Talk:Bobby Jindal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Inauguration

Folks, please.

According to LPB, they are covering the inauguration live on January 14th.

http://www.lpb.org/programs/swi/

INAUGURATION 2008 - Louisiana Public Broadcasting will air live coverage of the inauguration of Governor Bobby Jindal on Monday, January 14. Louisiana: The State We're In Managing Editor Robyn Ekings, Producer Charlie Whinham and LPB President/CEO Beth Courtney will anchor the coverage from the State Capitol in Downtown Baton Rouge. In addition to the Governor, the other statewide elected officials and the Legislature will be sworn in at the event. Starts at 11:00 AM CST

Unless someone has good reason to explain why Saturday the 12th is the date instead of Monday the 14th, please don't change the date again. And if you do have a good reason, please leave it here for all of us. Thanks.

--12.152.105.2 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite certain that it was on a Monday. I remember watching the election coverage on a weekday, not a weekend. Thanks. -- OtherAJ (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rush

I removed the section on Limbaugh's remarks as unnoteworthy and POV. Another editor put it back. I intend to remove it again and persist until it stays gone. Imagine if someone made a section in this article about something negative some radio host said about Jindal. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I intend to remove it again and persist until it stays gone. - That's called edit warring, which is against policy, and it will not be tolerated.

For the record, I didn't add the original comments, but only cleaned it up when someone else modified what Limbaugh actually said, and added the original quote to prevent further modifications. Stating rm unnoteworthy laudatory comment from radio host, POV is in itself POV. All that has been done here is to report what Limbaugh actually said, which is noteworhty whether you agree with the "praise" or not. Whether or not it should be reported is an issue of notablility, not POV. You need to focus your attention on gaining a consensus that it is non-notable, not in edit warring. - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I just read that section. The wording on it seems neutral POV to me. I will agree, though that the notablilty may be questionable. I think that it needs to be developed a little further to establish notability. Milkbreath, if you want it gone, hang one of those notability tags on it, and then delete it after a reasonable time if someone hasn't added more to the Limbaugh section to make it a little more notable. Sf46 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I expected grim opposition from the supporters of a Louisiana governor. I read the book, you know. (insert smiley) I've never been in an edit war, don't know what one is. I was merely making it clear to the person who reverted my removal that promotional political material such as this section will not be tolerated in an open encyclopedia, and that his casual reversion will be met with a determined removal. And the only reason I'm in this at all is that I copyedited the article a while ago at random.

I'm not saying that the wording is POV but that the inclusion of laudatory empty conjecture on the part of a radio talk show host is POV. Again, imagine someone created a section whose only reason for being here was to say that some talk show host had called Jindal the next Hitler? Would that be OK? I think not. I like Sf's suggestion about the tag, except that I would feel disingenuous doing that, because a random comment from a radio, well, blowhard, will never be notable no matter how you word it, unless it's in an article called Amazing pointless things RL said. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, almost everything Limbaugh has said lately in the presidential race, especially in about McCain, has been the subject of a lot of media coverage. Limbaugh is a big force in the Conservative movement, and much has been made in the media of his continued opposition to McCain, and lack of support of McCain's nomination. That is the context of his comments, and what makes it more than just random, pointless comments. To satisfy WP:N:WP's Notability requirements, I'd recommend checking the news reports to see if his comments have been reported, esp in Louisiana. If someone else responded to the comments, those those could be reported too. However, if it was ignored completely by the media (not likely, but possible), then there is no established notability for the comments, and it should be removed. Those who know how to read edit summaries in the beginning will note that I did question whether this needed to be here or not, and still do - I'm m trying to give it a fair chance to be proven. Also, if there's a consesnus to do this, I would support removing the comments for now, pending addressing the notability issue. - BillCJ (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to find my deletion was controversial. The section seems to me to be blatant boosterism. I have therefore been forced to think about it, a painful and often dangerous process, and I can see how a section called something like "Media reaction" could include the present content if it also included negative reaction and covered a representative range of sources. The man obviously isn't a middle-of-the-road, run-of-the-mill nonentity, so such a section would be appropriate. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Milkbreath, that Media reaction section might be a good idea. The section from Rush Limbaugh could be the beginning part of it, and any other major press coverage could also be put there. Since this Governor is very new in office (less than a month), that section will probably steadily expand as his term goes on. Sf46 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh's comments are clearly notable. They were discussed extensively in todays Washington Times. These comments are also being discussed in the Louisiana Press and in India. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Frjohnwhiteford, according to a note on his talk page, prefers that comments about his edits appear on the talk page of the edit in question. So, Frjohn, I found your removal of the POV tag astonishingly uncooperative and disrespectful of the opinions of others, who now have been deprived of the opportunity to weigh in on an issue in dispute. I hope you can help me to see your action in a more favorable light. I'm kind of new to this editing conflict business, so please excuse any seeming heavy-handedness on my part and interpret it as my clumsy attempts to state my position clearly. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It was wrong to remove the "neutrality" tag before we had a chance to hear from someone disinterested besides myself. I think that that removal signals the end of this phase of conflict resolution. Upon futher consideration, I've concluded that the section "Potential Vice Presidential Nomination" is patent cyber-stumping, and I will do whatever I can to see it gone. I see this as an interesting test of the power of an entity such as Wikipedia to resist having itself used by special interests. I'm submitting a Request for Comment. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You can dispute the wording or inclusion of this section all you want, but there is nothing contrary to WP:NPOV in the section as it stands. If you can can convince enough people to the contrary, no doubt you will be successful in getting removed... though so far, there does not seem to be a groundswell of support. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Section "Potential Vice Presidential Nomination" neutrality

Is article section "Potential Vice Presidential Nomination" POV by mere inclusion? --Milkbreath (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See above under "Rush". --Milkbreath (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be the first to speak up and say what I said above. The section about Rush Limbaugh seems to me to have neutral wording and context. I personally don't see this Governor dropping his new office to accept a vice-presidential nomination. I'll also say again that perhaps a press comments section should replace it, with the Limbaugh info left in there, and any other media coverage whether praising or condemning Jindal out in there (past or future). Sf46 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• The section is fine. It's short, so there's not undue weight. It's appropriately sourced to both Rush and the Washington Times. There is nothing that insinuates whether Jindal would/would not make a good VP. Honestly, I agree with Sf46 that it's unlikely he'd accept the spot. Furthermore, I doubt he'd be offered it either.Ngchen (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• But there is no "potential vice presidential nomination". There is only an "offhand suggestion" by a talk show person. The press coverage even of that is being misrepresented here. The Times of India pokes fun, here. How about we add to the section what the Times quotes from Andy the Redneck, "I've been telling y'all that my buddy Bobby is going places. If being Governor of Louisiana doesn't ruin the boy, we're likely to see him on the national stage in 4 or 8 years. Y'all keep a sharp eye on the boy". --Milkbreath (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means, quote Andy the Redneck, or DroopPuppy the Ghetto thug, or Gino the New Yawker (just trying to spread the offensive sterotypes around a bit) all you want, assuming they're are notable persons, and quoted in the Times-Picayune, the Washington Times, and the Times of India. Shows what I know - I never heard of the blogger Andy the Redneck! But is McCain frothing at the mouth over everthing Andy says? Probably not.- BillCJ (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• When the subject of the article is being discussed in the mainstream press, and note is made of it here, there is no POV violation, as long as reliable sources are cited in a neutral way. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest with frequent editor of page

I'm not sure if this is the proper forum to discuss this, however I came across this website (http://www.jindalisbad.com/) and it turns out DanielZimmerman is the author of it. This seems to me to be a conflict of interests that should be discouraged in an objective encyclopedia.Sluhser589 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am "in the author of it"? What does that mean? Yes, I frequently post to Jindalisbad.com, a site where several people share their points of view on Bobby Jindal. However, when I post to wikipedia, I try my absolute best to do so using wikipedia guidelines, to keep the article as encyclopedic as possible, and to keep my POV out if the article. Read the talk page you just posted to and you will see the discussions that I have had pertaining to the article and my desire to keep it encyclopedic. I specifically point you to where I stated "However, my personal opinion is irrelevent to wikipedia." earlier on this page. I also stated to another user, "Your analysis of whether that fact is material is clearly your POV. As editors of an encyclopidia, it is not the job of us to post our personal opinions of the facts, it is just our job to point out the facts." Do you have any specific examples of where the article currently has POV violations that came from me? Or do you just not like the fact that someone who is knowledgeable on Bobby Jindal is also someone who is politically opposed to him? Do you suggest that only people who support Jindal post to his page? Because if you would argue that people who disagree with Jindal would put unencyclopedic content on the page, the same logic would dictate that if only people who support him are allowed to post, that the content could also be unencyclopedic. The reallity is that there are both people who support and oppose Jindal politically who are able to leave their feelings at the door and place encyclopedic content on the Bobby Jindal wikipedia page and there are those (on both sides) who post their POV and not facts (as can be seen with some recent edits to the Jindal page). DanielZimmerman (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty obvious that "in the author of it" was supposed to be "is the author of it", a simple typo. But admitting that would have been less fun. - BillCJ (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't get that when I read it initially. I see that now. Ok, so to clarify, I have authored many blog entries on Jindalisbad.com but I am not the creator/owner/etc of the site (as some people like to claim I am). Anyway, do you think that slusher is correct and that someone who is openly opposed to Bobby Jindal's political stances should not edit his wikipedia page? Or should all people who are willing to be objective and who want to create a well written article be able to contribute (despite their political beliefs)? DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let Daniel Zimmerman post. If he goes against WP guidelines only then should the matter be looked at. As wiki editors, we also must assume good faith and based on his statements saying he will follow procedures and guidelines I am going to take his word for it. I just ask Daniel be careful when posting and keep this conscious. Arnabdas (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For those who may not know, Daniel Zimmerman isn't merely a guy who contributes to an anti-Jindal blog. Zimmerman ran against Bobby Jindal and 4 others in the 2004 LA01 House race. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana's_1st_congressional_district#2004

http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/LA/H/01/

http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/LA/H/01/150711/frameset.exclude.html

I don't know if losing candidates typically take such an interest in the Wiki pages of those who defeat them, but I do think more disclosure on this page is in order - and frankly, it should have been made by Zimmerman himself before making his edits. Yasha1969 (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an important note of concern. However, I still stand by my opinion that he should be able to edit the article as long as he follows proper wikipedia policies, procedures and guidelines. The conflict of interest situation really would matter only if he was mediating the situation or along those lines IMO. If we have problems with edits, we can always open up mediation cabals. Arnabdas (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is obvious that this editor has an anti-Jindal bias, I don't see a problem with him editing the article as long as the contributions remain non-biased. Sf46 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Arnabdas, Wiki guidelines also recommend that possibly conflicted editors consider (a) avoiding COI topics or at least (b) disclosing an interest. IMO being a political opponent in a federal election is (easily) enough to merit such a disclosure. Would you agree? I have not claimed Zimmerman shouldn't be allowed to edit this article, but would like Zimmerman to be more forthcoming (even after the fact!), and not just pretend to be a generic editor in search of encyclopedic accuracy. I would also note that Zimmerman's claim that he is merely one of the contributors to that anti-Jindal website is not true at this time: He claimed that "several people share their points [sic] of view," yet he has written 48 of the last 50 entries there, and the other two are unsigned. (Sorry, this was Yasha1969, not signed in) 98.201.137.57 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like 90% of editors on wikipedia's political articles are obsessed with bashing conservative figures. I don't see how this guy is special, I'd give him credit for being forthright about who he is.

But on his most recent edit about Jindal not being in the New Orleans category: For some reason I thought Jindal's permanent home was Metairie. That not true? 71.128.195.213 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Bobby is originally from Baton Rouge. He did have a home in Metairie that he occupied while he was in Congress, but I'm fairly certain that I read in the Baton Rouge newspaper that he has sold that home, and now has a home (besides the Governor's Mansion) in Baton Rouge (possibly in the Country Club of LA). Sf46 (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jindal did not have a home in Metairie. He owned a home in Kenner Louisiana that he purchased before running for the LA01 congressional seat in 2004. I would argue that Jindal does not belong in in a category about New Orleaneans. However, if his representing a district for 3 years that covers some of New Orleans is enough of an association then so be it. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm not the New Orleaniest person around, but I'm not convinced that precludes him. He lived in Metairie for awhile and ultimately represented part of the GNO area in congress. The category says: New Orleanians are people from New Orleans, Louisiana, the New Orleans metropolitan area, or particularly noted for their associations with that city. 71.128.195.213 (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't preclude him. Most politicians have people scanning and editing material on the web. It's kind of sad that he's doing it himself, but that doesn't make it against the rules. It was sneaky, though, doing this with no one knowing his political involvement all the while. One thing to point out is that his interests are clearly not with providing any useful information on Bobby Jindal. I would bet that his edits aren't exactly concerned with the innocuous aspects of Jindal's life and career. I'll have to check, but I'd bet the edits are concerned with the more "negative" aspects of Mr. Jindal's life. But, hey, if he can come up with reasonable edits that cite sources and do not comprise a wider attack against Jindal that unnecessarily weigh down the article, he should feel free to continue doing so. But, be advised, Mr. Zimmerman, you may not turn this article into a negative campaign ad or use any part of this article to that end. ask123 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky? I think not. Sneaky would have been me not using my own name to edit the Bobby Jindal page. I was absolutely up front by editing the page using my own name. My goal for the entire time has been to help create and maintain a factual article about someone that I have knowledge about. I have no reason to be negatigve about Jindal on his encyclopedic page. I have plenty of other outlets that I can use if I wish to be critical of Jindal. I have also removed comments that seemed to be negative attacks against Jindal like this one. If you think I have acted in bad faith, report it to a moderator. Otherwise, do not warn me away from activities that I have no intention of participating in. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This was meant to be a constructive discussion. Don't take it personally. Such advisements (or "warnings" as you call them) are commonplace on Wikipedia. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit to VP section (Washington Post article on Jindal VP choice)

I expanded the reason why the youth of McCains running mate would be important (if such information should be included in the article to begin with)

I am concerned about the encyclopedic value of some of the information added. First of all, the article states the opinion of someone that states ""I don't think that's very important this time," (refering to the idea that Jindal being from a southern state could help Jindal be the VP choice). So i had to remove the "he is a governor of a southern state" portion of the last edit as being a reason why he could be picked by McCain.

The main question I have is this. Is including the speculation of every pundit/reporter/blogger/etc something that is encyclopedic? I would agree that Rush Limbaugh suggesting Jindal as a choice and stating he is the next "Ronald Reagan" may be an important enough of a statement to be included in the article. Perhaps the statements by Pat Toomey (president of the club for growth) would be appropriate as well... howevere Toomey's coment seems to contradict the claim made by the previous editor of the article. Now, are the opinions of Joseph Curl relevant enough for inclusion? The youth argument is one that seems to be made by Curl and not by anyone Curl is referencing. It seems to be his opinion and not a fact. And while it is a fact that Curl said it, does that merit inclusion in the article? I await the opinions of others. DanielZimmerman (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who initially expanded the section to include the sentence you rephrased, and I fully support your changes. I recognize the danger in simply citing one source as the be-all and end-all of his merits, but before this the article just said he was being considered as a candidate. And that was it. I thought the extra sentence shed at least a little bit of light as to why he was being considered. please be bold and make whatever changes you think are best for the article. --Ybbor^Talk 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Balancing Healthcare

The healthcare statement of turning a deficit into a surplus is factual. However, it also unbalances the article by ignoring the criticisms of those cuts. So I added a verifiable statement presented in a major publicaction by a "notable" organization who did not view the cuts that caused the surplus in a positive light. See Space and Balance. -- DanielZimmerman (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason for LouisianaConservative.com deletions

After reading Wikipedia:External_links I came to the conclusion that the article linked two was problematic for many reasons. One problem was that it linked to the article three times. There is no reason to link to the article three times other than to spam the page. One link to the first page would suffice if linking to the article was valid for an encyclopedic entry. Readers are fully capable of clicking a link to turn to the next page if needed. Another problem was the entry that was linked to is not even attributed to a specific person to verify the credibility of the statements made in the article. Finally, the site is basically a large blog and according to the External Link guidelines, blogs should not be linked to. I wrongly linked to another blog previously and that link was rightly removed. And note, this was not done because I disagree with the content (as I am sure some might claim) in the article removed. I also disagree with the content on the RedState article that is linked to from the Bobby Jindal wikipedia page as well. However, the article is attributed to an actual person and not an anonymous blog id and can be placed in the external links category. One thing I would suggest is that we balance the links to show all sides and not just link to conservative points of view. This would make the article more complete. DanielZimmerman (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Stem cell research

I edited the wording regarding his opinion on embryonic stem cell research. The previous wording (especially the use of the words "experimentation" and "destruction") seemed biased against the topic of discussion, so I changed it to remove any bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshc99 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was the qualifier "embryonic" removed? The Time magazine reference leaves off the qualifier as well, but I see no evidence from Jindal's voting record that he is opposed to any stem cell research except that which involves the destruction of embryos, whether they are created naturally or artificially. That he would be opposed to all stem cell research seems very unusual, and probably requires stronger documentation than an unsupported statement in a Time magazine article. I have seen some talking points memos that Jindal is opposed to stem cell research more broadly, but the evidence was his support for a bill that passed the Lousiana legislature by a vote of 89-1, so I find it hard to believe that support for that bill represents such an extreme view. Mazzula (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Bobby_Jindal#Stem_cell_research.. Thank you. DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Position on abortion.

Someone deleted some vital information on Bobby Jindal's position on abortion. I have reverted that information, and I also fixed some of the wording to place his votes as a Congressman in the past tense. If someone feels that his feeling that procedures that would terminate a pregnancy (medical definition of abortion) that do not specifically target the embryo/fetus (because of the double effect) are not morally equivalent to abortions on demand where the intent is clearly to terminate the pregnancy, should not be included in the article, lets discuss that here first. DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted new well-sourced material, because there was really no way to access "Politics with a Punch: AM 690, January 2004". See WP:Verifiability.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

some of your changes seem to be off, let's discuss. DanielZimmerman (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

2003 campaign for Governor needs to be expanded

The article suggests that there's no simple explanation for Jindal's 2003 runoff loss. That may be the case, but when making such a suggestion, blatantly obvious possible explanations should be addressed. In this case, the obvious explanation is that the Democrats held the upper hand throughout, and Jindal's initial first place finish was an anomaly due to the fact that almost 58% of the vote was split among four Democrats.

I'm not knowledgeable about any of these candidates, so I don't know who Ieyoub, Leach, and Ewing (or for that matter, Downer) endorsed. If they did endorse their party's candidate, that should be noted, and if they did not, that also should be noted. 24.184.97.102 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that the Democrats just held the upper hand throughout. However, a verifiable source would have to state that in order for it to be included in the article. Endorsements of Blanco by the other Democrats may be something that could be included though. DanielZimmerman (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

footnote 8 does not support the point

The footnoted article says: "In high school, he gave up Hinduism and became a Christian; and during his first year at Brown University, he was baptized as a Roman Catholic."

The artilce says he became a Catholic in high School: "Jindal was a Hindu but converted to Catholicism in high school." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.216.3 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems plausible that he became a Catholic in high school, but didn't become fully baptized until his 1st year of college. No big deal. Sf46 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia Hatchet Job

Funny how this article is quick to jump on his pro-life positions (which I don't personally agree with), yet Barack Obama's stance against a ban on partial birth abortion in non-emergencies isn't mentioned anywhere in his article. This is just another groupthink article on a conservative that is designed to troll readers. 98.218.141.145 (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

quote supposedly from a reference

The article has a quote:

When asked if he would accept an offer of the vice presidential nomination from McCain, Jindal jokingly stated "Only if he speaks at my high school reunion in August".

This references this CNN transcript which makes no reference to this quote. If Gov. Jindal did say this, we need to get the correct reference for it. --rogerd (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this quote since it is not referenced. --rogerd (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Children names in the personal section explanation

A little confusing text: "In 1997, Jindal married Supriya Jolly (born 1972). The couple has three children: Selia Elizabeth, Shaan Robert, and Slade Ryan. Contrary to Indian tradition, their names do not carry the father's ethnic title 'Jindal'." The tradition of giving the father's last name to his children is not a specific "Indian" tradition. Indeed, this tradition is one that most cultures and ethnicities follow. I fear that the aim of the sentence is semi-biased in demonstrating that Mr. Jindal is not a traditional Indian, which, while possibly true, is not shown by his act of not using his paternal name to be passed down to this children. (Paradigm25 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)paradigm25)

Picayune

This Wikipedia article says: "Jindal has stated that he is '100 percent against abortion, no exceptions.'" But that's not an accurate quote.

The cited reference is a blog titled “Catholics in the Public Square”. The blog says: “On September 21, 2003, The Times-Picayune profiled the views of Louisiana's gubernatorial candidates on a host of issues life and family-related issues from abortion to sex education. On abortion, Jindal told the paper, ‘I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.’” Again, that's not an accurate quote.

On September 20, 2003, the Times Picayune ran an article titled “Candidates for governor answer questions about social issues”. Here’s an excerpt: “Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?....JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.”

So, the quote from the blog is incorrect, and incomplete. We’re not supposed to use blogs in footnotes at Wikipedia anyway, so I’ll replace it with a cite to the actual Times-Picayune article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote from the times picayune is "I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.". The article is cited in the Who is Bobby Jindal article. I do not see where the T-P says "100% pro-life" but we can reference a link where the T-P cites him as saying "I am 100% anti-abortion". I have referenced this in the past and in the past these quotes (ignoring for now the AM690 one) were well sourced and referenced. I do not see the removal of information as being appropriate just because a link goes stale. If the link at one time provided the necessary information, then that reference should be valid for future information.

It is not that we are not supposed to use blogs as footnotes. It is that we are not supposed to use blogs as a the source of the information. However, if the blog references a "reliable" media source then I would argue that there is no problem with using the information cited from that media source. DanielZimmerman (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is another media source for the "anti-abortion" quote (and not pro-life). "He's also fervently opposed to abortion rights - telling Louisiana's Times-Picayune "I am 100 per cent against abortion with no exceptions." Has Bobby Jindal got the right stuff? DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This Wikipedia article presently has a footnote that links directly to the pertinent Times-Picayune article. Have you looked at the T-P article?

“Candidates for governor answer questions about social issues”, Times Picayune (2003-09-20): “Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?....JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.”

You have found some sources that have misquoted the Times-Picayune.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

When I click on your link, I see no reference to Jindal's statement. Is it under the paid access? The Gambit clearly states it here: "For example, he is anti-abortion -- with no exceptions". So there you go, a reliable article stating that he is anti-abortion with no exceptions. Would you be ok with a rewording of the first sentance that states: "Jindal is pro-life and is against abortion with no exceptions" DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's under the paid access. The quote is clear as day. “Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?....JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.” People have misquoted it, and created an echo chamber. The Gambit opinion commentary does not touch on the issue of the life of the mother, so I would be opposed to using that opinion commentary in an effort to falsely accuse Jindal of wanting to let women die. He has explicitly said that notion is "ridiculous", though you deleted that quote from this article.[1] You're certainly entitled to say anything you want at your web site,[2] but I urge you to please help us strive for neutrality here. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, I would never make the assertion that Jindal "wants" to let women die. I may feel that his policies would let a woman die, but I do not believe that this would be his "desire". I am also not trying to insert any text into Bobby Jindal's wikipedia article that would mention the death of women as a result of his positions. So now that we have gotten that out of the way...

The quote can hardly be "clear as day" if it is only available to those who choose to pay for the access. I have to take your word on it. And since you are unwilling to take my word on the AM 690 reference (even though no other wikipedia author who has touched this article has had a problem with that reference) and you are also making assumptions of bad faith about me as a wikipedia author, why should I take yours?

The gambit article states "no exceptions" so it does not need to tourch on the issue of the life of the mother, as no exceptions means just that. No exceptions. My suggestion to reword the article was not to "falsely accuse Jindal of wanting to let women die" as you have incorrectly stated. My suggestion to reword was on a desire to compromise with a fellow wikipedia author on the wording of a particular passage in order to get the best article possible. I have done this previously with other authors on this very article. I would suggest that you read up and look at my discussion with Holmwood about Jindals Name to see an example where a sensible agreement about a sensitive subject was reached by two individuals who probably are politically opposite but yet found a consensus and a common ground on how the article should be written in order to be considered neutral and encyclopedic.

Again, Jindalisbad.com is not "my website". It is a website on which I have the authority to post blogs but it does not belong to me. If you MUST know, my website is www.lj4a.com. And I am well aware that I am free to put any commentary I wish on MY site and on jindalisbad.com. I cannot help the fact that I know a lot about Bobby Jindal, that I have followed his political career, and that I am politically opposed to him. However, your assumption of bad faith on my part is unacceptable. While I am not the perfect editor and have made a mistake or two in my day, I have strived to make sure that this article follows wikipedia guidelines, is of neutral tone, and is encyclopedic in nature. Wikipedia is not my soapbox, nor do I need it to be. And if you, again, read the rest of this talk page you will clearly see that I have made edits (like removing an unreferenced statement that Jindal did not support the Louisiana State Police) that were put in here by people with agendas and anti-jindal bias who where unwilling to leave their bias at the door when editing this page. I am more than willing to leave my bias at the door and help others who do the same to edit this page and make it the very best it can be. Are you willing to help me do this? Or are you going to continue to assume bad faith on my part by questioning my willingness to be neutral and by claiming things about my intent here that are plainly false? DanielZimmerman (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Picayune article costs $3.95. That's less than the cost of a taxi ride to your local library, where you can also find the article for free. Wikipedia quotes sources all the time that are not freely available online, so this Picayune article is a perfectly acceptable source. In contrast, Wikipedia does not want sources that are unverifiable, such as the AM690 source. See WP:Verifiability.

I'm not sure which comment of mine includes an assumption of bad faith. I did not mean to suggest that you're editing in bad faith. You deleted a quote from this article, in which Jindal explicitly denied that he "will" let women die.[3] You apparently "feel that his policies would let a woman die" even though he has explicitly denied it, and you want this article to say that his policies will let women die even though he has never said or implied that, as far as I can tell. Your style of editing is not necessarily in bad faith; some Wikipedia editors simply aren't aware that NPOV is a critical feature of Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware that NPOV is a critical feature of Wikipedia. No need to remind me of this.

Your encouragement to strive for neutrallity after saying I can say what I want on off wikipedia sites is an assumption of bad faith because you are assuming that I am not striving for neutrallity. You also claimed that my desire in adding the wording from the gambit linke was "an effort to falsely accuse Jindal of wanting to let women die." I have no desire to accuse Jindal of anything on the Wikipedia page. The only desire here is to write the best encyclopedic article possible.

Now, on to Jindals so called explicit denial that he would not let women die. He didn't say "i wont let a single woman die if her pregnancy threatens her life". Let's look at the citation in its entirety, shall we?

"He has also clarified that he is not against medical procedures to save the life of the mother that indirectly cause the loss of an unborn child, saying "The Democratic Party is trying to insinuate that I will let women die, and that's ridiculous." "He said he does not condemn medical procedures aimed at saving the life of the mother that result indirectly in the loss of the unborn child as a secondary effect." "

Clearly he doesn't condemn a salpingectomy, as the loss of the embryo would be a secondary effect. So that is an example where Jindal would not let the woman die. However, if a procedure caused the loss of the unborn child as a primary effect, Jindal would be opposed to the procedure and, if Jindal had is way, a woman would be let to die.

But I do not want to put into the article any possible repercussion of his policy stances. To do so would be an attempt to predict the future and would be unecyclopedic and violate NPOV, NOR and other wikipedia policies and guidelines.

So while Jindal may feel the comments by the Democratic party are ridiculous, the quote from the source you provided only states that he supports procedures that abort a pregnancy as a secondary effect.

And let me be clear, one more time, on this claim of yours that is false: "and you want this article to say that his policies will let women die even though he has never said or implied that" No! I do not want this article to say that "Bobby Jindal will let women die". I want the article to say what his stance on abortion is and that stance, as shown in MANY reliable and verifiable sources, is that he is pro-life and against all procedures that result in an abortion as a primary effect without exception. We may even include, by using your source , that he would be supportive of any procedure to save a womans life where an abortion of the pregnancy would be a secondary effect.. since that is the clarification he gave to your source. DanielZimmerman (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If an abortion is necessary to save a woman's life, you think Jindal would want to criminalize cutting the umbilical cord and subsequently removing the dead fetus? The fetal death would be secondary, right?

If a woman's life is in danger, then the death of the fetus could always be completely secondary. At least, that seems to be Jindal's understanding, or else he would not have said it's ridiculous that he "will let women die."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(reindenting) You are not interpreting Jindal's view on abortion correctly. The link ONLY states that he is supportive of procedures that cause the termination of the pregnancy indirectly. It clarifies the direct quote (about the ridiculousness of the Democratic party for making an accusation that he would let women die) by saying the circumstances where he would allow a woman to protect her life. Those circumstances are where the termination of the pregnancy is indirect. Again, I will explain this one more time to you. If a woman has cancer of the uterus, normal treatment of that cancer would include chemotherapy or removal of the uterus. IF a pregnant woman got cancer of the uterus and was treated as a normal patient with cancer of the uterus would be treated, it would cause a termination of the pregnancy. However, that termination of the pregnancy would be indirect. Jindal is not opposed to a woman with cancer to seek out normal cancer treatment, even if that treatment would result in an abortion of the pregnancy. Now, on the other hand, if a pregnant woman had some condition (lets call it condition X) and the treatment of condition X is an abortion (i.e. the doctor has to induce or otherwise cause an abortion directly) then Jindal WOULD be opposed to that (because as the article YOU cited states, Jindal is not opposed to INDIRECT abortions, not abortions). The fetal death here would be PRIMARY, not secondary. Now, if you feel that the direct quote from Jindal followed by the paraphrase only discussing indirect abortions are contradictory then perhaps we need to do as I suggested below and reject your source as a reliable source if it is providing contradictory material. However, if you accept the idea that the statement of "He said he does not condemn medical procedures aimed at saving the life of the mother that result indirectly in the loss of the unborn child as a secondary effect" is a clarification of his direct quote, showing the circumstances that he would not allow a woman to die, then the source could still be a reliable source and absolutely backs up my statements about Jindal and his view on abortion. I am tempted to just remove the portion on abortion for now, until we can reach a consensus. However, I will not do so until i hear from others. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Subhaschandra Amrit?

Is this sourced anywhere? DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it sourced anywhere, so I removed it. Also got rid of dead link in first footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

God Bless Google - [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.197.208 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I contacted the author of that article. He wrote back, and said, "Yes, I saw his name on Wikipedia."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's just straight up vandalism, as far as I can tell. The one source site didn't mention that name at all, and the other was from an editorial using that name. Neither seems to be a reliable source. Sf46 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What is worse is that it seems other sites are starting to use Wikipedia as a source and are writing stories claiming that this is his middle name as well. Which they will then be able to say "look, a site stating his name!". I see this as becoming very annoying. DanielZimmerman (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

This edit seems to be introducing original research. It attributes to Jindal a:

definition of abortion [that] is similar to the American Life League (using the double effect to justify certain procedures) and differs from the definition used in the medical community. This definition only includes procedures that target the embryo or fetus and excludes procedures, such as a salpingectomy, that do not target the embryo specifically but still terminate the pregnancy as a side effect (that would medically still be considered to be an abortion).

But no cite is provided to any source that mentions Jindal, and Jindal never said anything about "salpingectomy", nor anything about wanting to define abortion differently from how anyone else defines it.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove this material, if there is no objection.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is objection. I never suggested that the scalpingectomy was attributed to a quote by Jindal. I clearly stated in the history page that the information is there for clarification purposes. If a wikipedia article was required to be made up of only quotes by the person then the article would hardly be objective at all. The fact of the matter is that Jindal's own stance on abortion (one that bans all abortions, yet allows procedures that terminate the pregnancy as a secondary effect) differs from that of the medical community that would also count such procedures as abortion. This is not "original research". I cited the medical definition of abortion, I cited what a scapingectomy is, I cited the double effect, and I cited the American Life League (though at the time I could not access their site for some reason to give a hard link to it). In order for this page to be encyclopedic, the reader needs to understand what Jindal means by being 100% against abortions without exception. To point out sourced material that explains what this means is hardly original research. Furthermore, nothing I said is my orignial thought. In fact, this issue is repeated here, here, here, here, here, and here. Now, if you would like to take the words from another source and directly quote them instead of using my words then you are more than free to do so... be bold! However, WP:OR does suggest that it is preferable for the author to state what is being sourced in his own words. "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." DanielZimmerman (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is not merely that Jindal never said anything about salpingectomy. The problem is that no reliable source discusses salpingectomy in connection with Jindal. Salpingectomy is sometimes used to treat an ectopic pregnancy, in which a fertilized egg has implanted in the fallopian tube instead of inside the uterus, but I see no indication that Jindal would be opposed to abortion of a human in the uterus, if necessary to save the mother's life. (Also, please note that salpingectomy has a rather dark history, involving forced sterilization for eugenic reasons, even when there is no ectopic pregnancy.)

I am not Catholic, but my understanding is that the Catholic Church makes a distinction between "direct abortion" and indirect abortion: "First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a 'secondary effect.' For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion."[5] Obviously, that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church believes a woman can go get a salpingectomy (or other medical procedure that indirectly ends a pregnancy) even though she has no health problems. I think this Wikipedia article as it currently stands is very clear about Jindal's position. Would you please explain why you think it is unclear?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The salpingectomy is an example of a medical procedure used to save the life of the mother that indirectly causes the loss of an unborn child. That is why it is relevant to the article. You state: "I see no indication that Jindal would be opposed to abortion of a human in the uterus, if necessary to save the mother's life." but your quote absolutely states that he would be. "He has also clarified that he is not against medical procedures to save the life of the mother that indirectly cause the loss of an unborn child". "Indirectly" is the key word. This shows he would be opposed to procedures that directly cause the loss of an unborn child. This follows the double effect theory that I linked to in those several posts. A salpingectomy or the removal of a cancerous uterus when pregnant would be examples of procedures where the target of the procedure is not the embryo/fetus so the termination of the pregnancy is not the direct purpose of the procedure. If an abortion was required to save the womans life, and that procedure had to directly target the embryo/fetus, then Jindal would be opposed to it because of his statement.

The Catholic church does differentiate between "direct abortion" and "inderect abortion". Jindal follows the Catholic views on abortion in his personal stance on abortion. If the Jindal wikipedia article does not differentiate between the medical definition of abortion and the catholic definition of abortion while discussing Jindal's stance, it does not give a complete picture and in order to be encyclopedic the article needs to be as complete as possible. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. First, we would need a reliable source saying that Jindal precisely follows the exact teachings of the Catholic Church regarding abortion. Then we would need a reliable source saying that the Catholic Church believes that an abortion to save the life of the mother is sometimes considered a "direct" abortion. It's possible that if you can provide those two things, then we might be able to add to the article.

Jindal has clearly said that he is not against medical procedures to save the life of the mother that indirectly cause the loss of an unborn child. To an average person, this sounds like he's okay with any abortion necessary to save the life of the mother. You say that's not what he meant, but please give me quotes from reliable sources.

In response to the accusation that he "will let women die", Jindal responded "that's ridiculous." You deleted that Jindal quote from this article, and you appear to be asserting that he was not telling the truth. What reliable basis do you have for asserting that he was not telling the truth?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your conclusion that it sounds like he's ok with any abortion necessary to save the life of the mother. In the AM 690 interview (which I guess cannot be used as a source) he stated that he is ok with the treatment of ectopic pregnancy because the procedure doesn't target the embryo. The only treatment of an ectopic pregnancy that doesn't target the embryo is the salpingectomy. This, combined with the quote you found about Jindal not being opposed to procedures that indirectly cause the loss of an unborn child shows me that he is not okay with any abortion necessary to save the life of the mother and that he is only ok with procedures where the loss of pregnancy is not directly caused. If the average persion would read that he is okay with any abortion to save the life of the woman, this is why the clarification is needed. The only reliable source that is needed to prove it is the one you provided because that is what the sentance means. The reliable basis for asserting that he was not telling the truth is also the sentance about the indirect cause. He honestly would let a woman die if the procedure required to save her life directly caused the loss of the embryo/fetus. However, if the intent of the procedure was to do something else (like remove the uterus that is cancerous or remove the segment of tube that the embryo is located) then the procedure would be ok. That is what is meant by indirect.

As for what we need. I believe I have already provided a link showing that the Catholic Chuch sometimes considers a procedure that terminates a pregnancy to be a direct abortion and forbidden in the links I provided to back up my claim. This link also helps to explain the whole double effect and that you may not perform the evil act (an abortion) to do good (save the life of the woman) but you can perform another procedure (removing a cancerous uterus) that may result in the evil happening (loss of the unborn). "The evil effect must be a regrettable byproduct." "One may never do evil hoping that good may come of it. A bad effect may be the consequence of a morally good act, or it may occur simultaneously along with it, but the anticipated good must never be a result of evil actions. Such acts are never morally licit "

A very important quote from that link is "The evil effect does not cause the good result. You are removing a diseased organ that is killing the mother, not performing an abortion. ". This backs up the idea that the key word "indirect" in Bobby Jindal's statement is not only in observance of the Catholic feelings on allowable procedures, but that there is an abortive procedure that would save the life of the woman that is not allowed as long as the intent is the termination of the pregnancy. Basically it goes as follows. If the a Catholic is faced with choice of death or having a direct abortion, the Catholic must choose death.

Here is one more source that describes the double effect and shows that under Catholic law, direct abortions are prohibited even if if is to save the life of the woman.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ "A doctor who believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother's life, might nevertheless consistently believe that it would be permissible to perform a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with cancer. In carrying out the hysterectomy, the doctor would aim to save the woman's life while merely foreseeing the death of the fetus. Performing an abortion, by contrast, would involve intending to kill the fetus as a means to saving the mother. "

So I hope I have at least proven, through verifiable sources, that there are circumstnaces where even if the procedure was to save the life of the woman, catholic law would prevent the procedure because the termination of the pregnancy was not indirect. I would also hope that you could see the connection between the double effect and between Bobby Jindal's statement where he would be ok with a procedure that indirectly terminates the pregnancy and that being a Catholic he follows the rules set forth by the church. As for proof of does Jindal follow the Catholic Church. One only needs to look at his own writings to see this. Jindal's words include "The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork" and "“The choice is between Catholicism’s authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy.”" www DOT freerepublic DOT com/focus/f-religion/1609536/posts (cant link to it, it is blacklisted... but it contains the writing of Jindal) Now, if Jindal believes that the Church infallibly determines the cannon of the bible and the Church states that all direct abortions are bad but indirect abortions are permissable to save a life.... do I really need to go on or have I proven my point? DanielZimmerman (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You say that, “The reliable basis for asserting that he was not telling the truth is also the sentance about the indirect cause.” But Daniel, if a person deliberately says two things that contradict each other, then how do you know which one is false? Additionally, your evidence that he has contradicted himself is extremely weak. You say, “The only treatment of an ectopic pregnancy that doesn't target the embryo is the salpingectomy.” But that’s not necessarily true:

“Salpingectomy is also used to treat an ectopic pregnancy, a condition in which a fertilized egg has implanted in the tube instead of inside the uterus. In most cases, the tube is removed only after drug treatments designed to save the structure have failed. (Women with one remaining fallopian tube are still able to get pregnant and carry a pregnancy to term.) The other alternative to salpingectomy is surgery to remove the fetus from the fallopian tube, followed by surgery to repair the tube.” (Emphasis added.) [6]

It seems clear that drug treatments (as well as surgery to remove the fetus or embryo) do not target the fetus or embryo, but rather are targeted twoard saving the mother's life. Do you think both of them target the fetus?

You continue to insist that, “He honestly would let a woman die if the procedure required to save her life directly caused the loss of the embryo/fetus.” And you deleted his explicit denial from this article.[7] I have still not heard of anything that indicates his denial was a lie. You are making an extremely inflammatory accsation in a biography of a living person, that the subject would let women die. That’s fine if you’re correct, but reliable and verifiable soruces are needed, and even then Wikipedia’s presentation ought to be neutral.

I do not dispute your assertion that, “the Catholic Chuch sometimes considers a procedure that terminates a pregnancy to be a direct abortion and forbidden.” But we would need a reliable source saying that the Catholic Church believes that an abortion to save the life of the mother is sometimes considered a forbidden "direct" abortion. The source you cite does not indicate the Catholic Church has any such belief. On the contrary, it quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia: “If medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked.” It thus seems that the Catholic Church does not believe that an abortion to save the life of the mother is sometimes considered a forbidden "direct" abortion; for example, the umbilical cord can be cut, resulting in a dead fetus, which can then be removed (apparently without violating any Catholic doctrine).

You also link to this source which discusses a “doctor who believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother's life.” But this quote does not say that all good Catholic doctors believe that. On the contrary, this source you’ve linked to says that, “it is hard to find a principled ground for drawing this distinction” that you are trying to draw.

Even if you could find a reliable source saying that the Catholic Church believes that an abortion to save the life of the mother is sometimes considered a forbidden "direct" abortion (and you haven’t done that), you would still have to prove that Jindal subscribes to this precise belief. You cite a “blacklisted” Jindal quote from Free Republic which is unrelated to abortion. And, as I mentioned, you deleted from this article the quote where Jindal explcitly denied that he “will let women die.” [8]

Please take another look at WP:OR and WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiabilty. Thanks.

(Reindenting) First and foremost, I don't need you to remind me to look at wikipedia policies. I have been on wikipedia long enough and I understand them just fine. If you feel that my edits are in violation of wikipedia policies then you are more than welcome to seek any of the resolutions available to wikipedia authors. I was correct in that the salpingectomy is the only procedure that doesn't target the embryo. More specifically, the other two procedures have the direct effect of causing an abortion where as a salpingectomy, the target of the procedure is the tube itself and is not to abort a pregnancy. The result of the procedure may be an abortion of the pregnancy but it is not the primary intent. Your statement of "It seems clear that drug treatments (as well as surgery to remove the fetus or embryo) do not target the fetus or embryo, but rather are targeted twoard saving the mother's life." shows that you do not have a full understanding of the theory surrounding the double effect. Even if the intent is to save the life of the pregnant woman, if the procedure used directly causes an abortion it is not allowed. You state: "You are making an extremely inflammatory accsation in a biography of a living person". Please show me where in the Bobby Jindal article that I have made an extremely inflammatory accusation. Removal of a quote that is contradicted in the article that it was found is not inflammatory at all. In fact, since the article seems to contradict itself then perhaps that should exclude it from consideration as a reliable source as a whole. On this statement of yours

On the contrary, it quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia: “If medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked.” It thus seems that the Catholic Church does not believe that an abortion to save the life of the mother is sometimes considered a forbidden "direct" abortion

You clearly have misinterpreted what the encyclopedia is saying because of the words in bold. If the childs death is caused by an unavoidable consequence of the procedure then you can consider that the "fetal life" is not directly attacked.

"for example, the umbilical cord can be cut, resulting in a dead fetus, which can then be removed (apparently without violating any Catholic doctrine)."

If the ubilical chord was cut by mistake as part of a different procedure then it would not be considered a "direct abortion". However if the purpose of cutting the chord was to abort the pregnancy then clearly it is a direct pregnancy and is forbidden under Catholic law.

Here is a link to the vatican saying: "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:"

Need more?DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION ": It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another's life, even when that life is only beginning."

Need more? [9] "It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being."

The "blacklisted" page is the free republic, the only place where you can currently see Bobby Jindal's writing where I pulled his quotes from. And while it may not mention abortion, it shows Jindal to be a devout follower of the faith and a person who believes the rulings by the church are infallible.

At the moment, I would suggest that we remove all references to abortion on the Bobby Jindal wikipedia article until we can come to a consensus on the creation of a neutral toned, verifiable, reliable, and 100% correct wording of his stance.

I would also suggest you read WP:Common, as someone who clearly believes that the Catholic Church is infallible when it comes to interpreting the rules would tend to follow the double effect reasoning as a guide for his stance on abortion. DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This Jindal article previously said that he “supports an abortion ban without exceptions for life.” It seems like you would still like to include something that gets across this same idea, and that’s inflammatory. But being inflammatory is fine, if it’s true, and well-sourced. I just am not convinced that it’s true and well-sourced. After all, he’s explicitly denied it.[10]

You have now come up with an explicit and authoritative quote indicating that the Vatican will sometimes forbid abortion to save a woman's life: “The gravity of the problem comes from the fact that in certain cases, perhaps in quite a considerable number of cases, by denying abortion one endangers important values to which it is normal to attach great value, and which may sometimes even seem to have priority. We do not deny these very great difficulties. It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother....”

You would still need a reliable and verifiable source showing that Jindal would therefore support enforcing this doctrine by law. A "blacklisted" page from Free Republic, that does not even mention abortion, is not adequate. If you do find such a reliable source, then we can start talking about WP:SYN.

In the mean time, perhaps you can tell me this: the Catholic Church forbids masturbation, so does Jindal want to criminalize that too? "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"This Jindal article previously said that he “supports an abortion ban without exceptions for life.” It seems like you would still like to include something that gets across this same idea, and that’s inflammatory."

I would reject that statement (supports an abortion ban without exceptions for life) as being correct since it is incomplete. The article previously stated "During his 2003 run for governor he distinguished himself from Blanco, who is also anti-abortion, by stating that he supports an abortion ban without exceptions for life, health, rape, or incest. His definition of abortion differs from the definition used by some in the medical community, in that it only includes procedures that target the embryo or fetus, a definition that excludes procedures, such as a salpingectomy, that do not target the embryo specifically but still terminate the pregnancy." This is not inflammatory, it is truthful.

"But being inflammatory is fine, if it’s true, and well-sourced." Being inflammatory is not fine. Wikipedia articles should have neutral tone. They should not be inflammatory.

I just am not convinced that it’s true and well-sourced. After all, he’s explicitly denied it. You are taking the quote out of context and only looking at it in a vacuum. The quote exists in the entirety of the article. The statements around the article clearly state what procedures that would cause an abortion that Jindal would not be opposed to, and those procedures are ones that indirectly cause an abortion.

I would accept a wording that stated something like "Jindal is 100% pro-life and is against "direct abortions" without exception. Jindal is not opposed to procedures that would indirectly cause the pregnancy to abort". Would you accept this wording? It uses the words from the Times Picayune, the Gambit, and your other source that you provided. The only problem i have is using the term "direct" as their has to be a better term.

You would still need a reliable and verifiable source showing that Jindal would therefore support enforcing this doctrine by law. Why? Nowhere is the article saying what Jindal would or would not legislate.Trying to guess what exact legislation he would enact would be speculation and Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. The article is only describing his personal beliefs. So there should be no requirement to find a source showing that Jindal supports enforcing this doctrine by law since there is no statement to that effect being placed in the article.

A "blacklisted" page from Free Republic, that does not even mention abortion, is not adequate. You are really dwelling on the "blacklisted" idea far too much. Blacklisting doesnt in and of itself state that the reference is bad. All it does is prevent people from linking to it (probably because someone tried to spam the site with the link to the main website previously). The Free Republic article does show the Jindal article correctly.

In the mean time, perhaps you can tell me this: the Catholic Church forbids masturbation, so does Jindal want to criminalize that too? Again, the section is "positions on selected issues" and not "what Jindal would criminalize". However, there are no reliable instances showing Jindal discussing masterbation so inclusion of Jindal's views on Masterbation would not be valid for inclusion on wikipedia (so it is not a valid argument about what we should include about Jindal's well publicized stance on abortion).

The bottom line is this. I have showed that Bobby Jindal is against procured abortions in any circumstance but is not against people obtaining procedures that would cause a pregnancy to abort indirectly. The following wording in bold should be the appropriate wording for the Jindal abortion stance (with sources described in parens).

Bobby Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record according to NRLC (From the On the Issues website) and believes all life is precious (Times picayune). He is against abortion without exception (From the Gambit). However, he is not against medical procedures meant to save the life of a pregnant woman that would indirectly cause the termination of the pregnancy ([ http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AD&p_theme=ad&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0FEC6C97E8FB05E0&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM from the link Ferrylodge provided]). Jindal also supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape ([ http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2003-11-04/commentary.html Gambit link again, and a small edit from the current wording since no site suggests he supports its use in all purposes, just for rape]). He opposes using taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and destruction of human embryos (unchanged from the article.)

Now, can we all agree to this wording (without the text inside the parens of course, and providing the actual links to those sources)? I dropped the explanation of whose definition is what. I dropped the salpingectomy example. Nothing in there is my original thought and all come from verifiable, reliable, and "notable" sources. There is no OR, no Sythesis, no inflammatory comments, no speculation on what he would do with those policies and no bias whatsoever. I would be happy with this wording and I feel it is encyclopedic. Lets keep any further discussion on the words in bold only. DanielZimmerman (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you would please include links to go with your parenthetical sources, so we can easily check the sources. Also, a phrase like "he is against...." is not very informative. Does that mean he is personally against, or that he would criminalize, or you don't know? If you don't know, then why not say that you don't know in the Wikipedia article?

Generally speaking, I think this draft language looks okay. But again, why can't we mention that Jindal has explicitly denied that he "will let women die"?[12] Incidentally, it will be important to mention that the Gambit piece is an opinion column rather than a news report.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The links for the parenthetical sources are already provided either in the article currently or on this page. However, i will go back and make the parentheticals into links, but I also need to make a change or two (to offer a suggestion for against (even though I don't think it is an issue and that we do not have to specifically state what we dont know in a wikipedia article... we just don't inlcude it. The sources say he is anti-abortion so we say it is anti-abortion and we dont guess as to what lengths he would go in support of his pro-life feelings.)

Bobby Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record according to NRLC (From the On the Issues website) and believes all life is precious (Times picayune). He is anti-abortion without exception (From the Gambit). However, he does not condemn medical procedures meant to save the life of a pregnant woman that would indirectly cause the termination of the pregnancy (from the link Ferrylodge provided). Jindal also supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape (Gambit link again, and a small edit from the current wording since no site suggests he supports its use in all purposes, just for rape). He opposes stem cell research (unchanged from the article.) and voted against increasing federal funding to exapand embryonic stem cell lines. (on the issues)

The time article only says that he opposes stem cell research and makes no comment about funding. It also does not qualify what kind of stem cell research he opposes (though it is likely to be embryonic only). However, on the issues does provide a vote against expanding embryonic stem cell lines. So I changed that wording accordingly.

I do not think we need to say that the Gambit article is an opinion piece because it is irrelevant. Opinions pieces can contain elements that are not their opinion and they are not stating an opinion that he is "anti-abortion", they are stating it as a fact.

The quote about "letting women die" doesn't need to be included. The wikipedia article is not saying that Jindal would let women die, the wikipedia article does not include a quote from anyone else that states Jindal would let women die, so there is no reason to include the Jindal rebuttal that to the Democratic Party's claiming that he would let women die. The article correctly states that Jindal is anti-abortion without exception and that he is not opposed to procedures to save a pregnant womans life that indirectly cause the pregnancy to abort. It also includes information on votes and other related issues that he supports. DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can start citing additional Wikipedia policies to you, but is that really necessary? You want to quote the Gambit piece, but you don't want to mention that it's an opinion column rather than a news report. That's not appropriate, and I disagree with you that the stuff you want to quote from the Gambit is purely factual.

Additionally, you want to cite the Gambit for the notion that he's anti-abortion without exception. Even if that were from a news report rather than from an opinion piece, still it leaves the impression that he might let women die rather than permit abortion. Therefore, it would reflect a blatant POV to use a quote like the Gambit quote, while excluding his denial (appearing in a news article!) that he "will let women die."

Suppose that this Wikipedia article did not say anything about him being anti-abortion without exceptions. Still, it would be highly relevant that he has specifically and publically denied that he "will let women die" (this is not merely a rebuttal but a very important position statement).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary for you to cite policy to me. What I wrote is completely within the bounds of Wikipedia policy.

You want to quote the Gambit piece, but you don't want to mention that it's an opinion column rather than a news report. There is no need to mention it is an opinion column because what is being quoted is not presented in the opinion column (which is an endorsement of Jindal by the way) as an opinion but as fact.

That's not appropriate, and I disagree with you that the stuff you want to quote from the Gambit is purely factual. On what basis do you disagree with me? Because of a quote that you insist on taking out of context?

Additionally, you want to cite the Gambit for the notion that he's anti-abortion without exception. Even if that were from a news report rather than from an opinion piece, still it leaves the impression that he might let women die rather than permit abortion. The description as it is currently written accurately describes Jindal's stance on abortion and the extra quote may work to mislead the reader to believe that his stance on abortion would NEVER allow a woman to die. Again, wikipeida is not a crystal ball and the article should not speculate on whether women would or would not be allowed to die. It should just provide accurate, factual, verifiable and reliable information about the person.

But if you dont want to use the Gambit article as proof, we can use the initial Capital Watch article that I used initially to word the stance that states: Blanco and Jindal both oppose abortion, but Blanco supports the exception for rape, incest and to save the life of the woman. Jindal opposes the exceptions but said if a procedure to save the life of the woman is performed that results in an abortion, that's OK. I don't see how you can be any more clear than that. So here is the edit with the changed link.

Bobby Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record according to NRLC (From the On the Issues website) and believes all life is precious (Times picayune). He is opposes abortion without exception (Capital Watch article). However, he does not condemn medical procedures meant to save the life of a pregnant woman that would indirectly cause the termination of the pregnancy (from the link Ferrylodge provided and Capital Watch article). Jindal also supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape (Gambit link again, and a small edit from the current wording since no site suggests he supports its use in all purposes, just for rape). He opposes stem cell research (unchanged from the article.) and voted against increasing federal funding to exapand embryonic stem cell lines. (on the issues)

So there is my rewritten statement using a different source for Jindal being against acceptions (that spells it out clearly).

Suppose that this Wikipedia article did not say anything about him being anti-abortion without exceptions. Still, it would be highly relevant that he has specifically and publically denied that he "will let women die" (this is not merely a rebuttal but a very important position statement) Why would that be highly relevant? Why would someone deny that he would let women die unless it was a rebuttal? Why open the door to subjectivity in an article on the topic of whether Jindal's beliefs would require a woman to die in certain cases? I mean, if you put the rebuttal by Jindal you would HAVE to also include the exact wording from the Democratic Party as well for the sake of balance. And by doing so you introduce the question of whether Jindal would REALLY let a woman die or not (which causes speculation and again, not a crystal ball). But the bottom line is this. Do you feel comfortable with the wording that I have proposed? DanielZimmerman (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Capitol Watch article is a news report, and you did a good job finding it. Using a news report is preferable to using an opinion column. The Capitol Watch article says: "Blanco and Jindal both oppose abortion, but Blanco supports the exception for rape, incest and to save the life of the woman. Jindal opposes the exceptions but said if a procedure to save the life of the woman is performed that results in an abortion, that's OK. Gambit newspaper in New Orleans also said Jindal told it he supports the use of emergency-room contraception for rape victims who request it."

So, I don't think there's any need anymore to cite to the Gambit column. If you want to go ahead and change this Wikipedia article accordingly, then go ahead, and I'll tweak it. I would prefer that this Wikipedia article includes Jindal's statement that he will not "let women die", at least in a footnote. This is very obviously an important policy position.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(reindent)

The capital watch page was part of the justification for the wording from very early on (go up and see some of the original discussion on the wording of abortion in the article to see that.

The Gambit Column does provide the information about emergency room contraception which is not mentioned anywhere else. So for that, it is needed.

I will go ahead and reword the article but again, I would prefer that the article not include the Jindal statement on not letting women die because, again, we would be posting a rebuttal to a statement that we are not posting and that would make the article unbalanced. Or are you planning on putting the exact wording of the flier, in the complete context in which it was written and then Jindal's rebuttal in the complete context in which is was written? I just think having the whole "letting women die" issue allows for weasel words, undermines the encyclopedic content of the page, and in the grand scheme of his political career the incident involving that one flier is a minor blip in the radar. DanielZimmerman (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're incorrect about the Gambit op/ed column. The info about emergency room contraception is in the Capital Watch news article: "Gambit newspaper in New Orleans also said Jindal told it he supports the use of emergency-room contraception for rape victims who request it." So, there's no need to cite to an opinion column here.

Your opposition to mentioning Jindal's statement that he will not "let women die" is really unfounded. Yes, he was answering a charge that he would let women die. Politicians answer other people all the time. Do you really want to take the position that answers are not acceptable things to put in Wikipedia articles? You seem to be very interested in whether Jindal would support an exception to an abortion ban, to protect the life of the mother. And yet you refuse to include Jindal's direct and unambiguous statement on that matter. Is there no way that you would allow this statement by Jindal to go into this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not opposed to putting answers to questions in Wikipedia articles as a general rule. However, there may be specific times where putting in answers to questions does the article more harm than good. If you put the answer to the question, you would have to put the question that was answered. You would have to also put both the question and the answer in the context in which they are stated. Which basically opens the article, again, to the speculation on what he means when he says what he says.

Part of the context is "He has also clarified that he is not against medical procedures to save the life of the mother that indirectly cause the loss of an unborn child, saying "The Democratic Party is trying to insinuate that I will let women die, and that's ridiculous". Is there more to the article?

And there is also the question of what, exactly, did he find ridiculous. Does he find the claim that he would let women die ridiculous? Or does he find the fact that they would use his abortion stance against him in a "negative attack" ridiculous? Jindal was very big at pointing out negative attacks in his campaign. OR does he mean that since he wouldn't be taking part in the decision (since at the time he had stated that this was a federal issue and that there was no need to waste our time at the state level pushing abortion measures (see gambit link)) that it wouldn't be him "letting" the woman die. Where you see a clear cut answer, I see at least three meanings to what he said.

We also have to then get into the "what are they talking about when they mean abortion" issue that you seemed to object to including in the article. Because the Democratic party, when talking about abortion, is likely talking about all abortions (direct and indirect) while the article only mentions that Jindal is ok with procedures that are not direct abortions, yet it ignores medical procedures that directly cause the termination fo the pregnancy. What does he feel about that? Would he be gainst those? Would he let the woman die in that circumstances?

The article, as it stands, gives a complete picture of Jindal's stance on abortion. He is against abortions and does not support any exceptions. However, he is not opposed to procedures that would directly cause the termination of the pregnancy. Period. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it the way it is for now, but there's no reason to cite an opinion article, when a news report says the same thing. The info about emergency room contraception is in the Capital Watch news article: "Gambit newspaper in New Orleans also said Jindal told it he supports the use of emergency-room contraception for rape victims who request it." So, there's no need to cite to an opinion column here. Also, you really ought to format the footnotes you've added, instead of just putting bare URLs there. See you later.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I was going to go back and add more information to the links but I at least wanted the links there as references. I have no problem removing the gambit information since the information is in the capital watch. However, opinion articles can contain verifiable facts and should not be taboo, just used carefully to be sure that what is being presented is fact and not opinion. Thanks for working with me to find a good solution to make this a better article. DanielZimmerman (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Offshore Oil Bill

Is it encyclopedic, necessary, or otherwise "notable" (blah) to include information on someone writing a bill that does not become law? DanielZimmerman (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the bill gained great coverage or influence then I say yes. A lot of times people have proposed controversial bills that got a lot of attention, but the bills did not pass. These sorts of things should probably be kept in an article. Thanks. -- OtherAJ (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. DanielZimmerman (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection for the page.

Because IP accounts are changing Jindal's name, I have put forward the request to semi-protect the page so we can prevent anonymous IP's from changing the name over and over and over again. Hopefully this will help to maintain the integrity of the article. DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this move. This is getting rather ridiculous, honestly. With other sites starting to put out false information about Governor Bobby Jindal, we need to protect the accuracy of this article. Thanks. -- OtherAJ (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the request was quickly rejected and so far my complaint about it has gone unanswered. I wonder how many people have to vandalize the article before enough is enough in the eyes of wikipedia administrators. I don't understand why you can edit wikipedia anonymously anyway. But I guess that is a discussion for another day. DanielZimmerman (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If this issue pops up again, please feel free to leave me a message (or email me) so I can quickly weigh in before it's decided. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

SUCCESS!! The page in under temporary protection from anonymous edits! I guess my powers of persuasion are high today! DanielZimmerman (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job. It says it will expire in only a few days though. :^( -- OtherAJ (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Writings

Since his writings is now something new that is being added to the article, I figured it might be good to have a discussion about them before things get out of hand (as this is a subject that could get out of hand quickly). I don't have anything to add to the talk page on it as of yet, but I am sure we will. DanielZimmerman (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On the quote, it was the wording of the sentance that bothered me and not the content. DanielZimmerman (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the demon article became an issue is because the title and subject of the article potentially make Jindal sound like a wacko. I think it's interesting and noteworthy that he did not commit to believing what he saw, and instead specifically wrote that he was unsure. I don't see why this can't go in the text, rather than a footnote. It was in the text all throughout our previous discussion about abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not up to us to determine if Jindal sounds like a wacko or not. It is up to us to factually report on verifiable and meaningful portions of Jindal's life that are applicable to a encyclopedic article about him in a proper and unbiased way. The reader can make any determination on Jindal's mental state if he/she so desires. If, in reporting that he though he might have seen an excorcism, it is important to include that he questioned what he saw then you can do this without directly quoting what he said in the article. You only have to state what he felt. And in the discussion about abortion, the end result was leaving the direct quotes out.

The weird wording was 'though Jindal was uncertain about what he had witnessed: "Did I witness spiritual warfare? I do not have the answers...."'. If you really need to have the quote in the article (even though the rest of the article is a description of what he witnessed so there is no need for one portion to be more specific) can we find a way to word this better? Keeping the article general was all I was doing by moving the quote down there. Also, we should be putting general descriptions about the subject and allow the person who wants more specific quotes to just go to the link (just like we did with the abortion section). I just worry about this subject, mainly because of people who agree with me about Bobby Jindal who also disagree with me about the importance of maintaining the integrity of the article. So the more general we can keep the article, the more likely we are to avoid a spat over what the meaning of what he said was. DanielZimmerman (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The integrity of the article is maintained so long as the section on his writings is accurate and has a NPOV. I think that using quotes from the article, rather than paraphrasing or summarizing it, is a useful way to achieve this objective. While you are attempting to make Jindal look better by inserting ambiguity as to whether or not he really believes it was spiritual warfare, it is clear from the title of the piece and the quote I added that he believed, at the time, a demon was involved. Whether or not this causes people conclude that Jindal is "whacko" is left to the reader. skiddum (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a first! Someone claiming that I am trying to make Jindal look better? That is funny. Anyway, my goal is to not make Jindal look better or worse, but to make sure that the article is an accurate representation of Bobby Jindal and presents those representations in an unbiased manner and neutral tone. Using quotes from the article may work to eliminate the neutral tone if they are presented in an unbalanced way. THe fact of the matter is that wikipedia encourages writers to paraphrase instead of just putting in sections of quotes. See WP:OR. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.

My prefered writing of the section (if we have to include it at all) would be to say: In that 1994 article for the New Oxford Review, titled "Pysical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare", Jindal described the events leading up to an apparent excorsism of a friend and how he felt unable to help her at the time. However, Jindal questioned if what he saw was actually an example of "spiritual warfare". This presents the information in a balanced way, and by providing the links, the reader is free to follow up on any more information they might want. I worry that if we focus on certain quotes, and not on others, that we will unbalance the article and make it more biased. DanielZimmerman (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the quotes from the text, per what Daniel said. But, as mentioned in the edit summary, I still think it's useful for people to see in the footnotes the quotes that we're basing our summary on.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the change. DanielZimmerman (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jindal: I'm Glad Steele Apologized To Rush

The most recent offering of support came from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal who on Monday night said that he was glad to see RNC Chairman Michael Steele apologize to Limbaugh after Steele had called the conservative talk show host's program "incendiary" and "ugly." "I'm glad he apologized," said Jindal, appearing on CNN's Larry King Live. "I think the chairman is a breath of fresh air for the party. As I said before I think Rush is a leader for many conservatives and says things that people are concerned about."......

Little Bobby says: Steele is toast. I'm the anointed by Rush. All Hail to Rush Limbaugh

Tzerod (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found an article that displays Steele's apology best. It really should be considered for a section of its own on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church's Resonse to Intelligent Design

Under this section, the Catholic Church supposedly "calls for a veto" against Jindal's actions. However, under the article that is cited, there is no mention of the Catholic Church or its position against the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act. There are some opinions that discuss this in the comment section, but because they are not part of the article, this section should be changed to remove any mention of the Catholic Church. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the original section should be further changed to remove bias and the sense that a significant majority opposed his actions.

It reads now: "Despite call for a veto from groups as diverse as the ACLU, the National Review, and Jindal's own biology professors at Brown University, [66] Jindal signed the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act in 2008."

I propose it be changed to: "A number of organizations, including the ACLU, the National Review, and Jindal's own biology professors at Brown University have called for the act to be vetoed." Ejnogarb (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep whitewashing. The Potemkin village looks good. JindallSr (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ejnogarb (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Jindal's Race

The article says "At age 36, Jindal became the youngest current governor in the United States. He also became the first non-white to serve as governor of Louisiana"

If by "Non-white" you mean "Non-European" why not say "non-European", rather than use a term that is easily misunderstood? "White" is often shorthand for Caucasian and people from India are also Caucasians. 24.209.9.181 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC) atomicbohr

While he is Caucasian, the British Imperial authorities of India did not consider native Asian Indians to be "white". A similiar situation exists where some folks do not consider some Hispanic peoples to be "white". While I would agree that it is misleading, the term non-white is however, the term being widely used by the press and others. Sf46 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I know that he is an American, but the name is non-western. It should be pronounced in the original dialect's accent as opposed to an American one? Arnabdas (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The way the person pronounces his own name is generally considered definitive. Collect (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorsement of Perry

Why is Jindal's endorsement of Rick Perry in the section on Jindal's "Writings"? The link is to a Youtube video, which is hardly a writing. Anyway, Jindal has endorsed a lot of people, so why is the Perry endorsement so notable that it needs to be mentioned in this article?166.137.139.168 (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the removal of that part, as it doesn't seem relevant (in that section or in any other for that matter). DanielZimmerman (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing a portion of his early life

I suggest removing these two sentences from the "Early life and education" part:

1. "He always had his eye on, first of all, where he wanted to go, and second, how he was going to get there," said a former teacher. It doesn't really add anything to the article and is a very generic compliment from a nobody. Surely any successful person would have many such compliments.
2. He competed in tennis tournaments, started a computer newsletter, a retail candy business, and a mail-order software company. I looked up the reference and it doesn't mention that he did these things at an early age, the exact quote is: As a youngster, Bobby competed in tennis tournaments, but later he would turn entrepreneurial.... There are no other references mentioning these things without linking back to wikipedia, I'm starting to wonder if the reference got it from wikipedia.

Kasbee (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Deep Horizons crisis

Recommend adding a section regarding the response to the oil spillage from the British Petroleum Deep Horizons drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Oversoul (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll try to start working on this as well.Boromir123 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethics Group

The "group" is not particularly newsworthy and it has been criticized by major newspapers for its anti-Republican bias. I am moving the section here pending justification of devoting a whole section to that criticism. -68.29.87.87 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethics group named Jindal one of America's worst governors

In its April 2010 report, ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Jindal one of 11 "worst governors" in the United States because of various ethics issues throughout Jindal's term as governor.

Some of Jindal's ethics lapses cited by the watchdog include:

• Prevented the public release of government records and has fought legislation to make government more transparent
• Weakened the authority of the state ethics board
• Refused to accept federal stimulus funds to expand unemployment insurance and to fund other important programs
• Rewarded campaign donors with government jobs and contracts
• Has been fined for ethics violations

Article is a big commercial for Jindal

There is presently very little negative information and every little positive detail is exaggerated or presented the way Jindal wanted even in light of media research to the contrary. The article is 80% biased for Jindal and his followers. Negative details widely reported in the media are simply ignored or glossed over or delegated to references that further refute such details.70.253.66.20 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the review of his last speech, the material about a recall petition and a lot of other stuff. This is not an ad for Jindal. As for your thoughts that negative information not be counterbalanced at all -- I suggest you look at WP:NPOV. Collect (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I do believe the gentleman above was referring to the actual WP page. Though I do think if those managing this page had control to censor the discussion page I am sure they would! Matter of fact I have no doubt! Prime example are the statements that I have made that have been deleted, or the date and time stamp removed so they are not part of the archive. The behavior here is downright unamerican! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Even 80% positive here is still only 0.000001% positive for Christians because we have a secular gay-dominated culture. We need to fight every slander against Christians wherever it might be. We need more accurate coverage of Governor Jindal and highlight his true nature which is a Christian conservative. He was really born Hindu so he wasn't born Christian but so far he has shown excellent fidelity to his adopted church fathers and to the conservative cause against government and regulation. Furthermore, not many people know he's a bona fide prodigy, so he's like our Mozart in politics and he will outshine Obama in every possible way. (P.S. Obama was not an Oxford scholar but Jindal was). God Bless Governor Jindal And His Beautiful Family.Ephesians-5 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be curious to see the reference confirming your prodigy claim. Personal opinions are fine (and encouraged! I love a good debate) so long as you are not attempting to pass them off as fact. And sense we are getting into personal opinion (that is until I see a source confirming your prodigy claims). I would like to state that thankfully we live in a free society where even a "secular gay-dominated culture" (odd, I was under the impression the gay community was still a minority) is constitutionally protected. I am also grateful that we live in a society where opposing opinion is protected as well(freedom of speech). Any group that thinks of themselves as above criticism is in serious need of a restructuring. All too often throughout history the suppressing of opinions (burning books) has paved the way to some of the greatest atrocities ever. Even our war on terrorism/extremism is tainted by the concept of killing in the name of god. It is also my opinion that government should not be a platform for mass conversion. given the fact that we are in the "information age" there are more then enough sources of information out there to guide a person toward a spiritual decision. If a particular group is experiencing declines in membership they may want to consider taking a good look in the mirror, and perhaps listen to what the masses are saying about their behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Before this goes too far let's all remember WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm sure there are hundreds of message boards where discussions like this can continue.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies! I will do my best to stick to the subject matter. Though I do love a good thought provoking debate:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

" I belive in spirits, angels, and other related phenomena that I can neither touch nor see" so he believes in ghosts, goblins, winged humanoids and a parallel universes. Sounds like the perfect leader of the republican party. Should we include more of his beliefs in fantasy? And has he made clear whether he believes in pixies and/or faires, you know little humanoids with insect wings. Or do his beliefs stop at winged humoids that have bird like wings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Future editors with similar concerns, please be advised of WP:RS and WP:BLP. All information must be reliably sourced, and as a biography of a living person, there is a very real bias towards less negative information in the sense that the burden of proof lies with demonstrating the encyclopedic relevance. So if Keith Olbermann names Jindal worst person in the world for a gaffe it's probably not going to make the cut. Natural Cut (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In this regard, who selects the 'selected social and political issues'? It seems the principle of 'selection' was 'controversy'.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

An article does not necessarily have to include negative to be neutral. Perhaps there isn't very much negative that can be truthfully said, cited, or quoted. If you think this article is an endorsement, have you looked at ANY of the Barack Obama shrines (articles) on Wikipedia? Sf46 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have to include negative to be neutral. However, the article has become not neutral in tone. It reads as a giant campaign pamphlet (for the most part). There are many things that can be truthfully said, cited, and quoted that paint Jindal in a negative light. But this article should also not be a page for attacking Jindal either. This page should be one that presents factual information about Bobby Jindal and the reader should be left to decide if they have a positive or negative view of the man. For example, until I came today the article cited the fact that one group ranked Louisiana fourth in the nation when it comes to ethics. However, the fact that the office of the Governor is the least transparent in the nation was excluded. Was that purposeful? I cannot say. However, presenting one and not the other does give the article a "pro-Jindal" slant. I would also argue that if other articles are shrines to certain politicians, that is not an excuse to turn this one into a shrine as well. No article should be a shrine here. DanielZimmerman (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The parts regarding his parents are not well edited. In particular it isn't made clear that his parents were already well educated, payed for by the Indian taxpayer under socialism, and had a stable middle class life as college lecturers in India before they came to the United States. The older version made it seem as if they lived in abject poverty and his parents overcame all their struggles (with phrases like only educated up to the fifth grade) after emigrating. I believe it glorifies Bobby Jindal's background a bit so I've adopted a neutral PoV. Kasbee (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should such focus be placed on his parents? This is an article about Bobby Jindal not his parents. Their life before coming to the United States is irrelevant. Just as it shouldn't be relevant to mention their education, it also shouldn't be relevant to mention their "stable middle class life as college lecturers" either. DanielZimmerman (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hindi name

I removed the Hindi name from the infobox because it really isn't appropriate. Even articles about people who actually live in India (or other countries that don't use English characters) don't usually have the foreign translation in the infobox. (eg Pratibha Patil, the President of India). I'm not overly convinced one way or another as to the appropriateness of giving it, even in the article. Does he give the Indian translation on his website? Does he ever use it? I am not overly thrilled with the idea that people of non-European descent should be singled out by having their names translated in their articles - it strikes me as rather biased. --B (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians must be concerned lest Jindal be mistaken for a Choctaw or other sort of autochthonous Louisianan. As the Devanagari transcription has returned to his article, perhaps this should become a new WikiObsession: George Bush's first name should be spelled out in the original Greek, Sarah Palin's in Hebrew, and Strom Thurmond's in Futhark. NRPanikker (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concern stated. Jindal is an American. Hindi is not the lingua franca of the United States. Furthermore, Jindal is Punjabi by ancestry to my understanding, so if we are really going to keep this in, it should be in the Punjabi characters not the Hindi ones. I am therefore going to remove the Hindi characters. Should there be disagreement and people want them back in, they should put in the Punjabi characters instead of the Hindi (though I believe they are the same alphabet for the most part). Arnabdas (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree, I think his ethnic origin name and meaning should be spelled out in either Punjabi or Hindi. Rahm Emanuel, Jewish American for many generations has his name explained in Hebrew. Stephen Chu, Chinese American for many generations also has his name in Chinese in the infobar. Indian politicians (i.e in India) don't have their names explained for the same reasons George Bush or Margaret Thatcher don't. If someone has this information please add do it. Kasbee (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree per B's reasoning above. Jindal has never mentioned his Hindi or Punjabi translation and it would not be appropriate.Boromir123 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well neither have Rahm Emanuel or Steve Chu or any of the other ethnic minorities whose names and meanings are explained. Jindal mentioning it is not a precondition for inclusion. By that reasoning a lot of facts about his life have to be excluded right?

Kasbee (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle name

The article has in the past stated that his full, legal name is Piyush Amrit Jindal. However, it has never cited any sources for the middle name and when I looked all I found was blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. Official and reliable sources such as Who's Who and the U.S. Congress simply give his name as Piyush. I have been aggressively removing mentions of Amrit and will continue to do so unless someone can find a reliale source. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added Amrit as his middle name after finding reliable sources. Kasbee (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.235.150 (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

He has no middle name, per his birth certificate. See Bobby Jindal releases his birth certificate (linked in new footnote 1). Hopefully that should settle the issue. 76.104.101.201 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He feigns ignorance of "Amrit" being a common Hindu name, to me that is suspicious enough to cast doubt on it. I have read for a long time his middle name is Amrit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.251.71 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

His legal name from a basic legal document does not have that name. 'Enuff said - Wikipedia will not assign a non-existent middle name here. Collect (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's his middle name, so it goes back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.36.24 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Shown inaccurate by unimpeached reliable source; stays out. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

His Ethnicity

I was wondering why his ethnicity should be indicated while there are thousands of pages in which people's ethnicity is not mentioned? -- And Rew 21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it is a verifiable fact. It accurately describes the public figure and is presented in a neutral manner with no POV issues. I see no problem with its inclusion in the article. DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should consider the public opinion as a factor or not. I guess Wikipedia's job is to provide any information it can about a person or a thing. Thus public opinion is not a reliable factor in this argument. Moreover, JFK for example is a well known Irish American however in his page it's only indicated in part of the text and not in the table. What I'm asserting is that if we mention a fact about someone, we should do it for everyone if we have the adequate information. Personally I don't want it to look like that since he is an Indian American, we indicate his ethnicity and for example if he were a German American, we wouldn't indicate it as clearly as we do now. And finally in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) it's indicated that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." and even though it's about the first paragraph I think it is applicable to this table and it should not be emphasized.-- And Rew 03:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I will remove his ethnicity from the infobox. Please read this: Question About Infobox -- And Rew 21:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me on the removal from the infobox. Your reasoning is sound. DanielZimmerman (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

His religion is mentioned but his ethnicity is not which seems like a double standard. Ethnicity may not need to be mentioned if it is implied (Jewish American) or evident (African American) or diluted. By that I mean at least one generation of mixed heritage with other American groups. German American would likely fall into this category. Like his religion, his ethnicity is not at all clear for either his looks or his name so I've put it in the Infobar Kasbee (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Kasbee, his religion is important because he discusses his faith frequently so it is relevant to put it there. He hardly ever mentions his ethnicity nor does his ethnicity play a part in his being elected. It has been suggested that his ethnicity played a part in his 2003 loss. Any mention of his ethnicity belongs in that discussion because it is only there where it matters. I will be bold and remove the ethnicity because of the wikipedia guidelines cited above. If you feel that there should be more discussion on the matter lets do that first before making a change to the page. DanielZimmerman (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, I think religion and ethnicity should be treated the same, as they are equal indicators of identity. Why should the amount of times he mentions his religion vs. his ethnicity matter? By that yardstick birth place and birth date should be removed as well. The wikipedia manual of style for biographies contains no mention of even including religion! Going by consistency you hardly see people with their religion mentioned in the infobar, so you should remove both. Members of a large ethnic group are at a disproportionate advantage when it comes to identification, so those of very small and easily confused ethnic minorities feel strongly about identifying members especially those of early generations.

Kasbee (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion and ethnicity are not equal indicators of identity. Religion is a choice. Ethnicity is not. His religious views are what, in part, propelled him to the public spotlight and much popularity with conservatives in Louisiana politics. While there is debate on if his ethnicity played a part in his 2003 loss, it has not played as much as a pivotal role in his public life as his religion has. That is why his religion is more relevant to the article than his ethnicity and why it deserves more of a spotlight. DanielZimmerman (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, just wondering why his ethnicity says Indian, when "Indian" is a nationality. It should read Punjabi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.80.242 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian is an ethnicity, they are genetically distinguished and separate from the neighboring Arabs and the Chinese. There are more than a billion of them. Punjabi is a culture within the ethnicity.

Kasbee (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"In accordance with his Catholic faith he personally" removed from Abortion section

There are two problems that I have with this wording. The first is that there is no documentation of Jindal saying "I am pro-life because I am a Catholic". The second is that even if he did say that, to word it as it was worded seems to imply that Jindal's stance on abortion matches the stance of the Catholic church. In fact, Jindal supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape, something the Catholic Church opposes as part of its pro-life stance. So clearly Jindal does not hold a view on abortion in accordance with his Catholic faith.

If we wanted to say "Jindal opposes abortions because he is a Catholic" we would need to find a source that states that he is pro-life because of his catholic belief. But that still wouldn't justify our saying that his beliefs are in accordance with the Catholic Faith.

And to include "personally" is something that is typically said by people who are against abortion but not supportive of legislation. I.E. people who say "I am personally pro-life but I would not seek to legislate it. And even if we believe that such a statement is obvious, then it is also redundant and not needed. DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Does he still live in Kenner?

A local radio broadcast had stated that he was putting his Kenner house up for sale a while back. So it may not be factually correct to say that he lives in Kenner. Obviously he does live in the mansion but that doesn't mean he claims residency in Baton Rouge. Just want to be sure the article is factual. DanielZimmerman (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I found this link where it says that Bobby Jindal "lived" in Kenner. Since he currently resides in the governor's mansion and we have a verifiable source that he no longer lives in Kenner, I will make the change to say "Baton Rouge". DanielZimmerman (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

People Associated with Renewable Energy?

Is he really? Does anybody have a link that verifies that he belongs in that group. I am inclined to delete it. However, I will wait for a link if such proof exists. DanielZimmerman (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

H.R. 4761

We really shouldn't be focusing a paragraph on a piece of legislation that was not signed into law. The bill that was signed into law by the President was the Senate bill and not the bill that contained his language. There is no reason to say that a bill Jindal sponsored failed. I am removing the section. DanielZimmerman (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox name

Not sure why there's edit-warring going on over Jindal's name in the infobox, but the common convention is for it to be the commonly-used name, same as the article title. See for example, Mitt Romney. There's discussion of this in the archives - could the editor who wants the change please discuss here rather than reverting? Kelly ^hi! 05:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like WP:COMMONNAME is the guideline that applies. The last time a similar issue was discussed was here, apparently. Kelly ^hi! 05:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I have removed the following sentence since it is cited only to an editorial column. As such it is a primary source and not the best way to source such information. What is needed is a piece discussing the criticism of Jindal's presidential pre-campaign rather than one making such criticism directly.

Jindal has been strongly criticized for attending fundraisers outside the state instead of solving immediate problems at home. <ref> {{cite news |url=http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2010/11/louisiana_gov_bobby_jindals_wo.html}}</ref>

I also want to query the use of http://www.2theadvocate.com/blogs/politicsblog/107123234.html as a source since its URL identifies it as a blog which are generally not reliable sources even when published by news-websites. On the other hand the page contains the reprint of an AP story which was also picked up by various papers. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A blog published by a newspaper (The Advocate is a newspaper) should be okay. A blog that is self-published is usually not okay. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC0)

This reads to well. Way to well if you know what I mean. (Staff written)

Hi. Clearly from my name you can see I'm not from Louisiana, nor do I care one way or another about this man or his politics as they don't concern me. I simply found myself on this page from a link. From the moment I saw this page though it was clear that this was written by someone from his staff. Every single section reads like a press release. It could not be more blatent. It is my mere, unbiased opinion that this article is so tainted and slanted towards making him seem incredible (Indian Jesus) that those who care, I not being one of them, should delete the whole thing and start anew. I really think starting over would be the only way to put forth an objective page on this man. Over the years I'v seen people fight over much, much, much less on Wiki pages and yet this one badly reaks of pro prejudice, which would be fine elsewhere as he seems like an all right dude, but it should never be allowed here on Wikipedia. For shame. JMHO Deepintexas (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some edits, like the majority of the healthcare section, where there is a clear "pro Jindal" bias. Other areas are a little more balanced than what you claim. But overall I would support the idea of going back over the article and re balancing it. DanielZimmerman (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT, this page represents normal consensus editing results. Collect (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a good argument, really. The fact that an article has been bad for a long time is no reason to keep it that way. TFD (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Louisianastateseal.png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Louisianastateseal.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing

Recently there has been an effort due to the article subject's political activities to emphasis certain facts about where the subject attended school. This is a form of POV pushing, IMHO, and thus violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Information about the type of school the subject went to should be found in articles regarding the schools that the subject attended, not here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)