![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
In a couple of places in this article, it seems that the discussion of the controversies themselves is sometimes side-tracked by details that seem more appropriate for other articles. For example, I find the following paragraph would be better placed in an article on IPET:
"However, according to the IPET draft final report,[16] IPET membership consisted of individuals from the Universities of Maryland, Florida, University of Notre Dame|Notre Dame]], and Virginia Polytechnic Institute, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the South Florida Water Management District, Harris County Flood Control District (Houston, TX), the United States Department of Agriculture, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation as well as those from USACE."
A smattering of non-controversial participants' employers in the study doesn't really add much to this particular article. While I think a *complete* list of IPET participants would be interesting in an article focused on IPET, I fail to see the relevance here.
Also, the footnote link to the IPET report (currently footnote 16) is not working, does somebody know the correct web address?
( NormanFixesIt ( talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
I would like to discuss the editing of this article, as well as editing of the related article that is solely focused on New Orleans controversies. Just to clarify: the article on New Orleans controversies is meant to allow an expansion of the issues related to New Orleans, not for the removal of New Orleans issues from the main article on civil works controversies. The New Orleans controversies are significant to the subject of civil works controversies. I would even say that the New Orleans issues are the most visibly emblematic of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies, as demonstrated by the fact that even the overview is mainly focused on New Orleans. NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
When summarizing and moving information from this main article to the sub-article on New Orleans, please make sure to keep your edits WP:NPOV. Removing only the negative details about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not WP:NPOV. NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That brings me to my next point, which is that the overview (now entitled “background”) still needs work. An “overview” is supposed to provide an brief synopsis or summary of what is to come in the main body of the article. The current overview/“background” does not accomplish that. It discusses two subjects – one that revisits the idea of earmarks pork spending (which is mentioned in the introductory paragraph right above the overview), and one that discusses New Orleans. Furthermore, this detail about New Orleans is not even a general introduction to the main controversies currently surrounding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects in the New Orleans vicinity, but rather it is a reference to a past decision-making process that is barely discussed in this article. I created a section about that past controversy in the spin-off article on New Orleans. The detail from that debate should be moved there, and expanded with more information about the context of those quotations. If you wish to provide background, please do in the subject heading of the controversy to which you wish to provide context. NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Lastly, in response to your (Don'tKnowItAtAll's) previous discussion post, two things: 1. I would suggest that you consult legal counsel on the general notion of conflict of interest if you are confused as to why this is important part of this article. Problems arise when the proper measures are not taken to avoid, or at least fully disclose, all potential conflicts of interest. This is standard legal procedure in most all professions, meant as a safeguard to the integrity and credibility of the parties involved. The conflict of interest questions in the studies mentioned are an integral part of the controversy, and a recurring theme among the peer reviews. This makes the issue of conflict of interest one of the most important part of the controversies page - anything but a red herring. NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
2. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was the agency responsible for building the levees, by federal mandate. It is the Corps that is responsible for the design and construction of any project is authorized by congressional appropriation – the standard cost-sharing procedures do not alter that responsibility. Once the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity flood protection project was authorized, it was the responsibility of the Corps to design and construct the flood protection as specified in the appropriations bill. Failure to design and build adequate structures cannot be blamed on anyone else. While there are some noble individuals who have been forthright in admitting fault, those who wish to shirk blame for past mistakes are doomed to repeat them in the future. NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep working on this, while discussing it here, or better yet, on the discussion page for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies (New Orleans). NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
Is it possible to make this less centric toward one specific topic and one specific location within that topic? This article appears to be heavily weighted toward flood protection and even more specifically towards Katrina and New Orleans. Can anyone provide more documentation concerning other USACE civil works controversies? What about flooding in the Sacramento CA area? What about beach nourishment on the Great Lakes? Does anyone have additional data on wetlands issues? That certainly is a very big source of contention, even in New Orleans! What about the dam around Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades restoration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tKnowItAll ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 December 2008
--
I think expanding the topic in such a way is a great idea. I'll see what other documentation I can find, and I hope other people will do the same. ( NormanFixesIt ( talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, but there are some rules. Editors may not insert point of view. And when providing material must source it. Sheldonville talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sheldonville -
How about this: The US Constitution, Art I, Sec 9, provides that "[N]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of an Appropriation made by Law."
Congress, by that same Constitution, makes appropriations and laws. And since Congress is filled with Congressman, and one of the article's tenets is " projects have been characterized as being riddled with patronage (see pork barrel) or a waste of money and resources", it follows that
(1) Corps of Engineers projects can be found in all fifty states, making its budget and project authorizations ripe for earmarks and other pork. (not my words, BTW, but some other editor) (2) Corps projects are either authorized specifically or as part of a Congressionally authorized category of projects.
Now, I cannot specifically source "Many times, local citizen, special interest, and political groups lobby Congress for authorization and appropriations for specific projects in their area" but it logically follows when talking about patronage and pork (not my words) and the political process. To cite that or prove it in this forum would be akin to proving a detailed mathematical theorem; it is possible, just not necessarily productive.
The statement, "These projects may or may not be considered sound from an engineering standpoint." presents a neutral point of view ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV) which Wikipedia editing policy demands. After all, it presents both sides ("mor" and "may not") in the same sentence.
Since appropriations are law, and Congress makes laws, it follows that it is a legal requirement to perform. Now, my comment "it is then up to the Corps of Engineers to do the best that they can" may be a bit soft stated, but it is certainly no less neutral than "riddled" and "profound detrimental effects" and other inflammatory wording that has been used in this article. And, in fact, "Whether or not they actually do the best they can with what they've got is part of the controversy" is a true statement, am I not right? In keeping with dispute resolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes), I didn't just delete something I disagreed with -- like you di -- but presented information that gave another, possibly more balanced approach to the situation.
If this is truly to be a neutral article, then it should quote sources on BOTH sides of the story. It should provide ACTUAL examples of unnecessary pork and Congressional interference with good Engineering discipline rather than just railing at USACE. It could provide a listing of various bills introduced in Congress that have attempted to reform the USACE business process AS WELL AS the voting that prevented those bills from becoming law. THAT is part and parcel of the controversy and that truly represents a balanced and neutral POV.
Instead, this is a New Orleans-centric axe-grinding. USACE, FEMA, and the politicians of Louisiana over the years stumbled ... BADLY. But that is not to say that it is without redemption. Please allow for a neutral POV at least here. Use your biased sources on your side but don't just delete my content, please.
Thanks. Beave 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)~
History of the editing:
I don't want to get into a revert war, but ....
I took out the information about the installation of the plaque for several reasons:
In other words, mentioning of the plaque neither advances the article, the section, the topic, etc. Just because it is a fact that levees.org installed a plaque about a controversial situation does not make its installation notable.
One might argue that the picture is used primarily to support a certain POV since the verbiage on the plaque was never proposed or vetted by a NPOV source; arguably by extension, inserting any such picture of a certain viewpoint in any article could therefore otherwise be done to circumvent POV issues. However, other than that I don't have a problem with the picture itself. Having a picture can highlight the fact that the one particular issue is indeed controversial. And it breaks up the monotony of an otherwise prose-only article. However, the verbiage about installing it doesn't aid the topic and is not notable; IMNSHO it only serves to show off how Levees.org's efforts is keeping the focus only on the Corps of Engineers and not on any other player involved in the Katrina disaster (and there were many others, to include those at the State and Local levels, who were culpable as well). Damning just one organization does nothing to prevent such a tragedy in the future.
I consider the fact that the image, its caption, and the verbiage on the plaque within the picture to carry the weight of the sufficiency of controversy of the issue the plaque represents.
So ... before we get into a revert war ... why is the verbiage necessary? Don'tKnowItAtAll ( talk) 14:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Installation and its details may be superfluous, but the plaque's very existence is a public, permanent acknowledgement by one of the government agencies implicated in the disaster's causes. The plaque is about as far from POV as is possible: the verbiage was vetted in the public record by an official historical commission of State of Louisiana (which is actually one of the other non-Corps entities often cited as a culpable agency).
This fact is what qualifies the photograph as relevant to topic, but no one would know this without a caption. A photo of a yard sign, billboard, or graffiti scrawl on a fence would be POV. This plaque passed through multiple reviews and public hearings under the auspices of a state agency. That verbiage is about as vetted as one could ask for.
Any article concerning USACE civil works controversies would be incomplete if official statements on the topic by another government agency were omitted. That is what the plaque is, and as such this writer would have a problem with the picture itself, without caption. The plaque and its verbiage are relevant precisely because of their origin, not despite of it. The details regarding date of dedication and perhaps the involvement of a citizen's group could be superfluous, but the plaque and a caption indicating its status as an official position should be included. Wistlo ( talk) 19:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Each word on the Historic Plaque was fact checked and verified by scholars with the Louisiana Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). Furthermore, the SHPO has extremely detailed specific requirements on what can and cannot be included. After the state approved the plaque text, the state requested its manufacture by the company which makes all state plaques, Sewah Manufacturing. Levees.org requested - and received - permission from the N.O. Sewage and Water Board, N.O. Parks and Parkways, Dept of Public Works and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to install the Plaque on the property of the City of New Orleans. Sheldonville ( talk) 13:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I personally believe in Artifacts Not Politics. The verbiage and placement of these Historical Plaques will stand the test of time, the elements and any attempts by the Corps of Engineers to rewrite these wiki pages. Short of a nuclear strike, the vital truth on those Historical Plaques will survive the next flood.
These Historical Plaques are necessary to the cultural and societal cohesion of New Orleans after the Corps flooded 80% of the city and killed 1000s. Had they been upfront and honest at the beginning --instead of deceitful and manipulative of the studies of their failures-- then perhaps any arguments to the contrary might stand in the way of this vital Historical Marker. But the fact is the Corps tried to tell many lies about why New Orleans flooded.
That is why we need these Markers and the verbiage upon them. Because there is nothing more dangerous than a lying engineer, because then all you're dealing with is the last word of a liar. Editilla ( talk) 14:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Editilla
Each word on the Historic Plaque was fact checked and verified by scholars with the Louisiana Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). The SHPO has extremely detailed requirements on what can and cannot be included. After the state approved the plaque text, the state requested its manufacture by Sewah Studios - Manufacturer of Cast Aluminum Historic Markers in Marietta, Ohio. This plaque is vetted fact, not opinion. Levees.org requested - and received - permission from the N.O. Sewage and Water Board, N.O. Parks and Parkways, Dept of Public Works and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which owns the property behind the plaque) to install the Plaque on the property of the City of New Orleans. Sheldonville ( talk) 14:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/01704/0707/017040707.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/07/20060719corpsreform.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/01704/0707/017040707.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/pdf/33cfr385.36.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._congressional_actions_to_conserve_and_develop_water_resourcesWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
In a couple of places in this article, it seems that the discussion of the controversies themselves is sometimes side-tracked by details that seem more appropriate for other articles. For example, I find the following paragraph would be better placed in an article on IPET:
"However, according to the IPET draft final report,[16] IPET membership consisted of individuals from the Universities of Maryland, Florida, University of Notre Dame|Notre Dame]], and Virginia Polytechnic Institute, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the South Florida Water Management District, Harris County Flood Control District (Houston, TX), the United States Department of Agriculture, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation as well as those from USACE."
A smattering of non-controversial participants' employers in the study doesn't really add much to this particular article. While I think a *complete* list of IPET participants would be interesting in an article focused on IPET, I fail to see the relevance here.
Also, the footnote link to the IPET report (currently footnote 16) is not working, does somebody know the correct web address?
( NormanFixesIt ( talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
I would like to discuss the editing of this article, as well as editing of the related article that is solely focused on New Orleans controversies. Just to clarify: the article on New Orleans controversies is meant to allow an expansion of the issues related to New Orleans, not for the removal of New Orleans issues from the main article on civil works controversies. The New Orleans controversies are significant to the subject of civil works controversies. I would even say that the New Orleans issues are the most visibly emblematic of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies, as demonstrated by the fact that even the overview is mainly focused on New Orleans. NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
When summarizing and moving information from this main article to the sub-article on New Orleans, please make sure to keep your edits WP:NPOV. Removing only the negative details about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not WP:NPOV. NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That brings me to my next point, which is that the overview (now entitled “background”) still needs work. An “overview” is supposed to provide an brief synopsis or summary of what is to come in the main body of the article. The current overview/“background” does not accomplish that. It discusses two subjects – one that revisits the idea of earmarks pork spending (which is mentioned in the introductory paragraph right above the overview), and one that discusses New Orleans. Furthermore, this detail about New Orleans is not even a general introduction to the main controversies currently surrounding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects in the New Orleans vicinity, but rather it is a reference to a past decision-making process that is barely discussed in this article. I created a section about that past controversy in the spin-off article on New Orleans. The detail from that debate should be moved there, and expanded with more information about the context of those quotations. If you wish to provide background, please do in the subject heading of the controversy to which you wish to provide context. NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Lastly, in response to your (Don'tKnowItAtAll's) previous discussion post, two things: 1. I would suggest that you consult legal counsel on the general notion of conflict of interest if you are confused as to why this is important part of this article. Problems arise when the proper measures are not taken to avoid, or at least fully disclose, all potential conflicts of interest. This is standard legal procedure in most all professions, meant as a safeguard to the integrity and credibility of the parties involved. The conflict of interest questions in the studies mentioned are an integral part of the controversy, and a recurring theme among the peer reviews. This makes the issue of conflict of interest one of the most important part of the controversies page - anything but a red herring. NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
2. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was the agency responsible for building the levees, by federal mandate. It is the Corps that is responsible for the design and construction of any project is authorized by congressional appropriation – the standard cost-sharing procedures do not alter that responsibility. Once the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity flood protection project was authorized, it was the responsibility of the Corps to design and construct the flood protection as specified in the appropriations bill. Failure to design and build adequate structures cannot be blamed on anyone else. While there are some noble individuals who have been forthright in admitting fault, those who wish to shirk blame for past mistakes are doomed to repeat them in the future. NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep working on this, while discussing it here, or better yet, on the discussion page for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies (New Orleans). NormanFixesIt ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
Is it possible to make this less centric toward one specific topic and one specific location within that topic? This article appears to be heavily weighted toward flood protection and even more specifically towards Katrina and New Orleans. Can anyone provide more documentation concerning other USACE civil works controversies? What about flooding in the Sacramento CA area? What about beach nourishment on the Great Lakes? Does anyone have additional data on wetlands issues? That certainly is a very big source of contention, even in New Orleans! What about the dam around Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades restoration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tKnowItAll ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 December 2008
--
I think expanding the topic in such a way is a great idea. I'll see what other documentation I can find, and I hope other people will do the same. ( NormanFixesIt ( talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, but there are some rules. Editors may not insert point of view. And when providing material must source it. Sheldonville talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sheldonville -
How about this: The US Constitution, Art I, Sec 9, provides that "[N]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of an Appropriation made by Law."
Congress, by that same Constitution, makes appropriations and laws. And since Congress is filled with Congressman, and one of the article's tenets is " projects have been characterized as being riddled with patronage (see pork barrel) or a waste of money and resources", it follows that
(1) Corps of Engineers projects can be found in all fifty states, making its budget and project authorizations ripe for earmarks and other pork. (not my words, BTW, but some other editor) (2) Corps projects are either authorized specifically or as part of a Congressionally authorized category of projects.
Now, I cannot specifically source "Many times, local citizen, special interest, and political groups lobby Congress for authorization and appropriations for specific projects in their area" but it logically follows when talking about patronage and pork (not my words) and the political process. To cite that or prove it in this forum would be akin to proving a detailed mathematical theorem; it is possible, just not necessarily productive.
The statement, "These projects may or may not be considered sound from an engineering standpoint." presents a neutral point of view ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV) which Wikipedia editing policy demands. After all, it presents both sides ("mor" and "may not") in the same sentence.
Since appropriations are law, and Congress makes laws, it follows that it is a legal requirement to perform. Now, my comment "it is then up to the Corps of Engineers to do the best that they can" may be a bit soft stated, but it is certainly no less neutral than "riddled" and "profound detrimental effects" and other inflammatory wording that has been used in this article. And, in fact, "Whether or not they actually do the best they can with what they've got is part of the controversy" is a true statement, am I not right? In keeping with dispute resolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes), I didn't just delete something I disagreed with -- like you di -- but presented information that gave another, possibly more balanced approach to the situation.
If this is truly to be a neutral article, then it should quote sources on BOTH sides of the story. It should provide ACTUAL examples of unnecessary pork and Congressional interference with good Engineering discipline rather than just railing at USACE. It could provide a listing of various bills introduced in Congress that have attempted to reform the USACE business process AS WELL AS the voting that prevented those bills from becoming law. THAT is part and parcel of the controversy and that truly represents a balanced and neutral POV.
Instead, this is a New Orleans-centric axe-grinding. USACE, FEMA, and the politicians of Louisiana over the years stumbled ... BADLY. But that is not to say that it is without redemption. Please allow for a neutral POV at least here. Use your biased sources on your side but don't just delete my content, please.
Thanks. Beave 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)~
History of the editing:
I don't want to get into a revert war, but ....
I took out the information about the installation of the plaque for several reasons:
In other words, mentioning of the plaque neither advances the article, the section, the topic, etc. Just because it is a fact that levees.org installed a plaque about a controversial situation does not make its installation notable.
One might argue that the picture is used primarily to support a certain POV since the verbiage on the plaque was never proposed or vetted by a NPOV source; arguably by extension, inserting any such picture of a certain viewpoint in any article could therefore otherwise be done to circumvent POV issues. However, other than that I don't have a problem with the picture itself. Having a picture can highlight the fact that the one particular issue is indeed controversial. And it breaks up the monotony of an otherwise prose-only article. However, the verbiage about installing it doesn't aid the topic and is not notable; IMNSHO it only serves to show off how Levees.org's efforts is keeping the focus only on the Corps of Engineers and not on any other player involved in the Katrina disaster (and there were many others, to include those at the State and Local levels, who were culpable as well). Damning just one organization does nothing to prevent such a tragedy in the future.
I consider the fact that the image, its caption, and the verbiage on the plaque within the picture to carry the weight of the sufficiency of controversy of the issue the plaque represents.
So ... before we get into a revert war ... why is the verbiage necessary? Don'tKnowItAtAll ( talk) 14:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Installation and its details may be superfluous, but the plaque's very existence is a public, permanent acknowledgement by one of the government agencies implicated in the disaster's causes. The plaque is about as far from POV as is possible: the verbiage was vetted in the public record by an official historical commission of State of Louisiana (which is actually one of the other non-Corps entities often cited as a culpable agency).
This fact is what qualifies the photograph as relevant to topic, but no one would know this without a caption. A photo of a yard sign, billboard, or graffiti scrawl on a fence would be POV. This plaque passed through multiple reviews and public hearings under the auspices of a state agency. That verbiage is about as vetted as one could ask for.
Any article concerning USACE civil works controversies would be incomplete if official statements on the topic by another government agency were omitted. That is what the plaque is, and as such this writer would have a problem with the picture itself, without caption. The plaque and its verbiage are relevant precisely because of their origin, not despite of it. The details regarding date of dedication and perhaps the involvement of a citizen's group could be superfluous, but the plaque and a caption indicating its status as an official position should be included. Wistlo ( talk) 19:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Each word on the Historic Plaque was fact checked and verified by scholars with the Louisiana Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). Furthermore, the SHPO has extremely detailed specific requirements on what can and cannot be included. After the state approved the plaque text, the state requested its manufacture by the company which makes all state plaques, Sewah Manufacturing. Levees.org requested - and received - permission from the N.O. Sewage and Water Board, N.O. Parks and Parkways, Dept of Public Works and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to install the Plaque on the property of the City of New Orleans. Sheldonville ( talk) 13:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I personally believe in Artifacts Not Politics. The verbiage and placement of these Historical Plaques will stand the test of time, the elements and any attempts by the Corps of Engineers to rewrite these wiki pages. Short of a nuclear strike, the vital truth on those Historical Plaques will survive the next flood.
These Historical Plaques are necessary to the cultural and societal cohesion of New Orleans after the Corps flooded 80% of the city and killed 1000s. Had they been upfront and honest at the beginning --instead of deceitful and manipulative of the studies of their failures-- then perhaps any arguments to the contrary might stand in the way of this vital Historical Marker. But the fact is the Corps tried to tell many lies about why New Orleans flooded.
That is why we need these Markers and the verbiage upon them. Because there is nothing more dangerous than a lying engineer, because then all you're dealing with is the last word of a liar. Editilla ( talk) 14:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Editilla
Each word on the Historic Plaque was fact checked and verified by scholars with the Louisiana Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). The SHPO has extremely detailed requirements on what can and cannot be included. After the state approved the plaque text, the state requested its manufacture by Sewah Studios - Manufacturer of Cast Aluminum Historic Markers in Marietta, Ohio. This plaque is vetted fact, not opinion. Levees.org requested - and received - permission from the N.O. Sewage and Water Board, N.O. Parks and Parkways, Dept of Public Works and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which owns the property behind the plaque) to install the Plaque on the property of the City of New Orleans. Sheldonville ( talk) 14:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/01704/0707/017040707.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/07/20060719corpsreform.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/01704/0707/017040707.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/pdf/33cfr385.36.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._congressional_actions_to_conserve_and_develop_water_resourcesWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)