Talk:2006 New Orleans mayoral election

Front-runners, and so on

The candidates are listed first with the 3 considered front runners, and the rest aparently haphazardly. In the interest of NPOV, perhaps the listing should be rearranged alphabetically, or perhaps in order in which they announced their candidacy? Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 17:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• That sounds like as good an idea as any. After the election, it might make sense to arrange them by number of votes, but for now alphabetization sounds most fair. I'll fix them. Praxedis G 18:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• I decided to try refining the candidates list by adding a third category of second-tier candidates between the front-runners and the long-shots. I realize this might seem to be a little arbitrary before we've seen any definitive polls or results, but I'm using as my basis a news analysis by the Times-Picayune [1] in which political scientists and other commentators examined the list of candidates and evaluated their chances. What do people think? Is this still NPOV? Praxedis G 17:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(Overlooked the discussion on this page until just now; sorry.) As you may have noticed, I changed most of the candidate info to alphabetical format, with passing reference to Nagin, Landrieu and Forman having big bucks and name recognition. Hope I didn't throw out too much text re: second-tier candidates. Partly this is a pet peeve of mine, so I hope I'm not being to POV about it. I've never thought it's the place of supposedly impartial observers (like the press) to ordain some candidates and dismiss others. But there's also a practical aspect, such as Nagin having been a long shot and Troy Carter a major candidate in 2002. Going back farther (but not all that far), I can think of two recent governors off the top of my head—Mike Foster and Buddy Roemer—who came out of nowhere and surprised the pundits. So I'm thinking it might be more encyclopedic to ignore the pundits to a great extent. -- Muffuletta 05:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm OK with the alphabetization for the most part, and I see and understand your point about the partiality and potential inaccuracy of the press and pundits. I DO think, though, that Nagin should receive a bit more prominence in the list given the fact of his incumbency; this election could be interpreted as a referendum on whether the city is satisfied with his leadership of whether it wants someone else to lead the rebuilding process. I think it might be a little wierd for folks to have to scroll past 15 candidates before they get to the incumbent. What do you think of leading the candidates list with Nagin as the incumbent, followed by a mention of the unprecedented number of challengers and a list of them in alphabetical order? (I won't change it until I hear from others.....) Once the results of the first round of voting come in, though, I think it would be most appropriate to rearrange the candidates in descending order based on the number of votes they received. Until then, though, I think a slightly modified alphabetical list is fine. (Personally, I'm not particularly impressed with Nagin or any of the candidates who are habitually seen as front-runners, so I hope my earlier ranking wasn't seen as advocating particular candidates.) Praxedis G 22:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the current alphabetical listing of candidates, with additional info on most prominent in the article, is the best NPOV format. -- Infrogmation 23:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Original election date

I changed the "originally scheduled for" date from November 2005 to 4 February 2006, per numerous sources including this one. But am I missing something? Was there some election scheduled for November 2005? -- Muffuletta 14:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction; that may have been a careless error on my part. Sorry, I've had periodic episodes of calendric confusion ever since my calendar was stuck on August for an extra 5 weeks ;-) -- Infrogmation 23:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Orleans mayoral election, 2006. 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/20060321035448/http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2002-09-10/news_feat3.html to http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2002-09-10/news_feat3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614015406/http://bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2002-02-12/news_feat4.html to http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2002-02-12/news_feat4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060429224514/http://www.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcpr&rqsdta=04220636 to http://www.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcpr&rqsdta=04220636

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) 07:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)