Talk:Hurricane Katrina: List of related pages

Question: How in the world can articles related to the actions of the Bush administration which is, in fact, the responsible faction in this instance, be considered "way way way too partisan, off-topic, and super-irrelevant"? Did I miss something?

Additionally, every single one of the articles listed are related to and are already included in SW resources at the bottom of the individual article pages. Nothing included in that list is in any way "way way way too partisan, off-topic, and super-irrelevant". IMHO :-)  Need somebody else's opinion, please.  Artificial Intelligence 12:25, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)

How about a Hurricane Katrina: Federal Response article which is justa list of all the 'George W. Bush: Hurricane Katrina: ...' and other relevant sub-articles? --Maynard 13:02, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Also, articles about cronyism and gutting FEMA have an association with Katrina and lots of other things; they are not Katrina specific, and should not be so constricted.

Also, articles sucb as 'blamegame', 'blowback', 'Albaugh' should already be wiki-linked in individual Katrina articles. It is not necessary to create even one index of each wiki-linked article. --Maynard 13:11, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)

There is a different issue at play here, which escapes me, other than, although opposed, I created a separate page to relieve impending overbyte on some of the HK articles. The google bomb comment was considered and, hopefully, resolved.

There appears to be one set of rules for the goose, another for the gander. The same logic could likewise be applied to other articles, Georgeland for example. The Bush regime page, in particular, unless one is well enough informed, seemingly runs on with unconnected and unexplained lists, which, once accessed, obviously sends users to numerous topics. That listing works, apparently, as the page has nearly 16,000 hits.

This seems to be a recurring issue, which has, apparently not been resolved, although I thought it had been: Stop me if I am wrong, but is not a purpose of SW to make its articles and information as easy as possible for users to locate and use? Limiting access by eliminating linkage, IMHO, is contrary to that purpose. :-) IMHO, that is.  Artificial Intelligence 13:35, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)

On the matter of a single article "Hurricane Katrina: Federal Response", that limits linkage even further by constricting material there to only "federal response" and there are, obviously, several other issues and factions involved. Just saying. Artificial Intelligence 13:38, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Maybe you're beating around the woods too far, or we're not talking about the same things at all any more, but I can't figure out what you're trying to say. --Maynard 13:55, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)

In from the bushes: What in the heck does ""way way way too partisan, off-topic, and super-irrelevant" mean? "Partisan" what? You've accused me of being too partisan before. Did I miss something and the Democrats or the Independents screwed this whole doggone thing up? or what? Every article has a slant, although fair and balanced is the goal. I always insert as many perspectives in links, etc., as is reasonable but this HK mess just can't be explained away ... the Bush regime mucked it up.

As for "off-topic" .. that's your opinion. "super-irrelevant" would also appear to be your opinion.

Once more, I go back to words which appear to work in most wikis on the net: WikiWisdom:
 * "Please don't assume that the readers of this site are idiots, and that you have a duty to the rest of us to protect us all from material you consider wrong-headed or nonsense. We're smart people here, and we can decide for ourselves what is wheat and what is chaff."
 * "Restrain TheDesireToDelete. It is a greater offense to the community to remove what might be valuable, than it is to leave what might be nonsense - given time, the cream will rise to the top in any case. Words here that might be incorrect are not as much of a nuisance as you might think - we're grown-ups and we can handle it."

IMHO :-)  Artificial Intelligence 14:06, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)