Talk:Bobby Jindal

Alternate explanations for '03 defeat

The article as it stands speculates whether racism may have played a part in Jindal's defeat. But if the article is correct, he was born in 1971. Any chance it was simply that a significant number of voters were simply uncomfortable with a 32-year-old governor? 69.143.31.101 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Article's use of Democratic campaign propaganda language

Jindal's position on abortion should be reported in a non-partisan manner. The phrase "no abortions, no exceptions" is from a negative campaign mailer sent out by the Louisiana Democratic Party in the 2003 Gubernatorial campaign.

Here is a fair-use quote from a newsstory on capitolwatch.reallouisiana.com (a website of the Gannett News Service) from 12NOV2003

"Abortion again an issue in gubernatorial runoff

"The abortion issue arose Monday.

"A state Democratic Party mailer sent to women voters calls attention to Jindal's "no abortion, no exceptions" position. "Bobby Jindal is willing to let Louisiana women die to protect his extreme agenda," it says.

"Jindal said he was offended by the mailer.

"But Democratic Party Chairman Mike Skinner said the mailer's point "is simply to let Louisiana voters know Mr. Jindal's stand on the issues, and that is it in a nutshell."

"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.

"The Blanco campaign said someone is making telephone calls in the Lafayette area saying Blanco is pro-choice."

It is reasonable to presume that the Gannett News Service is a credible source from which to derive Jindal's abortion position.

Also, the word "controversial" in the passage title is subjective (it can be as negative as the word "popular" is positive), so let us just use a neutral phrase, like "Policy positions".

"No abortions, no exceptions " is a direct quote from Bobby Jindal.

While this term may have been used in a mailer that some people may view as negative, it is a truthful statement to state that this is Bobby Jindal's stance on the abortion issue.

When I cited those three sources, they confirm this position. It is a truthful statement and there is nothing wrong with stating the truth. Notice the second link provided where Jindal states this in his own words "'I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions.".

He embraces the platform of "no abortions, no exceptions", he is not ashamed of it, so why should that not be the explanaton of his stance?

And since when has refering to "no abortions, no exceptions" been a partisan explanation of his stance on abortion? It is a description of the stance embraced by many in the pro-life community.

The prolifepac clearly uses such a phrase to describe itself. The American Life League is also clear that they wish to have no exceptions in any abortion law/amendment that is passed.

When it comes to the word "controversial", this is an area in the Jindal encyclopedia entry that deals with the issues that he supports that cause controversy. Will you deny that the three issues cited in this portion of the entry are controversial? Are there arguments over wether r not abortions should be allowed for rape cases? Yes. Since there are, there is controversy.

I could see the argument of being unbiased if the terms "radical" or "extremist" where used, but not controversial because those are issues that are, in fact, highly controversial.

For example, if I was discussing Michal Moore's theatrical release of F911, I could describe it as being controversial. This is a true and unbiased statement. There was much controversy surrounding that film. The same could be said for any issue that invokes emotional debates, such as a Jindals stance on abortion.

I would note that the wikipedia entry for abortion includes the term controversy. "Abortion has sometimes been a bitterly-fought battle in politics, particularly in the United States. The real controversy in the U.S. started in 1973 with the case of Roe vs. Wade, when the Supreme Court ruled abortion to be a constitutionally protected right. Specifically, they ruled that states could not forbid a woman to terminate her pregnancy in the first three months (the first trimester) of her pregnancy."

-sources

One report on his stance on abortion can be seen here where it 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."

Jindal is directly quoted on his stance on abortion here, where it states "On abortion, Jindal told the paper, 'I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.' "

The Gambit Weekly sites his stance as "he is anti-abortion -- with no exceptions".

Suggestion to rebalance

Looking at the Wikipedia pages for other U.S. Representatives, they usually don't go into the political beliefs of the officeholders. The few times they do, the mentions tend to be brief and are not characterized as "controversial", unless, like with Cynthia McKinney, a controversy over the views made national news. Even then, "controversial" doesn't get called out in a heading.

DanielZimmerman

I have looked at several member pages of the Louisiana Delagation as well as other people serving in both Houses of Congress and have found many examples where articles discuss things that go beyond the political beliefs and stances and even label them.

David Vitter's page refers to allegations of him being in "cahoots" with someone.

Ted Kennedy's page has a section on "personal scandals" where chappaquidick is discussed. His page also discusses his political views.

There are many more that we could look at like John McCain, Sam Brownback, Joe Liberman, Bill Frist and others where they get into the issues they believe in and more.

So I reject the claim that there are "few times" when this is done and would say that the more well known that the office holder is, the more likely there is to be information on that office holder. I have NEVER once seen Judd Gregg on the news. And his article is much smaller than other people. So I think it is merely a matter of how well known the person is which dictates how much content is on a page and not a matter of how members of Congress are cited on Wikipedia

DanielZimmerman

The entries of Senators who are all either current Presidential candidates or former Presidential candidates does not strike me as a good baseline for judging the appropriateness of something in the entry of a first-term Representative.

None of the other Representatives from Lousisiana have a policy positions section of any kind. None have their specific positions on any political issume mentioned. Out of the entire House delegations of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, abortion is mentioned only in two other pages. One of those is for the House Majority Leader (and his approach to exceptions is not detailed), in the other, abortion is mentioned en passant. The comparative emphasis relative to the other Representatives seems, if not non-neutral, at least disproportionate.

Perhaps more should be done to add more information to other member pages in Congress. Education is never a bad thing and the more people can know about a person, the better informed they can be about who is representing him/her.

Given that general approach to issues in other Representatives' pages, putting this particular Representative's abortion position in a section with a heading that declares it "controversial", with repeated references cited, certainly gives an impression of saying "Can you believe he thinks this!", rather than a simple attempt to inform. That the choice of wording in the entry is the same as that used by political opponents, and is one that the Representative objected to, the impression is even stronger.

DanielZimmerman

Bobby Jindal does not object to the label of "no abortions, no exceptions". I cited that fact.

If you go back in the history and look at my initial posting of Jindal's policy positions you will see that I stated his stance on abortion in one line and one line only.

The only reason I posted the references to prove that he, in fact, supports that policy position is because other people kept editing those statements out as not being factual.

I would say that moving the quotes about his stance on abortion to the talk page and just saying "jindal supports a policy of no abortions with no exceptions" would be an acceptable edit. In fact, I will probably do that now to get rid of the perception of "I cannot believe he believes this".

And I described my feelings on the term "controversial" earlier in this page. Stating that something is controversial is not taking a stance for or against that position. I could say "the death penalty is a controvercial stance" and you would not know if I am pro or anti death penalty.

Calling something controversial in one enty and not calling it controversial in other entries suggests that there is a unique degree of controversy where it is so labeled. I note both Tom DeLay and Sheila Jackson Lee have abortion mentions and sections on controversy in their entries, yet the abortion positions of both are not mentioned in the controversy sections.

I agree, in general, that controversial is not a necessarily loaded term. But calling out Jindal's abortion position as a "controversial policy position", when the abortion stance for every other Representative in Louisiana and the bordering states is either unmentioned or not described as controversial, implies that Jindal's position is uniquely controversial.

DanielZimmerman

I'd recommend eliminating the word "controversial", and reduce the discussion of his position to "He opposes almost all abortions, with only a partial exception for proceedures to save the life of the mother that result in termination of the pregnancy."

DanielZimmerman

Daniel--I agree. I feel that the word controversy is a POV term.

Zeus1233

The word controversy is used to describe abortion in a wikipedia article. How about this, I will reword to Stance on Controversial issues.

I cannot reduce the abortion position to anything other than his publically stated stance. To do otherwise would not be keeping the article factual. I will probably word it in 2 sentances. Saying he supports "no abortions, no exceptions" but does not include those pregnancies terminated by the "double effect" in his definition of abortion.

DanielZimmerman

All of the quotes and stances here are skewed to align with what is apparently the Democratic strategy to defeat Jindal. Given that most of the edits are made by the author of Jindalisbad.com, who includes a link to his own blog at the bottom, maybe there are some more objective editors who can make this a more neutral piece? Tpwk47 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Endorsement changes

The wording was changed, removing the endorsement of the Republican Party and stating his endorsement by Republicans and Democrats. The discussion that took place at that time was that the state party would typically not endorse a candidate if there are other Republican candidates in the race. The fact that they endorsed Jindal when Mike Rogers was still in the race was a change. Stating that Democrats supported Jindal while Mike Rogers was still in the race just doesnt make sense.

Revert 22 Ap 06

I just reverted the edit by User:Joshuataylor as it removed much content from the article without discussion and replaced it with copied text apparently from [1]. -- Infrogmation 23:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

About being the "most popular Republican candidate"

He may very well be the most popular Republican candidate and the Republican frontrunner in the 2007 Governors race. However, is this something that occured after Katrina/Rita. If you took the "obvious" standpoint the only potential person that could be considered more popular statewide in Louisiana would be David Vitter.

Basically, I am asking for a source for the statement showing some polling data that he is the "most popular Republican" in Louisiana and that he is the "frontrunner in the 2006 Election". I also want to see why Hurricane Katrina and Rita would have anything to do with said polling data.

Also, see WP:NOT. Im not sure that such information is encyclopedic. It would be nice if such edits would be made by actual users. I will give the author a day or two to cite or I will remove as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV DanielZimmerman 13:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for loss in governors race citations.

Racism DanielZimmerman 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

failure to respond to attack ads DanielZimmerman 21:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Added 2 Category

Added Indian Christians category and Punjabi category--71.30.177.228 07:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we be including all his votes?

A section was entered showing several votes in the 110th congress (but only those where he voted with the Democratic party line... neglecting those where he voted against the Democrats). If we include all votes, these sections can get very lengthy.

I removed the editorial comment where the person made the claim that Bobby Jindal has "bipartisan credentials". That sort of thing violates WP:NPOV, since one persons "bipartisans credentials" could be another persons "political maneuvering". I think that the sections stating his votes should be removed because there are already webpages committed to showing what Bobby Jindal voted on and when. This wikipedia page already points to those pages. Someone who is concerned about Bobby Jindal's record has every opportunity to use the links provided for them.

I will wait at least a week and if there is no objection I will delete both sections on the congressional votes. DanielZimmerman 07:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Votes on particularly notable or controversial bills could be mentioned in the positions section. His voter against embrionic stem-sell research, for instance, is related to his strong pro-life position on abortion. But the seperate sections need to go as they duplicate information better listed elsewhere (like the House web site). In fact, seeing your comment, I am going to boldly remove them right now. Eluchil404 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Very bold indeed! Im glad someone else agreed so it was not a move that had to be done unilaterally. DanielZimmerman 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I also edited the abortion section to clean it up, and in doing so removed the votes but maintained the links to his voting record. Stating that he voted with the Republican party on every abortion related issue should be enough. DanielZimmerman 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Description of "Jindalisgood.com". Is it valid?

The website "jindal is good" seems to be more of a commercial website promoting a certain store, containing a lot of fiction about Congressman Jindal. Should we remove this link from wikipedia? DanielZimmerman 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will remove the "jindal is good" link soon.... or at least change the description to more adequately describe the perceived purpose of the site. DanielZimmerman 05:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsmakers: The People Behind Today's Headlines, 2006. Profile on Bobby Jindal.

What information in this article was referenced in that article? Could that information be found in other articles that are already linked? DanielZimmerman 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember specifically which information I used; this was an edit I did almost a year ago. I know it was information concerning his early life and career before the 2003 gubernatorial election. I'm sorry I can't be more specific; I was new to Wikipedia then, and didn't always provide full footnotes. That being said, I don't see why we can't have a mix of print and online sources for this article; not everything is available on the internet.Praxedis G 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be restricted to online sources, especially if certain information is only available in "print". I also see no policies/guidelines requiring only sources that can be linked to. With that said, I am fairly confident that any information included in that printed document could also be found in several of the pages that have been linked to by the other contributors and see no reason to include a redundant source. The article will also be "cleaner" without unlinked sources. If you can find that one peice of information that was found in that reference that is not referenced other places then by all means, that source should be kept. However, if you cannot find the peice of information that was found in that source, i suggest we delete it... because there is no proof that the item is actually a source for this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Was this the edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Jindal&diff=55074873&oldid=55025116 DanielZimmerman 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I have a feeling the edit was more substantial than that one, but I really don't remember. It WAS a long time ago..... But you can delete the citation if you want; I really don't feel that strongly either way.Praxedis G 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me either way. Ill let someone else be "bold" and do it if they so desire. DanielZimmerman 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bradley Effect statement? Keep or remove?

Conservateur added that "Jindal's narrow loss has been cited as an example of the Bradley Effect". I went ahead and provided a link to a webpage that does "cite" this. However, is this an encyclopedic fact? Or is this just the opinion of the user and the webpage I linked to? Can we verify that this was indeed the "Bradley Effect" in play? If we cannot verify it, then should that comment be included in the article? Or is the statement of "fact" that someone has claimed it, regardless of the actuallity of the claim? Thoughts? DanielZimmerman 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts . . . It is now sourced that at least one person thought Jindal's narrow loss was due to the Bradley effect. However, as the source cited seems to be a political blog (and not an especially notable one, unless I'm wrong), I don't think it should be in the article. To me, it comes down to this--why is it notable that some random person out there thinks this? If I can see that it isn't just some random person, then I'll favor having it in the article. I mean, lots of people can say things on the internet. If it was in a major newspaper editorial column or in Time or something like that, then that would be completely different. Right now it doesn't seem especially notable. janejellyroll 10:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

While I reject the concept of notability in the discussion of what should be in articles, I still removed the information from the article. On the Bradley effect talk page I showed data that proved that Jindal's loss was not an example of the Bradley effect, so I removed the information there and here. To be fair, this article wasn't claiming that the loss WAS because of the bradley effect, it just stated that some people believe it to be an example of the bradley effect. However, citing those people here would seem to take away from the encyclopedic content of wikipedia. Why include the "fact" that people believe incorrect information about the loss? And you are correct, a lot of people say "things" on the internet. That does not automatically qualify them for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. DanielZimmerman 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First district: Conservative or Republican?

There have been edits back and forth about whether LA01 is "conservative" or "republican". To me, stating that LA01 is a "Republican District" is false. There is a plurality of Democrats in LA01. The fact that they HAVE voted for Republicans who are conservative does not change the voter registration of the district, it just changes the political leanings of the district. I say that it should be reverted back to "Conservative" until voter registration records show a plurality/majority of registered republicans in the district. I will wait to revert it back to give people time to comment. DanielZimmerman 08:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree--nearly all of the 1st's state legislators are Republican, and the district has not supported a Democrat for president since 1980. More importantly, despite the Democratic plurality, Democrats have not made a serious bid for this district since Bob Livingston won it in that '77 special election. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... Blueboy96 15:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the district has voted for Republicans and predominantly so. However, this is an encyclopedia and it is the duty of those who edit the encyclopedia to give facts. I have a problem saying that it is the "most Republican district" when there may very well be another district with a higher percentage of Republicans in it. Basically, I think we would need the statistics to show that the percentage of republicans in the district is higher in LA01 than any other district for someone to assert that it is the "most republican district". Stating that the district has a plurality of Democrats and stating that the district tends to vote for Conservative candidates is the "better" way to say it. To have any other assertion made, we would need to see the hard facts that prove it. Otherwise, the entry becomes unencyclopedic. DanielZimmerman 05:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Republican Study Committee belong on the "positions" section?

I would think that it would belong in some other portion of the page. DanielZimmerman 08:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversion to Catholicism

Quoth the article:

Jindal was a Hindu but converted to Catholicism in high school at Baton Rouge Magnet High School.

It's not clear to me from the high school's article, but generally in the US schools called "magnet" are public schools. Thus, I'm assuming that he didn't convert to Catholicism as a result of religious instruction at high school, though the sentence sort of gives you that impression. I imagine that a couple of things have been conflated -- (a) that he converted to Catholicism while he was of high school age, and (b) that he attended Baton Rouge Magnet High School. I'd like to separate them out to make this clearer, but just wanted to make sure I had my facts straight before doing so. --Jfruh (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that unless the conversion happened at the school, that you would be correct in making two sentances out of that. Sentance one would be that he attended Baton Rouge Magnet High School and sentance two would be that during high school he converted to Catholicism. And Baton Rouge Magnet High School is a public school. DanielZimmerman 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement "although he also offers testimony in Baptist and Pentecostal churches while on the campaign trail" is irrelevant to the article, appears to offer a contrast to something (his Catholicism?) for no reason, and ought to be removed. Apparently 68.252.225.233 (talk · contribs) needs to have it in there for some reason - care to share your thoughts, anonymous one? --Folic Acid 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if you eliminated the word "although", it would eliminate the "negative tone" of the sentance while keeping a factually relevant event that was well covered in the media. DanielZimmerman 21:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Second in Congressional history?

Not third? Guettarda 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Congress.org ranking

I removed the congress.org comment because it was misleading when it spoke of "effectiveness". Jindal was downgraded because he is both running for another office and is in a minority party--not because of lack of bills introduced or other factors. -64.148.4.38 04:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Jindal's ranking is lower than half of the current Freshman Republicans. Wikipedia has a policy of notablity. And while I think notability is subjective and should be removed as a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, I believe that such a ranking is "notable" and should be included. DanielZimmerman 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Darbash?

Someone placed Darbash as being Congressman Jindal's middle name. Then, someone else removed it because of someone being "malicious".

Can anyone find a reference to this being his actual middle name (i.e. one that doesn't point right back here)? I see no problem with including his full legal name. However, if that is not his middle name it obviously should not be included. DanielZimmerman 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Public support for heathcare.

I dont know what "support for public healthcare" has to do with Congressman Jindal. No statements are made about when Louisiana had a 35% support of healthcare, when it rose to 12% below the national average or what the national average actually is. This is why I have deleted it twice. DanielZimmerman 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Representation of the 2005 Iraqi elections

In 2005, Jindal led other freshman Republican House members in dipping their fingers in purple die to celebrate the 2005 Iraqi national elections which resulted in the ousting of pro-US interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and led to the rise of fundamentalist Shia cleric Ayatollah Ali-Sistani, who reportedly had ties to Iran.

This is a POV view of the 2005 Iraqi elections. First of all, the figure who replaced Iyad Allawi was Ibrahim al-Jaafari. From the Ibrahim article: "he was picked in July 2003 as member of the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council, and served as its first chairman and Iraq's first post-Saddam interim President for one month." Pointing out that Iyad Allawi was pro-US and pushed out implies his replacement was anti-US. And as for Sistani, though he gave his blessing to the ruling arty, he left politics no less than a year ago and exercised very little direct influence as it was.

I'm going to drop everything that follows the word "elections" and hyperlink the national elections so people can read the article for themselves. User:Umdunno 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Jindal on Religon.

On my last edit to the 2007 election for Governor I added punctuation. I also changed "his religious views of Protestants" to "his views on Protestant religions." because that is a more acurate description of the actual words used in the ad. I also changed "The claims in the ad have been refuted by Jindal " to "The claims in the ad are disputed by Jindal". Refuted means "proved false". Jindal has not proved the claims false, he has just stated that the claims are false. DanielZimmerman 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

These ads have quickly been shown to be extremely scurrilous. See, for example: [2]. As a result, I don't think that the accusations have anywhere near enough credibility to be relevant to this article. However, the controversy over the airing of the ads is important enough that it should be mentioned in the article on the gubernatorial race. Moreover, this type of stuff is quite possibly defamatory, and as such- especially given its unsupported nature- violates WP:BLP Gabrielthursday 23:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Gabriel. For anyone with even a modest knowledge of the English language and elementary theology who has carefully read the article, the ads are grossly distorting what Jindal said. I'm inclined to agree with the (liberal) blog Crooked Timber which characterized the ads as "actively dishonest" and Jindal's writings as standard, even banal. And no, it's not accurate to call them his views on Protestantism either, because he was quoting Calvin on humanity. I'm not sure I can agree with Gabriel on the 'defamatory' bit, especially given that Jindal's a public figure in an election race. I add that I've a lot of respect for the months of work Daniel has put in here, but must respectfully differ with him on this point.Holmwood 07:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gabriel on the move of the section to the governors race section. Now, he did quote Calvin on humanity but he used that quote on humanity to explain why protestants are incorrect in their beliefs. That much is plain. Personally, I am wouldn't have run those ads. However, my personal opinion is irrelevent to wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 12:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jindal's name

This seems a bit of a controversy. Even the LDP which was the only major entity using his birth name, stopped doing so in January, because the controversy over them using it was detracting from their message. Given that he's been known since age 4 as Bobby Jindal, and published under that name, worked for years under that name, it seems puzzling that we'd refer to him as anything but. I've switched it to Bobby Jindal but added in the birth name and citations on the subject. Holmwood 07:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Should an encyclopedia go by someone's nickname that they go by? Or should an encyclopedia refer to the legally given name of someone who never legally changed that name? Look at Mike Foster's page. DanielZimmerman 12:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I debated this. What decided me in this case was the fact that he'd been repeatedly published under the name "Bobby Jindal". Given that this is simply a firstname rather than a surname, it seems reasonable. The example I looked at was Barack Obama. True, he is listed as Barack Hussein Obama, and then everywhere else referred to as Barack Obama, including in the picture caption. The fact that Jindal had been repeatedly published as "Bobby Jindal" swayed me, but also caused me to add in detail making it clear this was still his legal name. Personally, I can live with changing the very first reference of him back, and then leaving all other references as Bobby Jindal. Holmwood 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be reasonable. The current version says "Bobby Jindal (Born Piyush Jindal..." could give the reader the belief that his name is legally "Bobby" when it is not. I think we have reached a consensus on putting the name back to Piyush "Bobby" Jindal on the first entry and we should change it to the correct name to maintain this entry as encyclopedic. DanielZimmerman 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sensible, agreed. Cheers. Holmwood 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But I am confused;as the page reads that "Bobby" Jindal adapteed the nick name "Bobby" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asydwaters (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits.

Changed pronunciation to more appropriate pronunciation key gĭn'dl

Removed “support for public health” statement (yet again) because it has nothing to do with Jindal’s health record (and it especially has nothing to do with increased access to health care as the former editor has claimed). The sentance before it contains specific dates for the health rankings which make them applicable to Jindal's tenure. The sentance that was deleted has no specific dates so any claims would be original research.

Removed unreferenced statement about his lack of support for Louisiana State Police. Definitely not within wikipedia inclusion guidelines for many reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs) 13:41, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Commentary on time as Secretary of DHH

Jindal's reputation as Secretary is broadly positive. To selectively include one statistic, without a broader consideration of his tenure gives a decidedly biased viewpoint. I've thus removed the stat, as was done by an anonymous editor earlier. Gabrielthursday 03:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it really broadly positive? Or is that just opinion? DanielZimmerman 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say it's broadly positive, by any reasonable standards. He eliminated the deficit, moved them to surplus, and made some good progress in child health care. Overall, the service marginally declined relative to the rest of the US, but this was in a state that's never been higher than 48/50 in all the years that survey has been conducted, and has been at number 50 for many of those years (including prior to Jindal's tenure). Holmwood 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever gains he made tossed the baby out with the bathwater, since the health ranking as a whole dropped. How can that been seen as a positive? Political spin may be able to do it but policial spin has no place on wikipedia. Objective facts that are well sourced have a place on Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Selective Data Mining or accurate representation of relevant and verifiable facts?

"During those years and the year immediately following his leaving the department, Louisiana's nationwide health ranking fell from 48th to 50th" was removed fromt he article, even though it was properly sourced. I don't think this is "selective data mining", but perhaps we could discuss whether this fact should be included in the article or not. There was a second blurb that I had removed from the Jindal article because it was not attributed to the time that Bobby Jindal was the head of the Louisiana Department of Health. Ill leave the edit as it is currently until we can come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether this should be included. DanielZimmerman 14:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is selective data mining. During his tenure, they did indeed fall one place -- from 48 to 49. That could be said to be relevant. Tossing in the fall the following year seems a stretch, especially since the fall from 48 to 49 happened in his first year. (If he's responsible for falls after he's out of office, then surely his predecessor is responsible for the initial drop). Moreover, the backdrop of a bankrupt system losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year is very important to note. That said, I'm fine with the removal of the whole thing. If we want it back, let's note the financial turnaround, and the fact that they dropped from 48 to 49 during his tenure. Holmwood 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we want the "financial turnaround" back we also have to not the closing of health clinics which, is noted in the article linked to, as a reason why Louisiana healthcare was so poor when he left. DanielZimmerman 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd add that I suspect that the difference between 48th and 50th is well within the statistical margin of error of whatever study was quoted. There was a recent piece on Jindal in the American Spectator that recounts how Jindal managed to get Congress to restructure its payments to Louisiana to prevent a budgetary collapse [3], which no doubt, helps to explain his reputation. Gabrielthursday 08:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I would trust the Spectator to give an unbiased account of Jindal's role in the Medicaid fix seeing as this is an article written during his campaign for governor and they seem quite the conservative rag. I mean, they claim the deficit was in the billions? I never heard that. I believe Jindal's own campaign page says that the deficit was 400 million, not billions (plural). DanielZimmerman 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the Spectator has an agenda, without a doubt. I actually hadn't heard of the incident until the gubernatorial election of aught-three. I gather the "billions" was not the actual deficit but rather the deficit that would have resulted had Louisiana had to comply with the new federal Medicare/Medicaid rules had federal funding not been restructured. Anyone know more? Gabrielthursday 07:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spectator a conservative "rag"? I'll agree it has an agenda, but would we describe The Nation (a similarly fringe publication that publishes some highly non-NPOV stuff) a socialist "rag"? (or, for American consumption, a liberal "rag"?). Indeed, for extremism, I don't think AS contributor Pat Buchanan can beat Nation contributor Leon Trotsky!

That said, the non-credibility of their "billion-dollar deficit" gives me pause for thought. It's my working assumption that this is typical journalistic confusion -- though it could be stupid spin -- between a projected cumulative deficit and a real operating deficit, which was, as Daniel notes, "only" $400m.

I agree it's appropriate to note the fiscal turnaround and the drop from 48 to 49 (while noting that LA has never been above 48). If you want to note clinic closures as well, then sure, let's also note the successful initiatives to improve children's health. Looking at this from well outside LA, the turnaround is striking; the decline from 48 to 49 doesn't seem to me to be statistically very significant. That said, critics are mentioning it, so fair enough; include it. However, to then start adding complaints about clinic closures is getting into details; best then to balance that by noting what positive details also resulted.

I personally believe that the turnaround should be mentioned, and I think it's appropriate to mention the decline from 48 to 49 during his tenure. If we want to mention more specific negatives, then let's also get into more specific positives. It's not about balancing one good point with one bad point as much as it is balancing an appropriate level of analysis and criticism.Holmwood 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But if we are writing an encyclopedic article, then how can we both say the department was "turned around" while also citing that its national health rankings dropped? Seems counterintuitive at best. The problem with the term "turnaround" is POV. (Unless you wanted to word it in a way that says "dispite the claims of some that Jindal turned the department around, others point to the decrease in health rankings and the elimination of clinics as proof that Jindal's decisions hurt the department" (or something like that) DanielZimmerman 12:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have two points. First, the decline from 48 to 49 -- for a State that's never risen above 48 -- isn't that material. Second, it comes down to context. A Health Department on the brink of fiscal collapse, threatening to imperil other programs is indeed "turned around" if its deficit is wiped out. A company which makes mediocre products and is verging on bankruptcy is turned around even if its products don't improve but it is now making a profit.

In addition, your wording comes off as non neutral POV. "despite the claims of some"? Sheesh! With respect, it sounds like a DNC press release. And I'm Canadian -- I have no dog in this hunt as southerners say! Something more like "Jindal achieved a much-welcomed financial turnaround of the Department, changing a 400m deficit which imperiled other programs into a 200m surplus [citation]. Child vaccination rankings improved. [citation] However, the State's country-wide rankings continued to stagnate, slipping one place to 49 of 50 during Jindal's tenure [citation] and sliding to last in the nation in the year following his departure [citation].

I think that's fair. Absolutely the mediocrity of LA's health care -- before, during and after Jindal's tenure needs to be pointed out, including the relative slide during his tenure.Holmwood 11:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Holmwood: 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. I, of course, would argue that a healthcare system is not "turned around" when you eliminate the deficit if the healthcare given by that system gets worse. Your comparison of a public healthcare system that is not in existence to make a profit to a public company whose job it is to make a profit is clearly flawed. If Bobby Jindal did what he did in a public corporation then by all means he would be considered a genius. However, it is not the job of our government to run a profit. And while I would argue that, it is not my job to post my argument in the article. It is my job when editing this encyclopedia to present the facts. Fact: The budget was cut and the deficit was eliminated. Fact: The healthcare ranking dropped during his tenure. You claim that my wording sounds like a DNC press release but yours is no better than a RNC press release. "Jindal achieved a much-welcomed financial turnaround"? Sounds like it came off the desk of Karl Rove. I mean your own words "the mediocrity of LA's health care -- before, during and after Jindal's tenure" clearly show why it would be wrong to word the article in the way you described. DanielZimmerman 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Demon possession article

An anonymous user (68.11.51.159) recently added information on an article written by Bobby Jindal while he was at Oxford allegedly discussing (I say 'allegedly' because I lack a subscription and can't find a free copy of the article to verify its content) a friend's possession by a demon. See the article here and the diff here.

It seems to me that this is unnecessary and possibly politically-motivated, and that the source is not reputable (see the NOR's mission statement here), but given that it appears to have been written by him and was subsequently published, the argument might also be made that it should be left in to show more about his character and history.

Since I didn't want to unilaterally delete it and risk a revert war, I thought I'd bring it up here and see if we can't reach a consensus. --jonny-mt 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Positions on "selected" issues and other nits.

The section "Positions on selected issues" looks like it could have been culled from The Nation or Mother Jones Magazine or The American Prospect. "Selected" indeed.

Katrina is not mentioned in this article. At all. This is odd because Jindal was personally involved in rescue efforts (sans PR stunt material such as a toy boat, camera crew, hair gel, and a plastic cup for bailing).

Republicans have sub headings of "Controversies," "Criticisms," and "Public Perceptions" (wherein acts of mind reading and cribbing from the The Guardian are performed) or their positions on issues are "Selected." Blanco gets blurbs prefixed with "Actions ..." How's this given that even Nagin couldn't escape the critical key taps of the wikinistas nor the lens of Mr. Lee?

Some authors of this entry obviously have an ax to grind and their blogs get cited in the Links section. Why is that?

Pete 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Offered testimony

What's 'offering testimony'? References to some christian practice, shouldn't themselves be phrased in jargon that only christians know. It sounds cozy. At the least, there should be a link to a wikipedia page where that bit of christian whatever-it-is is explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.74.149 (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NRA rating

I can't edit the article. Someone who can might want to add that in addition to his A rating by Gun Owners of America, Jindal has an A+ rating from the NRA, which officially endorsed him for governor. --M-K, 23 Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.177.248 (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-white?

Isn't most Indians white? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.132.203 (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Indian-Americans are considered White. However, I'm wondering about "first non-white governor since Reconstruction". I can't find evidence of one in Louisiana BEFORE Reconstruction, either. Am I missing somebody? I think we should change this to read "first non-white governor in state history". - 199.82.243.71 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry, that was me, forgot to log in. - Syberghost 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Newt says[4]:

Not only will Jindal become the nation's youngest governor, but he will be the first non-white governor to hold the state's post since P.B.S. Pinchback, an African-American Republican who served as acting governor of the state during the 35-day period after the state legislature impeached Gov. Henry Clay Warmoth in 1872.

BillMcGonigle 19:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the one who posted the question actually serious? I'm doubting that because: 1) Indians, who rightfully consider themselves Asian, are most clearly brown in skin color, albeit to varying degrees, and 2) The way the question is phrased. Sounds like the question-poser is posing as a stereotypical redneck. At least I hope it wasn't a serious question! BobCubTAC (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP adress traces to Atlanta, Georgia. Tarcus (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Asian isn't always considered a race. That's a fairly recent category. Since you bring up skin color, what are middle easterners?

Something like non-caucasian or non-european might be more clear to some people who aren't as hip to the latest fashionable nomenclature. 71.128.195.213 (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Asian Indians are considered to be part of the Caucasian race. However, because of their skin color, they were not considered to be white by the British Empire, and generally are considered to be non-white in American culture today. They also are NOT considered to be Arab or Middle Easterner. Sf46 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

References

90% of the time I use Wikipedia for articles on science, math, and cs. A few days ago I came here to find out more about Bobby Jindal.

Since when are campaign commercials, political press releases, and dedicated hit piece blogs valid references for an encyclopedia? Shouldn't only verifiable facts from true primary or secondary sources and main stream media sites (AP, Reuters, etc) be cited?

Pete 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out the sections you have an issue with and the problems with the sources to clarify the issues that you have with the Bobby Jindal article? DanielZimmerman 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, yes, he would be White. However, under the US definition of race, he would be Asian (racial classification has shifted back and forth for Indian-Americans, and I'm sure it's likely the same will happen with Arabs) 67.173.195.17 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not first Indian American Governor, but the first elected Indian American Governor.

"[The distinction of first Indian American Governor] goes to New Jersey's transportation commissioner, Kris Kolluri, who held the post for 24 hours last year when his boss was out of town." Source DanielZimmerman 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Coverage of the Louisiana Election is flawed

A lot of implied statements are being made with the comparisons of the Jindal primary win and Jindal's loss in 2003. For example, stating that Jindal got a plurality in certain parishes implies that he "won" those parishes when in reallity a majority of those parishes voted for someone else. I think there is a better way to put it without sounding like a Republican pundit. DanielZimmerman 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? Maybe it's just because I'm a math major, but the distinction between 'plurality' and 'majority' is pretty clear to me. What alternative wording would you suggest? Borisblue 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Some people use the term 'relative majority' instead of plurality- it's a slightly more obscure term, but does that sound more neutral?Borisblue 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article states "Jindal's 54 percent of the vote was greater than that received by outgoing Governor". And while 54% > 52%, Jindal actually got less votes than Blanco did when she won (699,672 < 731,358). So just as someone can type that Jindal got a "greater" vote than Blanco, I can also say that he got less votes than Blanco. I also have heard people use the 60/64 parish comment to imply some sort of mandate. In reallity, those parishes that he got a plurality in.... that means that the majority of those parishes did not vote for him. And what was the population of those parishes where he did not come in 1st? And is analyzing the votes of each parish really relevant to an encyclopedic entry? It is similar to the silly graphic showing 75% of the counties voted for Bush (when that graphic treated densely populated Democratic areas the same as thinly populated republican areas). There are historic things that took place in this election. A person who is a minority being governor of Louisiana since reconstruction, the first elected Indian-American governor, the fact that he was not the incumbant and he won in the primary (and the fact that goes along with that.... I think he is the only one to do that.... but it could be the only one in a while). I would suggest eliminating the blurb about parishes, since the overall vote is what matters and not the parish by parish vote. I would also eliminate the blurb about him getting a greater percentage of votes. DanielZimmerman 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On Jindal "tapping" leadership positions.

Several things about this section. Should it be brought up that Bobby Jindal said that he would not get involved in the leadership positions and then later did? Also, did he actually select the people? Or did he just come out in support of the people who had the votes already? DanielZimmerman 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pro-life" is a POV term

I strongly feel that the term "pro-life" as used in this article is majorly POV and must be changed. In the "Positions on selected issues" section, it states, "...Blanco, who is also pro-life..." Because I recognize that my own preferential term, "anti-choice," is also POV, I move that the term "pro-life" be changed to "opposed to abortion." Sound fair? BobCubTAC (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC

No. "Pro-life" is a direct link to an article which discusses the term. No need to pipe it to something else less descriptive. - BillCJ (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "anti-death"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.106.4 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are the generally accepted terms used in the abortion debate. "Anti-choice" or "Anti-life" would be terms that no one would understand. Perhaps the wording could be changed to a quote from Bobby Jindal or some of his campaign material where he identifies himself as "pro-life". At that point it's no longer a POV issue, because it's then a quote. Sf46 (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 in 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)