I lopped off most of the text about the Port of New Orleans and dumped it into Port of New Orleans. -- Muffuletta 13:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It bothers me that the New Orleans article was on the list of good articles, but then was removed. Basically the verdict was that it was (is) too long and unwieldy. I advocate cutting the fat by diverting a lot of the detail to three new articles:


 * People and culture of New Orleans, to include demographics, population trends, ethnicity, language, arts


 * Physical environment of Greater New Orleans, to include geography, climate, weather, hydrology, subsidence&mdash;Greater New Orleans because most of that stuff doesn't stop at the parish line


 * Infrastructure of New Orleans, to include stuff listed at Infrastructure: Urban planning usage

Something like this would help facilitate a lean, mean, and notable main article. What do you think? -- Muffuletta 01:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Passdoubt | Talk 21:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Conjecture
"New Orleans has a high violent crime rate, largely owing to its high poverty rate, unemployment and illegal drug trade." -- looks like POV to me. Also no citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.140.101 (talk • contribs)
 * Poof!, it's gone. -- Muffuletta 22:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos on right side?
What's with all the photos lined up on the right side of the page? Seems like we could spread these out in the article a bit. Dr. Cash 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

City Nicknames
The intro part explains the origins for "The City that Care Forgot" and "The Big Easy." I know that both are wrong, but I can only say that I know why for the second item: "The Big Easy" is a reference to Prohibition, as places to get liquor were "Speakeasies" and because of the large number of places in N.O. to get liquor made it the Big (Speak) Easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.159.54 (talk • contribs)
 * Never heard that one, not even from the buggy drivers. For good measure I added three citations, all of which rightly caution that it's impossible to attribute the origins of such nicknames with absolute certainty. -- Muffuletta 07:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The prohibition reference, I'm afraid there's no truth to it whatsoever, You won't find a credible source on the web to back that statement up.  The reference to music artists finding work isn't concrete; there were Jazz clubs since the turn of the 20th century named "The Big Easy" but that's not how the nickname continued its use.  Ask 10 New Orleanians why the city is referred to as "The Big Easy", I'd be amazed if even one said it had to do with the "ease of musicians finding work".  Its a more carefree city than most, more relaxed, and that's why the city with America's largest free party still has the nickname.  Go over to the NOLA.com forums and ask people what the nickname means.

adding a link as well:

http://www.neworleans.com/cgi-bin/oracle/hs.cgi?search=CAT&Category=FACTS

subsidence
I deleted the following sentence:

"Pumping of groundwater, however, resulted in subsidence, which in turn caused those low-lying areas to sink below sea level."

First of all, there is no source whatsoever. Secondly, engineers and geologists have anything but an affirmative agreement that New Orleans is sinking because of subsidence. Actually, the growing consensus by experts like LSU's Roy Dokka and others is that due to S.E. Louisiana's location along a fault line, tectonic sliding is responsible for most of the sinking, and not man-made activities. Wbbigtymer 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your analysis. The sources I've read, two of which I cite in a newly-inserted sentence in the article, suggest that 50 to 73 percent of subsidence at certain locations in New Orleans over certain time periods in the late 20th century was caused by tectonic movement.  The literature also suggests that at least 50 percent of recent subsidence across the Gulf Coast (not just in New Orleans) has been human-induced.  I'm not a scientist, but common sense tells me that if our communal ancestors hadn't raised levees and drained the swamps, we would not have ended up with people living eight feet (2.5 m) below sea level.
 * In any event, deletion of the above sentence left us with a still-painfully long article that mentioned everything from Disneyland to Arena Football... but not subsidence, so I put in a new sentence which I hope is better than the original. I wonder if further coverage of subsidence, including Dokka's and other expert opinions mentioned by you, could be included in the above-proposed Physical environment of Greater New Orleans article. -- Muffuletta 08:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dead links
I have replaced a dead link in the "History" section, as suggested by Citing sources. I think the dead links are better than no reference at all. I couldn't find the two dead link references on archive.org after a quick search. Perhaps the original references are available elsewhere?--GregRM 03:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Couldn't find the originals elsewhere, but found a replacement for one of them. &mdash; Muffuletta 17:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Graceful intro
I don't want to be accused of instigating one of those edit wars, so I'll just discuss here the possibility of going in another, simpler direction with the opening paragraph(s). My last effort to simplify the opening was criticized as "neutered beyond useability" (yikes!, kind of how I felt after breaking up with my last girlfriend... but that's another story), and was flat out reverted with no attempt at compromise or discussion. So now the reader must wade through a couple lines of IPA symbols and foreign pronunciation and then delve into details such as "just south of Lake Pontchartrain" and "coextensive with Orleans Parish" (which latter most readers will neither understand nor care about). And that's just the first paragraph!

Here's the deal. Look at articles like Boston and Berlin&mdash;both major places with a hell of a lot to say about them, but they don't try to cram all kinds of detail into the first paragraph. Go ahead: look at them, and come back here. Am I the only one who thinks this kind of clean, graceful intro is desirable? It's not that the detail is not needed; it's just that it can come later in the article.

I've started a proposed simplification here with a brief intro followed immediately by a "Name" section which can include the French pronunciation link, the IPA symbols, and even the nicknames. It's a bit short, and could be improved, so feel free to edit the proposal.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? &mdash; Muffuletta 18:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Crime Data
I changed the murder rate in 2002 from saying "24.4" to "67.26". Using the raw data from the fbi site provided by another contributor I re-calculated the rate. For a population of 486,157 and 327 murders, the number of murders per 100,000 people is 67.26. I cannot explain why there is an error on the FBI site, but it is important that we recognize this error and report the correct information (if it is to be included at all). This is surely verifiable elsewhere, but I just wanted to correct this issue immediately.

On another note, I wonder if anyone else happened to stumble accross the nola.com graphic from a week or two ago that put New Orleans as being on pace for having the highest murder rate (again) in 2006. It claimed we were at something like 51.7 murders per 100,000 residents. I do not know if we want to include that in the main article or not, and I have the link for the graphic saved, but not on this computer. Wbbigtymer 07:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no error on the FBI website because 24.4 is the murder rate for the New Orleans metropolitan area, not the City of New Orleans. There are 486,157 people in the city itself. The sentence explicitly notes that a metropolitan statistical area includes suburbs. Passdoubt | Talk 16:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct. There is already a sentence above that states the murder rate for the city itself in 2002, which they have as 53.3, even though my calculations give 53.069. Wbbigtymer 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the crime data. There is a clear graphic from the morning of July 31, 2006 here[], but unfortunately there was another murder before the day's end, so the total for July is 22. []. So the calculations go like this: 80 murders in 7 months, which puts the pace at 137.14 murders for the year, or 58.26/100,000 people assuming a population of about 235,000, which is what I keep reading and seeing as of mid-to-late July 2006. I hope this was an acceptable edit. Feel free to voice any objections.Wbbigtymer 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

most unique city
I reverted RNS's thoughtless deletion of the sentence "It is often called the most unique city in America" in the New Orleans article. First of all, this sentence is in no way POV. There is opinion and there is fact, and this is fact. It is, in fact, often referred to as the nation's most unique city. Secondly, simply deleting the source because I provided a reference you don't like is simply childesh and destructive. I see nothing against using search engines as sources when making a case for something being prevelant or common in the policy. I can only imagine the real source of your objection to this statement, and I would encourage you to keep your baises and/or resentment to yourself.Wbbigtymer 03:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you're misrepresenting this a bit. If this search:  had turned up "New Orleans" as the first result, your case would be a lot stronger.  By putting "NEw Orleans" alongside "unique city" in the search string, that means if anyone ever referred  to New Orleans as a unique city, it would show up in those results.  And it's also worth noting that when looking at those results, it seems that the only person who formally refers to it as Most Unique City is its mayor.  Overall, the term seems more of a marketing/tourism promotion kind of slogan than some nomenclature that just developed naturally over time.  So... from that perspective, it seems that it may violate NPOV? --Grinning Fool 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well another recent quote, which I included in the article, was by spike lee. He specifically mentioned it was a difficult thing for him to admit being a New Yorker himself, but that New Orleans deserves the title.Wbbigtymer
 * The use of the paradoxical superlative "most unique" would not reflect well on the mastery of grammar by Wikipedia's editors. Uniqueness is an absolute state. --Dystopos 01:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC) --addendum: However, I will assent that the appellation, though logically incorrect, is commonly applied to the Crescent City. --Dystopos 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you here. Perhaps in order to address this, and also to further remove from the statement anything that could possibly be take as POV, we should place quotation marks around a portion of the phrase, such as "most unique" or "most unique city".Wbbigtymer 03:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I added new references for this sentence in the article. There are so many (probably too many), in part due to the nature of the word "often", and more directly due to recent challenges to the statement itself.Wbbigtymer 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

religion in new orleans
I am wondering why there is not a reference to religion in New Orleans, especially Catholicism since it is not only the dominant religion in New Orleans, but also a vital part of it's culture (historically, architecturally, educationally, etc.) Also, the comination of Catholicism with native african beliefs lead to the presence of Voodoo in New Orleans. I'm planning on adding a short section under Culture after researching this subject a little more. I would love some help on this article Staroftheshow86 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

article name
Aside from just blindly obeying the guidelines for naming US cities, why is this particular article not located at New Orleans? Are there any substantive reasons why the state name has to be added to the title when the city is just called "New Orleans"? New Orleans already redirects here and there are no other places named New Orleans. The editors of New York City decided not to follow the US city naming guidelines so why shouldn't New Orleans be allowed to do the same? --Polaron | Talk 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move (better late than never). --  tariq abjotu  05:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
New Orleans, Louisiana → New Orleans – Common and actual name for well-known city with no chance of confusion with other places.

Reasons to move

 * 1) New Orleans, like Chicago and New York City, is well known within the US and internationally.
 * 2) No other place is called "New Orleans" and there is no chance of confusing it with any other location.
 * 3) New Orleans already redirects here, therefore it is already established that the unqualified name referring to the city is the primary usage.
 * 4) Other uses of the name are all minor and clearly derived from the name of the city.
 * 5) World famous U.S. cities should be treated no differently from world famous cities outside of the U.S. (Paris, Seoul, Toronto, etc.).
 * 6) The current name gives the impression that the state name is part of the city name when it is not.

For reference, 37 out of the 41 Wikipedias in other languages that have an article on the city have the title at "New Orleans" and not at "New Orleans, Louisiana". That should be a good indicator of being well-known outside the US. --Polaron | Talk 21:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~

Support

 * Support as nominator. --Polaron | Talk 05:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. No brainer.  The name of the city is New Orleans, not New Orleans, Louisiana.  Information other than the name (like the state it happens to be located in, or its population) belongs in the text of the article, not in the title.  --Serge 21:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So would you propose we move Concord, New Hampshire to Concord (New Hampshire)? --Golbez 21:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering how many Concords there are, Concord (capital of New Hampshire) would probably be most appropriate, but Concord (New Hampshire) is fine.  --Serge 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Riight. No thanks. --Golbez 23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Guidelines should be followed unless there's a good reason not to. IMHO, in this particular case, the WP:NAME policy trumps the guideline. --Usgnus 06:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stong Support I don't see any possibility for confusion. Also I am not even from the US and I have heard of this city many times. I also strongy disagree that it is not large enoguh to be an exception. --Edgelord 07:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support: Per nom. The current U.S. city name convention sucks.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. it's obvious--DaveOinSF 04:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support' per nom. I was surprised when I visited this article and found it under "New Orleans, Louisiana", and I wondered what other New Orleans was so important as to require disambiguation; when I checked the disambiguation page and found all other instances were derived from New Orleans, I was even more baffled.   This one is obvious for all the reasons stated above.  I was under the impression we should only disambiguate when necessary, and I certainly don't believe this instance is necessary at all. - Axver 02:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: I think the reasoning is perfectly well-justified. Particularly, the fact that searching for "New Orleans" automatically directs you to the article should be reason enough.  Frankly, there is no concrete reason why it shouldn't be moved. --Bobster687 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. john k 18:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per my comments on above-mentioned talk page. That the New Orleans link redirects there is more than sufficient justification for making that the location of the article.  It's simply a gratuitous redirect.  Jun-Dai 18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the move does happen would the existence of the well used (and then gratuitous) New Orleans, Louisiana redirect be justification for a move back to New Orleans, Louisiana? Similarly does the fact that Oprah redirects to the article on Oprah Winfrey justify that article being renamed? You could certainly contend that Oprah is more commonly used then Oprah Winfrey with little (if any) ambiguation? It's the name of her website oprah.com. Google gives Oprah alone 60,300,000  ghits, Oprah -winfrey has 37,800,000 ghits, to the mere 9,800,000 ghits that the full Oprah Winfrey has. Agne 18:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is gratuitous because in most cases (save that for US cities), we go for a shorter name where possible. The name of an individual is not really comparable to this.  The point is that there's no need to disambiguate New Orleans, because there's only one place called New Orleans.  If so, why shouldn't the one place called New Orleans be at New Orleans?  john k 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support I've long deemed it ridiculous to append "La." or "Louisiana" to the city's name for identification purposes.  It's not a question of whether the place is big enough.  It's a concept known well enough to merit breaking a Wikipedia convention. -- Muffuletta 10:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support'.I'm sorry if this is rebellious and not just blindly conforming to ill-advised "policy", but I'm going to go ahead and agree that logic and precedent should overcome accepted conventions. Wbbigtymer 08:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: Per nom., etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as per request and above reasons. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and per the guideline's stated exceptions (Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, et al) --Dystopos 04:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Strong Oppose. This request violates WP:POINT. Violates US city naming standard.  If you want this to change, then change the guideline so that requests can be judged on some basis other then a few editors who happen to follow the article involved or this article.  There are discussion going on about this problem.  We should not be doing renames prior to consensus.  This discussion belongs in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) and not here.  Vegaswikian 19:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever the outcome of the naming conventions debate, the currently used convention already allows for exceptions so it doesn't violate that. There are no other places called "New Orleans", plus it is well-known major city, and also the AP style manual agrees that the name can stand alone. Do you have an actual reason for opposing? --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it only listed one exception until someone changed it. If this is going to changed, the guideline needs to be reviewed and changed first. Vegaswikian 20:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Oh, no! Not this #*&$#*&$! again! Despite popular belief, New Orleans is not nearly large enough to fall into the same category as New York City or Chicago. Dr. Cash 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Not nearly large enough" according to what criteria? --Serge 21:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How large is large enough? It is major cultural center by any standard. It was a major settlement before the state of Louisiana was created. --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comparison is like saying "that 20 karet diamond is not nearly large enough to be in the same catagory as my big piece of gold. Wbbigtymer 06:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per ongoing conversation on the overall format. --Golbez 23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The current format allows for exceptions. Why do you think New Orleans should not be an exception? Is it more well-known with its state name? Is there chance for confusion with another city? --Polaron | Talk 23:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand by my vote, I oppose moving all U.S. cities to names without states, except New York. Perhaps if there were time for a discussion rather than a vote out of nowhere. --Golbez 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Why? Are you basing this just on size or notoriety or just redundancy? I think the first would be silly, the second isn't unique to New York, and the third...well...Oklahoma City, Oklahoma is rudundant too! Wbbigtymer 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Blank Verse 14:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? There is no chance for confusion with any other place. The naming guideline allows for exceptions so why do you think New Orleans does not warrant exemption? --Polaron | Talk 14:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for consistency. FairHair 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: keep convention. Krugs 01:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Bubba ditto 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mellow honey
 * Oppose: not a strong reason for changing existing practice. Thumbelina 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've got a good convention and there's no reason to make an exception for this city, or any of the half-dozen other cities where this change has been proposed. —wwoods 22:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What mhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Orleans%2C_Louisiana&action=edit&section=45akes New Orleans an unsuitable exception? The rest of the world refers to it as New Orleans. --Polaron | Talk 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should remember that the subject here is not whether or not there should be exceptions at all, but whether or not New Orleans should be one of those exceptions. These opinions regard New Orleans' inclusion as an exception, not the existence of any exceptions. --Bobster687 01:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons laid out in Seattle talk page. Creating more exceptions is just a band-aid solution and creates more disfunction and inconsistency instead of working on fixing the imperfection in the guideline. Agne 02:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose for reasons given in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). There appears to be a systematic attempt by User Polaron to illustrate WP:POINT in U.S. and Japanese city articles by forcing WP:NC(CN) in dropping state (and prefecture) names from all the cities in the world.  This is evident by looking at Polaron's recent edit histories.--Endroit 12:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above discussion; no reason for breaking with policy for this? Komdori 19:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I came here intending to support this (it seems obvious), but realized when reading the discussion above that there is a guideline that covers this. If you want to move this article, you have to get the guideline changed first. Debating it here is not sufficient.--Srleffler 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for consistency. Nolamgm 13:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose pending a clarification of policy. Individual moves of this sort should not be made until a policy is developed.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course there is ample room to disagree. Barring a clarification of the policy that prohibits this as an exception, this particular move should be made.Wbbigtymer 18:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the reasons at Boston's Exceptions should be exceptional.  If this page is moved then many others should be to.  Keep the page here unless the convention/policy changes.  The Bethling  00:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The reasons to move on this request include the fact that Chicago, New York City, Paris, Seoul, and Toronto all exist in articles named solely after their city. As those cities are all clearly World cities, their primacy makes them good exceptions to the City name, State name (or Country name) standard.  However, while New Orleans is a world-recognized city with many outstanding qualities, it is not a World City.  As such, I do not feel that it merits an exemption from the existing naming standard.  YMMV --Kralizec! (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
The current US city naming guideline allows for exceptions so moving this to New Orleans does not violate the guideline. The only substantive reason to oppose the move given so far is New Orleans is "not major enough". Why don't we talk about that then? To those who oppose moving, please explain why New Orleans can't be the name of the article about "New Orleans". --Polaron | Talk 23:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Typical U.S. naming system. Charlotte is twice the size of new Orleans, yet is still commonly referred to in the media as "Charlotte, North Carolina". This is not just about 'major', I could wager Charlotte is presently a more important city than New Orleans, it's about the way we do things. I disagree with moving Chicago as well. New York is a unique case. --Golbez 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is New Orleans referred to by the media as "New Orleans, Louisiana"? And I agree that being major or not is only secondary. It's more whether there is confusion about the topic if we leave out "Louisiana". --Polaron | Talk 00:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I might even go so far as to say that Schenectady, New York should simply be Schenectady. I'm from there and articles have been written about the New York version being the only "Schenectady" in the entire world.  Best they can tell, it is a Dutch-ified version of an Iroquois phrase.  That's almost good enough for me even though New Orleans has (had) more than 5 times the population.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Major" is not referring simply to the size of the city, but rather its national and worldwide notoriety and importance. It can easily be argued that New Orleans is more important than Charlotte, simply for the fact that it houses the largest port by tonnage in the western hemisphere, and a large percent of the US economy relies on exports and imports through New Orleans. --Bobster687 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that New Orleans' importance is as much cultural as economic. It is a famous, iconic city, even if it is not that big.  I'm not sure there's any good comparisons to be made within the United States, because New Orleans is uniquely famous for a city of its size. john k 19:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The naming guideline for US cities has two exceptions but does not explicitly state what can be exempted. For those who oppose the move, why do you think this is not a suitable exception. The simple name is unambiguous and, I would argue, rather well-known even without appending its state name. --Polaron | Talk 16:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only is it well-known without appending the state name, I think it's a fair bet that it's much more well known than the state itself. Jun-Dai 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wbbigtymer 08:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This move discussion has not been closed since it started in August?! A new discussion should be started if desired (I strongly oppose), but a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) seems to address the issue that will probably garner the most support for a change for this city. Tinlinkin 05:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Large City Strawpoll Construction
I am trying to work on a large City Strawpoll to end the feuding about larger cities in the United States. Please visit the page, User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox and leave comments on the talk page, but dont edit the actual page. After it has been modified to satisfy the community, I will go ahead and open it. But, please review it and comment, to avoid controversy over its structure. I hope to open it in a few days after discussion, so please be timely in making your comments. Thanks. --Ericsaindon2 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is really a great idea, and I think it'll finally make one, all-inclusive decision. Great idea; this is just what we need. --Bobster687 01:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Tone of this entry
Much of this article reads like a tourist brochure, a problem common to many articles on Wikipedia about cities or nations - perhaps due to the tendency of these articles to be written by people who live there. Is there a graceful way to correct this, without getting people's backs up?
 * I would gently point out that much of the article takes great care to include facts, opinions, and language that is...well...unfavorable, if anything. What do you specifically think is to favorable in this article? I think it's rather modest.Wbbigtymer 08:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

List of top homicide cities in this entry is wrong
Louisville should NOT be on the list of top five cities for homicide rates in the article about New Orleans.

Louisville is, in fact, on the top five list of LOWEST homicide rates in the country for cities its size.

I can't imagine how that error was made.

Washington, DC and Baltimore, and at one point in the 80s, Richmond, were all in the top five homicide cities, but are not listed here.

Louisville has never made that list, and has a very low crime rate. Someone did sloppy research.


 * Please sign your comments. In response, I agree that DC should be mentioned (if any cities should be mentioned at all). It is my understanding that DC and New Orleans are the two cities that have most often shared the infamous title of "murder capital of the nation". Wbbigtymer 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)