Jump to content

Talk:Ray Nagin

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.196.246.113 (talk) at 09:43, 12 February 2013 (→What's up?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of this page.

Latest LJS trolling?

The article has been repeatedly vandalised from a new IP address. The text inserted "Mayor Nagin doesn't care about Latino people!" is 'supported by a link to a page that does not mention Nagin. IP addresses associated with LJS have in the past peppered pages with racist graffiti so it is not unlikely. --Gorgonzilla 03:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It almost doesn't matter. We've got enough eyes to just keep reverting. I note that this person has violated 3RR at this point, albeit with multiple IPs ... but since he or she is obviously not on a static connection, a 24 hour block for 3RR probably won't do any good. Just keep reverting -- at this point I basically consider it vandalism. Apparently even Trollderella's attempt to help wasn't good enough. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the section as best I can, except I have yet to find any evidence that the comments were criticized. Can anybody come up with a source for the "hispanic groups criticized the comment as racist?" I can't so far. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that the reason that you can't find the source is that whatever event is refered to has been distorted out of all proportion. LJS seems to peddle POV nonsense even Limbaugh or O'Reily would not touch.
If it is LJS it would be relevant to the Rfc. I think that before long we are going to end up at a Rfa. I agree on the dynamic IP point, but LJS seems to have a limited pool available. I hope this does not metastacize into a wally on wheels situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgonzilla (talk • contribs)
Well, it wouldn't surprise me if some Hispanic groups criticized it. I just can't find anything that suggests they did to use as an actual source. If a source can't be found for the comment being criticized, then we should probably just remove it. Otherwise we are de facto saying it was bad. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Found one... US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce [1]. Fixed. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush's Criticism of State and Local Government

Bush's comments about the "tremendous problems that have strained state and local capabilities" shouldn't be presented as a criticism of C. Ray's mayoral administration during and after the storm or construed as "focusing on the failings of state and local authorities". EVERYTHING was overwhelmed by the magnitude of this storm. I'm not an apologist for either Nagin or Bush. There's plenty of blame for everyone to share. But this is both a mischaracterization of Bush's comments and a sideways POV slam against Nagin, likely in retaliation for his vitriolic criticism of the federal response (or lack thereof). Let's just include an actual published accusation against Nagin instead of this weak attack, if anyone has one that's relevant.

I don't really understand your objection. It's clear that the administration tried to shift the blame off on local governments. That'd be Nagin and his administration. How is that not relevant? · Katefan0(scribble) 23:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that certain members of this administration initally pointed the finger at local governments, including Nagin and his team, and perhaps rightly so in many cases. This quote from the president just doesn't serve for those potentially valid criticisms. "Strained capabilities" do not "failings" make. A quote that was actually a criticism rather than a mere POV spin of Bush's reporting of the obvious would be relevant. How about a Chertoff quote about the failures of local government, for instance? I know he was later quoted as saying he would NOT blame local governments but surely he initially did somewhere, especially if the president did. Economy1 23:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Maybe this would penetrate my thick skull better if you'd find another quote you think makes the point better? · Katefan0(scribble) 00:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my problem is that I can't find a quote that makes the point at all, except for Mike Brown's comments after resigning. Perhaps you can find one for us? The media showed us flooded buses, but I don't see a quote about flooded buses. The media reported on the lack of sufficient provisioning at the Dome, but I can't find a quote about local governments failing to provide enough food and water. The media did everything but interview the looters, but I can't locate a quote that says that NOPD response was inadequate. All of those things (and more) are properly directed as criticisms of the failings of local authorities. I just cannot locate a relevant quote. If this general comment by Bush was intended to be a veiled criticism, I just don't see it. He didn't say the local response was "woefully inadequate," as I believe it factually was; he just says this storm was more than they could handle. It was more than anyone could handle, including all levels of government. But surely someone somewhere made a statement on the record on behalf of the administration in the midst of the early finger pointing that prompted Sen. Mary Landrieu to threaten to punch the president. All I can find is Mike Brown, ex-FEMA chief, saying post-hoc that he told the city and state to order evacuations sooner. Economy1 12:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with this interpretation of Bush's comments but I'll accept this as at least properly sourced as the Washington Post interpretation of Bush's comments. The administration certainly wanted to avoid losing the blame game but I don't agree that they used the president to articulate that position. Economy1 17:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found a Mike Chertoff quote in the NYT in an article outlining the Carl Rove-authored strategy. That's what I was talking about. Just hard to find for some reason. Economy1 04:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political party

The article (and many sources) state that Nagin is a former Republican, yet I just heard him in an interview on the Tavis Smiley Show (NPR) saying that he is a "life-long Democrat" and has never been a registered republican. Can someone please verify? (the interview with Tavis Smiley originally aired on 13 January 2006, I believe) Drumsac 19:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added links to the interview. He definitely said it, and also used the "chocolate city" phrase in that interview too, three days before the Martin Luther King day speech that got him in hot water. Drumsac 13:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is correct; the link provided afterwards says that, and the Office of the Mayor has also confirmed this. I've changed it in the article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to further confirm what's already been said, this article includes a correction at the top noting that Nagin was never a Republican. It's interesting how many people (including reputable news organizations) picked this up and repeated it as fact without ever checking on it. It's also interesting that Nagin never thought to correct the record until now. I guess that speaks to the incompetence of both. - Maximusveritas 03:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently someone changed this back to saying Nagin was a Republican and it slipped by my watchlist last month. I've changed it back to the former version and left a hidden HTML comment directing people here and indicating that several sources have erroneously reported that Nagin was formerly a Republican. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still needs a citation for the claim. I think that what was previously claimed was that Nagin was registered as a Republican which I have not seen actually denied with specificity. In other words it is not incompatible for Nagin to have been a registered Republican and to have claimed to be a lifelong Democrat. Nagin is not a New Orleans version of Giulianni. It is not as if either side particularly wants to claim him as their own. But Nagin does have an interest in claiming to be a truer Deomocrat than pre-hurricane reports suggest. --Gorgonzilla 21:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, GAH. Someone switched it back. As noted above, though, we, Wikipedia, have actually received a request directly from the Office of the Mayor stating that Nagin was never a Republican and asking that we fix the error, so there's no longer any actual debate on the issue; he wasn't a Republican at any point, and that is that. It's quite likely that the news sources that have said otherwise were using us as a source. I'll fix it using both the Washington Post retraction and the interview as a source. --Aquillion 22:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nagin's office cannot be telling people what to change the text to. They are too close to the source. It's in their interest. Reports tell otherwise. Nagin was a Republican up until the election. Conservatives themselves have backed this up. Nagin was known as Ray Reagan around town.Stewiegfan 05:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you read your sources carefully? At least one cites Wikipedia as its source, and the others cite no-one at all. Like I noted above, many people have used Wikipedia as a source on Nagin and incorrectly repeated our error on his political background. (I, myself, was fooled by this the first time the issue came up.) Given that, blogs and the like won't cut it--you'll need a source more authoritative then the mayor himself to contradict him and change the article. It seems nonsensical to me to claim that the mayor's office would lie about his own political background when voter registrations are a matter of public record, but if you're really, really determined to fight them in this, all you have to do is obtain an image of one of those official documents indicating that Nagin was once a Republican. If it is really as common-knowledge as you claim, and not just a rumor that has been echoing around blogs and editorials, this should be easy. Until then, I'll remove this from the article in keeping with WP:BIO and the official statements from the office of the mayor; no number of cites to blogs and editorials will ever have enough credibility to go against someone's own description of their background on a matter of public record. --Aquillion 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

composition of chocolate milk

Ghetteaux, I think I see where you're coming from with the chocolate milk thing. But do you really think Nagin had looked up the recipe for chocolate milk before he made that second comment? It seems more likely to me that he was thinking of chocolate milk in the general sense of "mixture of white and black", and hadn't, in his head, taken the metaphor as far as you're taking it. --Allen 03:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics and chocolate ingredients

I find User:Ghetteaux's extended riff on possible demographic implications of substances used in chocolate foods and beverages to be amusing, but as it goes beyond anything Nagin actually said into speculation, I don't think it belongs in the article. Also, I don't think it's clear from Nagin's quotes that his "explanation" refers to hot chocolate or chocolate milk, so I disagree with wording that assumes this is known. -- Infrogmation 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; no need for this. Also, the section is entirely too long and a perfect example of Recentism; it dwarfs the entire rest of the article in terms of treatment length. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it was getting to an absurd length. It should definitely be shortened considerably (should be no more than 2 or 3 paragraphs - One paragraph describing what he said and another describing the fallout) - Maximusveritas 03:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if you all do not understand (or at least recognize) the relevance of what i wrote, then wikipedia is for 5th graders. shame on you for dumbing down america. and shame on you for thinking that a majority opinion makes something right. knowledge should be inclusive. --Ghetteaux 11:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is a summary of reliable, verifiable and pertinent information, it is not every shred of information on a topic ever written about or conceived. If you feel that strongly about it, perhaps the best thing for you to do is start a blog. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i'm glad that crushing one guy's honest contribution makes you all feel better. long live the internets! Leave Ray Nagin alone. He did a better job than any mayor would have done. What matters is that he actually cares about us. during the hurricane he was here. He had to curse people out to get somebody to help. Vote for him again.

you all need to chill

there is now a small gang of bullies (chiefly User:Maximusveritas) who follow me around on here and revert anything i contribute. I fail to see how this is helpful behaviour to the so called 'wikicommunity' that they are hiding behind. congratulations, you have succeeded in discouraging a human being from participating in this project. --Ghetteaux 11:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is following you around and no one is discouraging you from participating. We have tried to explain to you that just because something is factual doesn't mean you should insert it into only every single page that might be marginally related to the original fact. For example, info about Nagin's comment does not belong on the milk (disambiguation) page. In response to helpful suggestions, you have responded with comments like the one above, "if you all do not understand (or at least recognize) the relevance of what i wrote, then wikipedia is for 5th graders. shame on you for dumbing down america. and shame on you for thinking that a majority opinion makes something right. knowledge should be inclusive." I think this is a case of you becoming too involved with a certain topic (Nagin's comments). I would suggest moving on to other topics like you were doing before. Of course, you don't have to do that, but don't get upset when people remove or alter your contributions. - Maximusveritas 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

To introduce a (presumably) less controversional question... It would be helpful ot add a note on how Mayor Nagin's name is pronounced. Is it "Nay-ghin"? Flapdragon 16:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it rhymes with "Reagan", a name that was used as a slander by some Orleans African-American leaders during his first candidacy. He was dubbed "Ray Reagan" because he was alleged to be beholden to the white people of Uptown who endorsed and supported him. Funny how times change. Economy1 13:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate City

I didn't do much research on his explanation of his comment, but are we sure that he was alluding to the Chocolate City album? Nagin apparently has some level of education, and it could have been a poor usage of Cornel West's 'chocolate' metaphor. I could be wrong, or maybe nobody knows, I'd just hate to see a citation based on something, purely, because the names happen to match. 71.12.199.149 22:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The term "Chocolate City" was used before Parliament got a hold of it. In any case, I think the picture of the album cover has to go. While it may be funny, it's inappropriate for this page. By the way, I hope you don't mind that I reformatted your comment. - Maximusveritas 23:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

"Nay-ghin" is more proper as a pronunciation guide. "Nay-gin" can be pronounced as the drink gin, which is incorrect. Please revert this inaccurate pronunciation. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Election

Someone submitted an edit saying that Nagin lost tonight's election, when in fact he won. The official results can be found here: http://www.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcpr&rqsdta=05200636

Yes, either a vandal or someone thinking they could change the result by editing Wikipedia. The edit was quickly reverted. -- Infrogmation 04:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction?

I've heard the audio of Nagin's "chocolate city" speech quite a few times... and I believe one of these quotes is slightly wrong...

"Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses."

I believe he phrased it more like this...

"Surely he is not 'approval' of us being in Iraq..."

I must note that I am not currently listening to the audio, but check it out folks, you'll hear what I'm taking about.


I stole his business card

It was YOU!!!Adambiswanger1 22:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but why

The city of NO was not under mandatory evacuation until MONDAY, SEPT 5

It is wrongly listed as being under mandatory evacuation on Thursday, the 28th of August.

71.139.17.189 22:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)ZF71.139.17.189 22:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Nagin issued voluntary evacuation order Sat 27 Aug, and mandatory the morning of Sun the 28th. Additional orders were made later with the goal of getting remaining inhabitants out, but the city had been under a mandatory evacuation order since the day before the storm. -- Infrogmation 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NYC Slur

"But when Pitts points to flood-damaged cars in the street and a house washed partially into the street, the mayor shoots back. 'That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair.'" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/60minutes/main1933092.shtml

Merchandising

File:QuarterKatrinaShirts23ApNaginNOPD.jpg

As another editor has twice removed language noting there have been multiple designs of shirts satirizing Nagin as Wonka, here are a couple of references and images. Two different local ones mentioned in Jan Times-Picayune Froogle Willy Nagin Mayor Wonka.

Note that these are all different designs from the Worldnetdaily listing. For good measure, a different chocolate Nagin satire found on Ebay. I've seen at least a couple more designs on the same theme. (I could take some more photos if folks think it particularly important, but as I still have a few hundred Katrina devastation photos I want to upload next time I have access to something faster than dialup, I won't make it a priority unless multiple users so request.) -- Infrogmation 14:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms

This has somehow become a hot topic well over a year later, with some rants recently being posted. Good sourced NPOV coverage of this would probably be a useful addition. The below removed from the article is lacking any references. Some details do not seem in line with news reports I read at the time as well. -- Infrogmation 09:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple states move to restore and protect citizen's gun rights in the aftermath of Katrina

Several states have passed legislation forbidding the seizure of firearms from law-abiding citizens in time of disaster or emergency, largely due to the seizures ordered by Mayor Nagin in the aftermath of Katrina.

California Governor Schwarzenegger signs AB 1645 Federal and State Laws since Katrina Seizures NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina --71.105.36.125 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Post Katrina Controversy – firearm confiscation

Many people stayed in New Orleans to protect their families, homes, and businesses. Mayor Ray Nagin released inmates from prisons, setting free dangerous, violent criminals at a time when the police force was over-stretched. After Katrina wreaked havoc on the city, some sources claim that anarchy ensued. Rape, murder, and looting were allegedly commonplace in the city. Certain news outlets released reports of police being outnumbered and completely unable to stop the wave of crime.

Police and National Guard from other states were brought in to help. But, many of these government security forces were not used to fight crime, but ordered, by Mayor Ray Nagin, to confiscate legally owned firearms from private citizens. The government used its firearms registration database to obtain the addresses of people who legally purchased firearms and then sent police to forcibly take those legally owned firearms from the owners.

The law requires that items confiscated need to be recorded and a receipt listing the items confiscated be left with the persons how owns the item. In the case of a firearm, the make, model, and serial number needs to be recorded. The law enforcement agents who confiscated the arms provided no such receipts.

It took months and a federal court to get Mayor Ray Nagin to admit that the confiscation had occurred – he had been denying it up to that time. A federal court ordered Nagin to return the firearms to the owners. New Orleans is requiring back ground checks and proof of ownership. Their system to perform background checks is not up and running and no receipt (proof of ownership) were given to citizens when the firearms were confiscated. Most, if not all residents are still fighting to get their legally owned firearms back.

Controversy sections

Perhaps we could consolidate the controversy sections into one, instead of embedding each individual one under its respective subject? Its just that nearly every other page follows this format, and it would be nice to see this page conform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsendeSLO (talk • contribs) 18:07, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Nagin has been involved in too many controversies to coherently consolidate into one section. As it is, the article only mentions about half of them. If the controversies were somehow related to one event or even each other I would agree, but they aren't. (D.c.camero (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:New Orleans Fleur de Lis.gif

Image:New Orleans Fleur de Lis.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ike comments

I"m not the writer that others are.. This seems like it should be added to the controversy section.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5999702.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Diversity comments

Hi, I was looking over the page and I wanted to say - I doubt that Uptown New Orleans is of the most diverse racially. How is it diverse racially? Who are at least 90% of the inhabitants? Zoodly (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 90% what? 90% New Orleanian? Hm, I'm guessing if you're from New Orleans East and never go Uptown, you think it's more than 90% white, and if you're from Metairie and never go Uptown, you think its more than 90% black... (I wish this were just a joke-- I've encountered too many people with such impressions). Check out Greater New Orleans Community Data Center website for neighborhood demographics. Uptown narrowly defined "57.7% white, 36.0% Black or African American" with just a smattering of other; other Uptown neighborhoods Milan Irish Channel LGD etc etc; other than a couple of outliers like Audubon (very white- 86%) and Central City (very black- 87%), pretty much all of Uptown "blacks" and "whites" never outnumber eachother by more than 2 to one. Not too diverse in Asians and Hispanics (though I suspect next year's census will see a jump in the latter), but a visible minority. Perhaps one of the most notably diverse aspects that housing racially mixed by block is the rule rather than exception for much of Uptown. (There's also a good bit of diversity within the generalized "white" and "black" designations as well, but I think this is enough to get you started.) Cheers from an Uptown New Orleanian who can see Black, White, Hispanic, Vientamese, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish neighbors without even crossing the street, -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I looked at a map here [2] and I can see that Uptown is a pretty big area. Overall though, I would say it is quite segregated. When I drive around Tulane, which is the rich area of Uptown, I see at least 90% whites. So it's somewhat segregated still.

Those numbers displayed are from the 2000 census. That percentage you listed is somewhat misleading - I find this map to give a better representation - [3]. As of now, nobody has precise numbers. I personally would like to see more diversity in the city, and would like to see less racism across the board. But I don't doubt that the rich Uptown residents have more sway in city politics than people in poorer areas. And it is a legitimate concern for African-Americans if they don't see enough representation in city politics - that their areas are getting the short end of the stick. 74.250.205.124 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing

At least on my computer, this article displays itself with too much space between referenced text and the seguing superscript—likewise with braced comments inserted by editors. Some characters become overstruck by others.

Arrows pointing to external links are removed by 2cm (the better part of an inch) to the right of the links to which they refer.

Are these display quirks the result of a plague in the article or on my machine? Can anyone fix them? Rammer (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality?

i don't particularly like nagin's politics and his controversies merit documentation, but i feel like the current article focuses and microscopes everything negative and diminishes anything positive about him. I'll grant that i'm a recent transplant to new orleans and my knowledge of nagin's entire history is minimal, but i question whether or not there can at least be a token area where his merits (if any) can be summarized to help offset the overall negative tone. Darknote (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica trip controversy?

There's a heading for "Jamaica trip controversy" but no prose under it. Is something on the way? Did a section get only partially merged or deleted? What's the situation? Rammer (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina

I fail to see how any of the section is remotely biographical; it is in quite great detail. Even if it was important -which the article fails to deliver - it can be shorter and with a personal focus on Nagin, with a {{main}} tag on the section. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nagin in 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nagin in 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy aside...

I started trying to fix grammatical, spelling and syntax problems in this article, but there are just too many. The spell check shows the spelling mistakes, so that's easy enough to manage. The article starts off being pretty well written, but later sections degenerate badly -- different authors? Whatever the reason, some one person needs to take responsibility for cleaning up these problems, so there is a unified voice for the article as a whole. Zlama (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's up?

I noted previously that the section on Hurricane Katrina was non-biographical. I just don't get it. It's a huge coatrack that has no direct relevance to this article, yet it has remained as a glaring fault. If his role during the hurricane was controversial, it should be made explicitly so, backed up with sources. Right now, the article is neither here nor there, and thus unacceptable. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously having armed men going door-to-door for confiscation while letting looters do whatever they want didn't exactly make him popular afterwards, either. Especially when he had to nerve to blame the feds for a slow response when he refused to give the order to evacuate... This whole event is rightfully laid on the city and state governments by many people. The feds didn't help when refusing volunteers though. Stringing together two words starting with C.F. come to mind.  ;) 71.196.246.113 (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS comments: "Article is too positive"

Pasted here on behalf of someone who wrote into OTRS (ticket 2012050610000813). Any comments should be directed at 'Brian' rather than myself, although I may help him navigate the discussion a bit. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 04:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below, I list a very few of the stories about the actions of ex New Orleans Mayor, Ray Nagin. These include stories of rampant corruption in Nagins city hall government, Federal grand jury probe of Nagin, Guilt of Nagin's good friend and IT "expert", Greg Meffert, now indicted. The list is by no means complete but if you care to take time to read the enclosed Times Picayune editorials, by three different senior editorial writers, you might get the gist of the concerns I have about the rosy report in Wikipedia.
Also you are using a speech by Nagin as source material. Indeed one comes away with the impression that the whole Wikipedia article was a pr effort for Ray Nagin. I won't bother to address Nagin's Recovery Czar, Ed Blakely, who, if you ask almost anyone in New Orleans, will, I think, agree that Blakely was a ... and totally ineffectual.
I hope this information will encourage you to reread the article in Wikipedia and to perhaps give it a greater review of the facts as we in New Orleans who lived through Kartina and the recovery period, see them.
Yours sincerely, Brian

Here's a timeline from the Times Picayune about his time in office:

  • December 2004:The Ray Nagin family goes to Hawaii and meets up with Greg Meffert's family in Maui. Mark St. Pierre, whose company Imagine Software, operates Nagin's city technology office, pays for the Nagins' airfare.
  • Feb. 28, 2005: Frank Fradella's Home Solutions of America acquires countertop installer Cornerstone Building and Remodeling Inc. from Anthony Leeber Jr. Cornerstone announces the receipt of major countertop contracts with The Home Depot in Louisiana.
  • November 2005: St. Pierre lines up a private jet to take the Nagins to Jamaica, according to testimony later given by Meffert. But Nagin isn't sure of travel dates, so Meffert gives a St. Pierre corporate credit card to Nagin's secretary, who purchases first-class commercial airline tickets for the Nagin family.
  • Early 2006-August 2006: St. Pierre provides lawn maintenance services worth a total of about $1,500 for Nagin's home on Park Island.
  • March 2006: Leeber is pushed out of Home Solutions' Cornerstone subsidiary. Leeber says Fradella then guts Cornerstone and in 2007 delivers "inventory and equipment" to Nagin's family company, Stone Age LLC.
  • May 8, 2006: Nagin has fund-raiser in Chicago hosted by St. Pierre and others. Records show St. Pierre paid for Nagin's airfare.
  • June 1, 2006: Nagin is sworn in for second term.
  • Jan. 20-22, 2007: Aaron Bennett provides mayor with private jet leased by a Home Solutions subsidiary to go to Chicago and Las Vegas, where Bennett introduces Nagin to Frank Fradella.
  • January 2007: Bennett begins getting paid by city to pay St. Pierre for technology office work.
  • April 2007: Stone Age LLC lands deal supplying and installing countertops for four Home Depot stores.
  • April 13, 2007: Times-Picayune publishes story about private jet to Chicago, Vegas. Nagin later uses public money to pay Bennett $1,852 for airfare.
  • August 2007: Home Solutions press release mentions that former Home Depot executive Larry Laseter is the new president of Home Solutions' interior services division.
  • March 23, 2008: Times-Picayune publishes story about Stone Age's deal with Home Depot.
  • April 2008: Home Depot ends deal with Stone Age.
  • April 17, 2008-Nov. 17, 2008: Nagin's calendar notes nine different meetings with Fradella. All are initially blacked out when his schedule is released.
  • Nov. 1, 2010: Meffert pleads guilty to conspiracy, filing false tax return. He goes on to testify against St. Pierre. His sentencing has been delayed until May.
  • May 26, 2011: St. Pierre is convicted on 53 federal corruption counts and later is sentenced to 17½ years in prison.
  • May 31, 2011: Fradella is indicted in Texas on securities fraud charges.
  • Oct. 14, 2011: Aaron Bennett pleads guilty to bribing Plaquemines Parish sheriff. His sentencing has been pushed back until June.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk • contribs)


Certainly the article is problematic, and over some months seems to have been edited by socks with apparent motivation to make it into puffery. The purpose of the article should be, of course, to neither praise nor slam the subject, but rather to state the facts, and on issues of significant controversy give SOURCED quotes from observers and published sources. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ray_Nagin&oldid=537847912"