Talk:2009 Louisiana interracial marriage incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

National Proportions

The related controversy is now hitting national proportions. Rammer (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually going international now. Hmmm.... Daydreamer302000 (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack

Is there enough coverage of this individual to write a verifiable non-stub biography? Because the current article is a coatrack for an incident in his life.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He's getting news coverage because of something he did on his own, not something else he is tangentially related to. It would be different if Louisiana as a state was trying to ban interracial marriages; an article on one justice of the peace implementing state-wide law and policy used as a pretext for discussing anti-miscegenation laws generally would then be a WP:COATRACK situation. But it doesn't apply here. His conduct as a justice of the peace is rather unheard of in the present-day U.S., which is why he is getting international media attention. Postdlf (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand...my point is that this article does not describe the life of Keith Barwell, it describes an American race relations incident. We need to either flesh it out with content about Barwell or move this article to a title that matches its content.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Retain. Lots of articles in Wikipedia concern people who are known for one event (Lee Harvey Oswald, Neil Armstrong, etc.). The reason for the objection becomes less weighty by the hour. Rammer (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article page should be kept. It is going down in history. He is going to be known for this case and his name is going to be related to it. There are many people who are known and are referred to by a single action in their life. We have a page for Jack The Ripper for his/her actions not his/her personal life. Kumargolap (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete I do not believe that this article page should be kept. It documents a mistake disavowed by everyone involved in it, including the perpetrator of the mistake and all related political agencies, and is not any more significant than any other bureaucratic error despite the fact that the implications would be extremely great if any reasonable person or reputable elected official had done the same thing. However, if this article must be kept, then it should not be kept named after the JP, who is not himself notable. It is the single act of refusing to grant a license that is notable and not the person doing the act himself. If he had or makes a pattern of doing the same thing repeatedly, then maybe he would be notable. The article is formatted nicely with good references, but really, this guy is WP:BIO1E at best and more likely this article should not exist at all. Blue Rasberry 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Language question

Just wondering:

Calling for Bardwell's ouster, the ACLU requested...

Here in the UK, we'd use "ousting"; "ouster" would be, specifically, someone who had ousted him. Is this a Transatlantic difference? It'd be handy to know, so that I don't "correct" something elsewhere that is actually okay in US usage. 86.154.15.177 (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Americans would be more likely to say "removal from office," or in this case, because he's a justice of the peace, "removal from the bench." Ouster is understandable to Americans, but infrequently used. Postdlf (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I frequently see "ouster" used in American newspapers in this sense. I'm no authority on correct usage, but I would argue that it is common, if a bit slangy. On Wikipedia, I wouldn't correct it unless I were rewriting the sentence for other reasons, in which case I might change that word because of my own feeling that it's a bit too casual. But American usage is definitely that it can mean either the removal or the person who does the removing, and more commonly the former than the latter (as you can see on Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ouster?r=75). Hope this is helpful. Miketsu (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouster was the word used in the newspapers. If another word internationally conveys the intended sense, then use another word. I have lived in the U.K. twice and feel that ouster is the intended meaning in either dialect. Rammer (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Paraplegic?

Someone added a comment about him being a paraplegic who walks on his thighs, but it was not sourced, so I removed it. If you have any reliable sources, you can add it back. I have a feeling it may just have been someone messing around, though. Stonemason89 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

He is paraplegic, an observation made with no value-judgment whatever. Why do you think someone is "messing around" by conveying the disabilities which the subject has congenitally and manages to overcome in the world of work? Another editor wants to know more of Bardwell's biography; yet, when someone includes biographical information, another editor eschews it. Bardwell, incidentally, has an excellent reputation as a cabinetmaker, and he overcomes the handicap in doing that job. Please come out from behind your anonymous username. I live within 10 miles of Bardwell and know his demographics, which were conveyed with honesty and fidelity to the facts. Rammer (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So? You say that you know he is paraplegic because you know him personally. That is not acceptable for additions to Wikipedia articles, as it violates WP: OR. And don't accuse my of being insensitive to people with disabilities. I have a disability. But I am also quite well aware that all too many Americans, even in this day and age, tend to use disabilities as insults. Witness the all-too-frequent usage of the slur "retard" (the R-word), as many of us like to call it), or spaz, crip, et cetera, as generic insults in American culture. I still don't believe he is really paraplegic. If he is, how come none of the over 1,000 news articles that have mentioned him in the past 2-3 days have mentioned the fact? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good question--why the media don't mention it. Yes, I know the WP rule and comprehend the benefit of keeping WP strictly in the arena of secondary research. His paraplegia is part of his biography and has no causal relationship to the event which put him into the news. I didn't "accuse" you "of being insensitive to people with disabilities," and you should not have alleged that I am "dishonest" or engaging in "childish name-calling." Let's put all that behind us and try to improve the article. Do you have a way to get someone in the media to comment more biographically and descriptively on Bardwell? Rammer (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I was also somewhat incredulous that someone with Bardwell's disabilities could have accomplished so much in life if they had been born as far back as '53; the majority of people with quite a few disabilities (including Down Syndrome), were institutionalized until much more recently than that, and certainly never got the opportunity to become cabinet makers or Justices of the Peace! That's the third reason I was initially skeptical of the claim, besides the carpenter angle and the no-mentions-in-the-media angle. You're right though, I shouldn't have accused you of lying. I apologize.

Personally, I think this article should be renamed Keith Bardwell Incident, 2009 Interracial Marriage Controversy in Louisiana, or something like that. According to WP: BLP1E, since this judge is currently notable for only one event, it's probably better to have an article about the event than to have a biography of Bardwell himself, at this point anyway. As far as getting the media to report on more details about his life, your guess is as good as mine; I'm not a journalist or a blogger, so I wouldn't know where to start in that department. 70.99.104.234 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC) That was me; sorry for forgetting to log in. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense Rammer, but for you to come on here and insist that you "know him" and his condition is a TOTALLY outlandish suggestion for Wikipedia. Why do I say that? We have no proof that you know him, or who you are. If we took everyone's word on everything that is unsourced, uncited, or unconfirmed by secondary or third-party sources; in the event that he is not paraplegic, then Wikipedia would be allowing for libel to occur! Keep in mind that it is a common vandal tactic (not saying that you are specifically doing that) for one to falsify facts about another one on Wikipedia. Just don't be indignant when others question your unsourced claim; was everyone supposed to take your word at a whim? What if you were/are a vandal set out to spread lies about Keith Bardwell? If that shoe was on that foot, I bet you'd be hollering for someone to present proof and cite sources. Unless you can present proof for such claims, such fortunately (or unfortunately depending on the POV) has no place here. --rock8591 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"keith bardwell" + paraplegic = 0 hits on Google News. It might be true, but Wikipedia only deals with what is verifiable. And right now that isn't. Postdlf (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Agreed. I appreciate everyone's observations. And I'm not indignant. The press will possibly contain more descriptive and biographical information over the next few days, thus creating original documents which can be cited by Wikipedia. Until it happens, I'm holding off. Concomitantly a reasonable determination can be made on whether the article should be retitled with appropriate redirects, but in the meantime my preference is to leave it as an article titled "Keith Bardwell" as at present. Rammer (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I know both Rammer and Bardwell. I have known Rammer since age 10 and Bardwell since age 16. I generally do not get involved with discussions like this because of the abuse people sling around with the aid of a username that does not identify the person. People on the Internet and especially any type of discussion page are just looking for a way to be rude, crude, and downright abusive.

That said, if Rammer says something is true, it is true. He is the son of a minister, a very religious person, a distinguished professor at our local University, and a leader in our community. Drearlmurphy (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I will admit, I was prematurely harsh on Rammer. I am assuming good faith on Rammer, but keep in mind Drearlmurphy, that the internet is a huge ocean we are swimming in. If we allow everyone to input at a whim using personal anecdotes that cannot be confirmed (such as when you said "if (any username) says something is true, it is true"), things will go out of control very soon. I've seen too much of on Wikipedia, though I don't believe anyone here is doing so on purpose. --rock8591 04:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This article refers to Bardwell as merely "handicapped", without elaborating: [1] Stonemason89 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that his largest handicap is between the ears. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well now that wasn't nice. True, perhaps, but not nice. I particularly like that he is "confused" about black men marrying white women vs. white men marrying black women. HyperCapitalist (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The main point being, just because a guy's handicapped doesn't stop him from treating others like jerks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

content removed about attorney general's opinion

As it stood, it was unacceptably misleading and incorrect. The section as written stated the AG's opinion on the discretion a justice of the peace has in performing a marriage, implying that the LA attorney general endorsed Bardwell's authority to do as he pleased, which is patently false and absurd. Maybe that's how it was reported, I don't know, but it seems that something is missing, because a public official who performs a discretionary function obviously cannot exercise that discretion in a manner that violates the constitution. Could someone please check the original print source, or better, find another one that would explain this? This is all I could find at the Hammond Daily Star website that even mentioned the AG:

"Bardwell said a justice of the peace is not required to conduct a marriage ceremony and is at liberty to recuse himself 'from a marriage or anything else.'

He said the state attorney general told him years ago that he would eventually get into trouble for not performing interracial marriages.

'I told him if I do, I’ll resign,' Bardwell said. 'I have rights too. I’m not obligated to do that just because I’m a justice of the peace.'"

http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2009/10/15/top_stories/8847.txt

Postdlf (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Postdlf: The cited article about Caldwell's AG opinion has not been selected to appear in the web version of the Daily Star (Hammond). Because the article is brief, I can rekey it all for you below:

AG opinion says JP can decide

By DON ELLZEY

Daily Star Staff Writer

State Attorney General Buddy Caldwell says in an opinion made available Friday to The Daily Star that state law does not mandate a justice of the peace to perform a marriage.

The opinion quoted Louisiana Revised Statute 9:202.

The AG's opinion says state law authorizes, but does not mandate, that justices of the peace perform marriages.

The opinion also said anyone with a complaint against a justice of the peace should either seek private counsel or contact the Louisiana Judiciary Commission.

The opinion says a justice of the peace is a judge and falls under the authority of the Louisiana Judiciary Commission, which would be the proper public authority to review any such complaint.

Justices of the peace are paid $500 per month by the parish, and a $100 supplemental payment by the state. [--30--]

The article appeared in the Daily Star (Hammond), 2009 October 17, p. 2A, col. 4.

Rammer (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would contribute anything to this article but confusion; that Daily Star article is too brief and lacking in context. It's already obvious that the Judiciary Commission oversees justices of the peace, and blandly stating that a justice of the peace can but doesn't have to perform marriages is not the point, and incorrectly implies that there is no constraint on the reasons why a justice may decline to perform that service. Without further analysis, it would only suggest that the Attorney General thinks Bardwell was acting legally and properly within his authority, which is far from clear and far from likely. That's definitely not a view we want to attribute to the AG without a more clear source for it. Postdlf (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Incrementally the AG's office updates the opinions which are posted on the 'net. As of right now, the last one posted was dated October 12. Let's wait and see. Rammer (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights?

I see that this article has been added to the Human Rights project/portal. Really? What human rights are being denied here? You guys need some perspective! HyperCapitalist (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is generally considered a 'human right' for an adult man and woman to be able to marry each other if they want to. There are naturally and necessarily considerations for such things a close familial relationship, age, and forced marriages. But in general, if two people want to get married, barring any obvious moral or ethical reasons why they shouldn't, they should be allowed to. In the United States, the point is further relevant, especially in this case, because the law at both a federal and state level would allow this couple to be married. This judge would seem to be using his position to not only get in the way of the basic human right of two adults to marry each other if they so choose, he is also using this situation that he's created to put forth his point of view on the offspring (such as myself) of parents who might have different racial backgrounds.

On an international level, there is Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. To quote:

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

This was proclaimed by the 1st General Assembly of the United Nations. I'd say that's some relevant perspective for you. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

An excellent find. I'm guessing the OP was thinking in terms of taking people off the streets, throwing them into prison, and torturing and/or killing them. This doesn't exactly compare, but it's still a case of a little dictator deciding that he's above the law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you would say that. When my own mother and father were married in Oklahoma in 1966, it was actually illegal at the time! But the renegade judge saw two young people in love and willing to give it a try and issued them a license anyway. That law was ofcourse overturned the following year. But I still have clear memories, as a very young child, of my mom pointing out the police following us around and telling me and my brother that they were doing that because dad was black he was with a white woman. God, I'm getting old. :) Daydreamer302000 (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point of this situation. By denying them a marriage license based on his personal opinion, it dredges up the days when black-white marriages were illegal in the south. Allegedly his reasoning was basic on divorce stats. But the reasoning doesn't matter, as he has a duty to uphold the law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham's marriage didn't last very long, but their son has done pretty well nonetheless. Krakatoa (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is preventing them from getting married? This nutjob isn't the only place they can go to get a marriage certificate. Regarding the UN thing, this is the US -- the UN (a democracy of tyrants) has no jurisdiction here. HyperCapitalist (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, usually when rights are violated by a government official, this violation is not contingent upon whether or not those people, whose rights were violated, may exercise those rights somewhere else. When there was legislated systematic segregation, there were plenty of other restaurants where blacks could eat, and probably close by. That doesn't make it truly legal or moral. In the case of my parents, the judge who issued them their marriage license could have more easily refused citing state law. He would have been well within his 'rights' as a judge in that state to do this. Sure, they could have hauled themselves right on down to Texas just a 100+ miles away and gotten married down there with a bit more hassle. But the ease with which a civil rights violation, or a human rights violation, can be circumvented is not the point. It's still a violation.

In this case, this couple found that they could not get married in their own home ward of Tangipahoa parish. Was it that much of a big deal to go to the next ward? Probably not. Is that point? Certainly not. Even more, no interracial couple, as far as this justice of the peace is concerned, may get married in that ward. This is inconsistent with the laws of the state of Louisiana, the laws of the United States, and our basic ideals as a nation. And I agree with you, this is irrespective of what the United Nations thinks on the matter. I only replied to your request to know how this topic relates to human rights in general. There are many countries in the world that are a lot more backwards on this subject than the U.S. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daydreamer302000 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Uniformly negative?

The article says, "State and local public officials' reaction has been uniformly negative." The article gives no cite for that proposition, and the only state or local public official it quotes is Gov. Bobby Jindall. In fact, although a number of state (I don't know about local) public officials have criticized Bardwell, Senator David Vitter reportedly has not. The language in the article should be toned down or supported appropriately. Krakatoa (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an accurate summary of what follows in the article, which also mentions repudiation by local politicians by way of the Hammond Daily Star story, even though the Wikipedia article does not quote from that story. Vitter (who incidentally isn't a "state public official" in the sense that Senators are federal though elected to represent states) apparently hasn't given any judgment, but also hasn't supported Bardwell. And that's the point: no one has supported him, and everyone who has given a judgment has given a negative one. If you can find a positive reaction by a state or local public official, then I guess the sentence would have to be rewritten. Postdlf (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Uniformly" is a risky term. It's like "always" or "never". "Largely" leaves some room for someone who might want to commit political suicide and support the guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Postdlf is correct that Vitter isn't really a state official (as I had erroneously suggested), but a federal official who represents the state of Louisiana. To my mind, "uniformly" and "largely" are both a bit misleading - "uniformly" implies that every state and local public official has weighed in, and all have condemned Bardwell, while "largely" implies that one or more state or local officials has/have supported Bardwell (which AFAIK is not the case). IMO, the most accurate phrasing would be something like, "A number of state and local public officials have criticized Bardwell's actions." Krakatoa (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent way to put it. It's flexible, and implies no one (so far) has supported publicly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Y'all are like Bardwell: You worry too much. Rammer (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone has to mind the store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Title

Thanks for putting the substance of the article back on the shelf. But "Refusal of interracial marriage in Louisiana" may be a mouthful. Besides, it wasn't "Louisiana" which refused the "marriage," but, rather, a refusal by a JP in Robert, Louisiana, to perform an interracial wedding. Can the article be subsumed as a section by a shorter title within Anti-miscegenation laws, Multiracial American, or Race in the United States? Rammer (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering that those articles need to cover hundreds of years of history, this probably wouldn't merit more than a mention in any of those titles. I do agree that the current title is not the best, but it's apt in that it occurred in Louisiana; we aren't saying by Louisiana. "Refusal of" is the problem for me; it doesn't make any sense. "2009 denial of interracial marriage in Louisiana" would be better. Just as long as the word "controversy" isn't in the title. Postdlf (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Either "refusal" or "denial" seems a little misleading to me, particularly with the inclusion of "Louisiana". IMO, either term implies that the couple was refused/denied the right to marry in Louisiana permanently or at least for a substantial length of time. In fact, one official refused to perform the ceremony himself, but immediately referred them to the official the next county over, who apparently did so without delay. I would prefer something like "2009 Louisiana interracial marriage incident". (Personally, I am not averse to the word "controversy" and think that word would serve at least as well as "incident".) Krakatoa (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that a new title is warranted. The "2009 Louisiana interracial marriage incident" idea is the best suggestion so far, but Im open to more ideas. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good discussion, Krakatoa. By way of clarification, the two JPs were in adjacent wards within the same parish. Louisiana's parishes may be analogous to other states' counties, but Louisiana does call its subdivisions parishes. Rammer (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I always forget that Louisiana uses different names for everything than the rest of the states do. Krakatoa (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I pity you for living in a place so boring as to call everything by what everybody else calls it. If you cross a state line, you are still in a county. To get away from counties, you have to go all the way to the ocean. To experience innovation and entrepreneurship, move to Louisiana. I'll sell you my house.

You're an attorney. When my dad died, I learned that I was not in a joint tenancy with right of survivorship (JTWROS) as a mutual fund (HQ'd in another state) believed, but in a "tenancy in common" with my mother, who had a "usufruct" in which I was the "naked owner." Such shibboleths help the lawyers down here protect themselves from competition by attorneys who can speak only common law.

Rammer (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no further input has been given, I'm going to go ahead & move to 2009 Louisiana interracial marriage incident. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar Incident Occurred in 1994

There was a similar incident which occurred in Wedowee, Alabama in 1994, and I have created an article about it. Feel free to contribute!

I'm going to add a brief link to Hulond Humphries in the See Also section of this article, because I think the two incidents are similar enough to merit a link. If you disagree and don't think the link is appropriate, please reply here or on my talk page. Thanks, Stonemason89 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The main difference between this article and Hulond Humphries is that this article is about a single event, since Bardwell is only known for one event (BLP1E), while Humphries is known nationally for three events which occurred within a span of three years (BLP3E, anyone?) so I decided to write a BLP of Humphries rather than an article (or articles) about three separate events. Also, WP: NOTNEWS doesn't apply to the Humphries article because the events described in that article occurred in 1994, 1995, and 1997; long enough ago to be considered history. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Date Format

According to WP:DATE "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month." I think this article has better clear strong ties to the United Sates and thus should use the "Month Day, Year" format. I have changed the existing mostly "Year Month Day" format to the American format twice, but User:Richard David Ramsey insists on changing it back to his preferred format. Since I do not wish to edit war on something so trivial, I am bringing it here for further discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

American date format should clearly govern here, as this is purely (and regrettably) an American subject. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right and so is the policy. I'll make the changes and refer to the talk page. Hopefully won't be reverted. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Krakatoa (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I have tagged the lead for clean up. It should summarize the article. Instead it reads like a list of news sources. This might have originally been an attempt to assert notability. From the sections in the article, what should be included. My first thought is the dude's reported reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we now, Cptnono, eliminate the objection to the lead? It gets the job done, and no one has sought to rephrase it. Rammer (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Editorials

Several of the sources are opinion pieces. They are properly laid out but I see a weight concern. This article provides plenty of text from those against the guy. Options include:

• Adding references from less than politically correct commentators
• Reducing the prevalence of opinion pieces.

Right now, the article reads as a BLPE1(it originally was about the guy not the event) that was proven notable through opinion pieces saying that the guy was bad. Notability has been met so now this should be fixed.Cptnono (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the mention of the Daily Star editorial in the "reaction" section, that's the local paper where Bardwell was a JOP, and it's the paper that broke the story, so it's of particular relevance to the subject. The fact is that the response was overwhelmingly negative, an assessment that is itself verifiable from the major news outlets' summaries of national and local responses. If you can find a reliable source that notably presented another viewpoint (ideally one that was commented on in another source), then it may be suitable to add. But NPOV doesn't require going out of your way to dig up an opposing viewpoint, no matter how obscure, for the sake of supposed "balance"; that would itself be an example of undue weight. postdlf (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability does not limit article content just article creation. And no (local reaction is a great place for an opinion piece). There are several others that are opinion pieces. We can just provide facts. The gay marriage sources is a example (speaking of weight). And there is a huge difference between using quality RS to present the information and an article full of opinions. Neutrality (which I think is questionable here) is for sure better than forcing balance so I don't know why you are assuming the worst.Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Since this is a touchy subject, I thought I would mention my concerns with this article before making the changes.

• "Other coverage included The Week, which as is its custom published an article encapsulating quotations from eclectic sources,[3]..." - So? This serves no other purpose but to link to people to an editorialized read. The lines before make it clear that it received media attention.
• "...and Yobie Benjamin's question in the San Francisco Chronicle on whether elected officials may deny legal marriage to same-sex couples in jurisdictions which permit it[14] - See above
• "Bardwell also claimed that "99 percent of the time" interracial marriages are between a black man and a white woman, and he used the adjective "confusing" to describe this alleged disparity.[1]" This reads like it is in to show that he is a racist. I think the article should come out and say "he was called a racist because of this comment". It also shouldn't directly follow his supposed justification like that. It seems weasely.
• This article does not make any mention of his claim racism/not racism. Is that available?
• Front-page articles in the Daily Star reported the disavowal of Bardwell by state, parish, and municipal officials[15]..." - Who cares if yet another story was published. Instead, it should say who the article says disapproved.
• "Bardwell apologized to the interracial couple but maintained that his decision to refer the couple to another justice of the peace was "helpful" to the couple.[10] - Scare quotes. This should be explained or restructured to not be.
• "...and summarized the generally negative worldwide attention to the story.[18]" - The source doesn't say that. It says that world press was paying attention to the story, a couple bloggers were critical, and people who commented on their web page disapproved of the guy's actions. This should be reworked to provide facts.
• Several references have lengthy quotes. Sometimes these go into other stories. This looks to be a misuse of the quote parameter. These should be removed or integrated into the article.
• The lead needs his reasoning (already mentioned above)
• On the day the story broke, President Barack Obama, himself the child of an interracial marriage, was at nearby University of New Orleans for a much-heralded "townhall meeting" concerning recovery from the Hurricane Katrina disaster.[13] -Seems like an editor was trying to make a point. Not sure if this was the case bu that is how it reads. The link is also dead. Also, would "much-heralded 'townhall meeting'..." a town hall meeting..." suffice?

Any concerns?Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I agree with half of your points, no opinion on the other, so go nuts. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Somehow the archive bot messed up the discussion

I'll keep experimenting to see if I can't get things right. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange. The script looks good as far as I can see (and compare to other archived discussions), but I admit that I'm not very familiar with the archiving bot. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 Louisiana interracial marriage incident. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091017013446/http://www.nola.com:80/crime/index.ssf/2009/10/interracial_couple_denied_marr.html to http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/10/interracial_couple_denied_marr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)