Talk:Louisiana locked down; New Orleans could become a "toxic soup"

The Story
Help! The New Orleans story is developing too fast to keep up with. CNN is saying that news crews are not being allowed in and the mayor has recently said there are many deaths and that the city is "80%" under water. I'm wondering whether people are being allowed to leave new orleans?

There seems to be an attempt to keep the news focus off of New Orleans but the stories are just pouring out...we need to access video footage from new orleans residents somehow? The fact is there is no working sewage system right now in a city of 500,000....the water is CONTINUING to pour in over the busted levy...we need to really be focusing on this; this could turn out to be a bigger story than 9/11. Paulrevere2005 15:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Paulrevere2005

Where's the nation's leader? Where's President Bush?
Still waiting for our President to show up (leaders should lead maybe? this situation needs to have someone in control giving orders); you'd think this would be the time a real kick-ass commander(if he really is one) would be of some use? The mayor said there is no coordination among the agencies and you can see that on your tv with the levee breeches widening by the hour and absolutely noone around trying to plug the breeches. The mayor says that noone can find a helicopter to use to drop the huge bags of gravel typically used and noone can find a barge to use to plug the hole. No one can get an aircraft carrier or cruise boat in to help the people get out. It's now 100 degrees inside the superdome with 20,000 people and NO WORKING TOILETS. The water is still rising; 15 feet throughout the city now.Desperation is setting in.I'm not surprised at all by this big government f___up; in fact I predicted it before the hurricane even hit;[]. These people are poor AND black...not the Palm Beach/Boca Raton crowd...and this is not a "battleground" state. Our Whitehouse couldn't care less,imo. Paulrevere2005 12:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed some stuff from the talk page
the talk page is about the article, not about who is where and such. please stick to info on the article and not about rumors, what should be done and such.

personally i find the title wrong, no where the article mentions it is a toxis soup, it could become one, but wasn't when the article was put up. Boneyard 13:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please check sources for toxic soup quote boneyard;it's there Paulrevere2005 23:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * show me the exact quote where someone says it IS a toxic soup, so far i just see people saying it could become one. there also hasn't been any news on this the past day so i doubt it happened because that would have been in the news by then. Boneyard 08:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My apologies,boneyard; you are absolutely correct and I did not read your words close enough. I 'm glad you changed the title. Paulrevere2005 10:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy of updating stories
New York Times had an article today saying that a lot of the doom and gloom "toxic soup" scenarios aren't going to happen (flooding stablized, major chemical works not flooded, and the great diluting effect of so much floodwater). Philosophically, should this news be added at the bottom of this story, created as a different story, or should the live content of this story be altered to change the new facts and readers should rely on the history to get the unfolding pattern of the coverage? Sorry, but I'm new to the Wikinews editing and there is probably a FAQ for this somewhere... --cmpalmer 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikinews. If new information is available a new story should be created, after a story is published, it should not be edited except to fix spelling/grammar and other minor mistakes.  --Cspurrier 17:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So,cmpalmer, what would be great is to start a new story presently the non "gloom and doom" info. Welcome, Paulrevere2005 19:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

category needed
Category:New Orleans Disaster needs to be added here. 65.184.68.155 05:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)