Talk:Lower Ninth Ward

notable residents

I added the following statement: 'Notably, Milton P. Doullut's wife was also a captain and is believed to be the first woman to have held a Mississippi riverboat pilot's license.' I am aware that this needs a citation. I can find mention of this on a number of websites but none are suitably reliable to use as a source. I believe that one of the museums in or around New Orleans holds her license. Would be good if someone knew more information and could add to this with suitable references. Robiati

In case it interests you, author Kalamu ya Salaam and rapper Magic are both from the Lower 9th, so if you wanted to include them in this article, it would be correct--your call.

I think this section of the city is no longer on cefew, although I do believe the entire city is enforcing a curfew for minors.Wbbigtymer 08:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

betsy

in spike lee's documentary 'when the levees broke', betsy was discussed and referred to as a deliberate exploding of the levees in 65. apparently that's why folks are convinced that the levees were blown up during katrina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flookster (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The theory on a levee being intentionally blown on by dynamite has no base

Now even a shoddy link is dead. That type of article belongs in the theory. Or it should be described in a specific conspiracies section. Not in the history of the Lower Ninth Ward. That's why I deleted the quote. TomNyj0127 (talk)

Betsy is not a reliable reference. TomNyj0127 (talk)

I agree that availible evidence points to appallingly poor construction being the culprit rather than dynamite in the great levee disaster of 2005. However disagree with removing all reference to the folk stories. There certainly are persistant rumors about the levees being dynamited (as they were in 1927) again with Betsy in '65 and Katrina in '05. I think that when stories, even questionable ones, are particularly wide spread and persistant they achieve a degree of notability and deserve discussion in an article, if only to note that the stories exist although evidence points elsewhere. A link you removed was to an article in "The Guardian", which I wouldn't call shoddy. Also, what do you mean by saying that "Betsy is not a reliable reference"? How can Hurricane Betsy or any other hurricane be a reference? Puzzled, Infrogmation (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the Guardian article link article you removed is not a dead link at all; it forwarded me to the article here. If you have suggestions for how to include the information in a better way in compliance with Wikipedia:NPOV standards, please discuss options. If not, I will restore at least that link. Infrogmation (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant the people who were individually interviewed on their theory of the intentional detination of the levees. If you'd link to re-post the Guardian article, that's alright. I thought all of those links were being used as the reference to that quote. I find the quote to be shoddy more than the quote. Without the quote though, I wasn't sure of what value or where the appropriate place would be for that article. I appreciate your help on that. As far as the conspiracies go, I think there's an appropriate page for that. Similarly to 9/11 conspiracy tabs, it should be described in it's own individual section. By writing extensively about it in the factual section, it gives the wrong impression in the regard that it may be proven. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

"Persistent rumors allege that the levee was deliberately dynamited."

Are you kidding me? Wikipedia is for facts, not rumors. I'm taking this down (read Wikipedia guidelines)Sedna1000 (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)sedna1000

This statement isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia, there has been dozens if not hundreds of studies showing how the levee system failed, not one points to them being blown up. Sedna1000 (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000

Why Isn't Part of "Ninth Ward of New Orleans?"

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Ward_of_New_Orleans has a "Lower Ninth Ward" section. Couldn't this information just be included in that? The Upper Ninth Ward does not have it's own page. I don't mean to diminish any significance the Lower Ninth Ward may have to anyone, but it seems like a good candidate for a merge. The "Lower Ninth Ward" section on the "Ninth Ward of New Orleans" page is very short, why not just fill it out with the information here, and make one big "Ninth Ward of New Orleans" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.217.144 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lower Ninth Ward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701190821/http://www.mardigrasdigest.com/travel/new_orleans_districts_and_wards.htm to http://www.mardigrasdigest.com/travel/new_orleans_districts_and_wards.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926230653/http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL120905holycross.11aae56a.html to http://www.gnocdc.org/orleans/8/22/snapshot.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926230653/http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL120905holycross.11aae56a.html to http://www.davidmetraux.com/news/2006/hurricane_katrina_new_orleans_lower_ninth.html

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with geographical directions

Search for the word back. The first four uses only generate confusion. I can't imagine why someone used that terminology. Can someone with topic knowledge please change them to north, south, east and west? Failing that, how about something like "between Claiborne Avenue and the Mississippi River" or "northeastward from Claiborne Avenue" or such.

The first two uses of that word appear before the Katrina section; two more appear within it.2600:6C56:6600:1ECF:3497:1A97:7363:9E26 (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Did no one read this? Is their not one contributor who is qualified to accurately report on the geographic aspects of the Ninth Ward?2600:6C56:6600:1ECF:E44E:AD96:FAAE:566A (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

(Now an additional 5 months later) - evidently not. Why even publish if there's not even an attempt at encyclopedic accuracy?2600:6C56:6600:1ECF:1078:10AD:7899:589D (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. I've replaced uses of "in" with "south" and "back" with "north", and given specific locations of the industrial canal levee breaches Only1Kidney (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Article assessment

I am not sure how this article was promoted but it does not meet the B-class criteria (#1): The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable. Otr500 (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Make it right foundation

A paragraph in the "recovery efforts" section describes the houses built by the make it right foundation as "sustainable, energy-efficient and safe", when in fact the foundation recently had to pay a 20.5 million dollar settlement due to the houses being poorly built Only1Kidney (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)