Talk:Bobby Jindal

The Quote in the "Intelligent design and creation" section

As of June 19, 2008, there was a quote from a 2007 Louisiana governor's debate where he tries to explain why he favors teaching intelligent design in school. He basically uses the excluded middle fallacy to support intelligent design: he says that ID must be true because the theory of evolution is flawed. Also, the specific objections he raises to modern evolutionary theory are nonsense: the flaws he cited in the debate do not exist. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a relevant and verifiable quote from an academic that is relevant to the article it doesn't matter if you or I disagree with Jindal's stance. In order to maintain the encyclopedic value of the page, we need to refrain from interjecting our own beliefs into the article. For example, I am sure there are points and counterpoints made by academia in the Intelligent Design wikipedia page. So by including a wikilink to ID/Creationism when mentioning Jindal's support of it, readers can read on about ID on that page. Basically, the Bobby Jindal page needs to contain information about Bobby Jindal and not be a discussion of the points and counterpoints in the ID debate. In my opinion, it is enough to say "Jindal supports teaching Intelligent Design in classrooms and believes that school boards should be allowed to make the decision on whether to allow it" is enough. It is a factual statement with links to back up the words contained therein. Any more and you risk tarnishing the page. DanielZimmerman (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To add more in reference to your statement. It is not enough to say "Jindal uses the exluded middle fallacy in support of teaching ID". You cannot construct an argument on wikipedia by saying A is true and B is true so therefore C must be true because C logically follows from A and B. You have to reference some reliable source that has already made that argument in order to include it on wikipedia. DanielZimmerman (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed this information from the ID subsection (and removed the section as well, leaving that Jindal supports teaching ID in school for now).

He addressed this issue during a September 2007 televised gubernatorial debate saying, "c" Then on Face the Nation in June 2008 he said supports intelligent design (ID) in public schools because it is part of "the very best science." The scientific community rejects intelligent design as pseudoscience and ID was ruled to be a form of creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Current legislation, described by the National Center for Science Education, as an anti-evolution bill is on his desk. The Christian Broadcasting Network says the law would challenge evolution. The legislation will become law in 20 days if Jindal fails to veto on it. Scientific organizations have called on Jindal to veto the bill.

Let's discuss this point by point.

"Personally, it certainly makes sense to me that when you look at creation, you would believe in a creator." This is a direct quote from Jindal and while nothing prevents us from using direct quotes as a rule, we have been avoiding direct quotes on the page as much as possible. Does Jindal's quote add more substance to the article? Can a reader just click on the reference link to read more about what Jindal feels about ID?

Then on Face the Nation in June 2008 he said supports intelligent design (ID) in public schools because it is part of "the very best science." This section does not belong in the article at all. It makes no mention of Jindal and all it does is serve to attack Jindal's stance (something that is not encyclopedic). If that part belongs on wikipedia it belongs in the ID article on wikipedia.

Current legislation, described by the National Center for Science Education, as an anti-evolution bill is on his desk. The Christian Broadcasting Network says the law would challenge evolution. The legislation will become law in 20 days if Jindal fails to veto on it. Scientific organizations have called on Jindal to veto the bill.

If we want to include information about that bill then this section belongs. However, the media coverage on that bill is insignificant as compared to the issues dealing with his refusal to veto the legislative pay raise bill.

And I don't disagree with the author (Paper45tee) that ID is noteworthy and covered in the media. I just don't believe Jindal's stance on ID is as noteworthy as the section makes it out to be and that it deserves anything more than a sentence. DanielZimmerman (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ID isn't science. Jindal supports ID. ID is widely criticized by scientists and scientific organizations. There is large amount of controversy on the pending bill as well. Also I disagree with your characterization of:

The scientific community rejects intelligent design as pseudoscience and ID was ruled to be a form of creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

This is fact and important to mention in the context of ID. Without this context the reader might get the false idea that ID is science and/or has scientific support. It does not. Paper45tee (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you 100% that ID is not science. That is not the issue here. The issue is that the court case cited has nothing to do with Bobby Jindal and should not be mentioned on the Bobby Jindal wikipedia page.

The wide criticisms of ID (along with those arguments in support of it) should be mentioned on the wikipedia ID page (and Kitzmiller is mentioned on the ID page and I have no problem with that). The reason that ID is wikilinked in the Jindal entry is so that people can go look at the ID page and learn more about ID if they so desire (including what people say on both sides of the aisle).

I reject the idea that by just saying Jindal supports the teaching of intelligent design in public schools that the reader may get the false idea that ID is science or that it has scientific support. I will give the readers who have not made up their mind on ID yet a little more credit than that.

The bottom line is this. Wikipedia articles need to be unbiased. Your entry serves to bias people against Jindal on his support of ID being introduced in schools. And while I may agree with you that people should be informed of Jindal's want to introduce ID in schools and how wrong that is, wikipedia is not the platform for for doing such because wikipedia is | not a soapbox.DanielZimmerman (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Not sure what the fuss is here. If anyone wants to give readers a better idea of what "intelligent design" is all about, then a wikilink can be included here to Intelligent Design. But material from that article shouldn't be copied to this one. The only thing that belongs at this article is stuff specific to Jindal.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Paper45tee (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that is basically what I have been saying. The current text has a wikilink but Paper45tee wants to include information that is not specific to Jindal's stance on the topic. This is why I deleted it. DanielZimmerman (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If ID is mentioned in the context of public schools then what it is and what the courts have ruled are relevant. In terms of flow, you need context rather than just a bunch of single sentences on issues. Paper45tee (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If find the fact that Ferrylodge was recruited and has a history of disruptive editing on conservative issues (see abortion, etc) very troubling. ID is not supported by the scientific community and as such, it needs mentioned. Additionally, Jindal has used the term "creation" so I don't know why that was removed. Let the facts speak for themselves, don't remove details about what something is. Paper45tee (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Ferrylodge about this issue because he had stated an interest on hearing further incidents of disruption on the Bobby Jindal page (during the time when people kept placing an unsourced middle name in the article). I figured Ferrylodge's interest in maintaining some semblance of order on the Bobby Jindal page was not limited to Jindal's middle name and was inclusive of all edits on this page. It is not as if I went and tracked down some random stranger to come help me out. In fact, after a long and drawn out consensus building discussion that took place between Ferrylodge and myself, we came up with a wording on the Bobby Jindal stance on abortion that is fair, unbiased, well sourced, and has no OR in it. Anyway, I notified a regular contributor to the Bobby Jindal page about a problem that we are having on the Bobby Jindal page. If that is against wikipedia policy then point out that policy and I will refrain from doing it again. I just thought that in the process of building consensus that it would be important to include as many regular contributors as possible. DanielZimmerman (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reverted any of your edits to this article, Paper45tee, and I don't intend to (at least not regarding ID). You are correct to caution DanielZimmerman against canvassing. As you'll see from the edit history of this talk page, and the edit history of this article, I have often been here before. The fact that someone else may have been canvassing does not prevent me from ever visiting this article. And, by the way, DanielZimmerman is 100% correct that this is not the proper article to discuss the flaws or the attributes of ID.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the revert, I was referring to DanielZimmerman. THIS (Undid revision 221076686 by Paper45tee (talk) IS REVERT.

If pseudoscience is going to be mentioned, the fact that it is pseudoscience needs to be explained. This is policy: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. It reads: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such..." That is because they are Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Why remove one sentence that explains what he supports has no scientific merit and was ruled to be religion? Paper45tee (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Here's Jindal's former professor criticizing his claims on evolution and ID on ScienceBlogs. If you really want a source that criticizes Jindal for supporting psuedo/anti-science.Paper45tee (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not appropriate sources. As for the press release itself, you would have to establish that using it would be a reliable and valid source under wikipedia guidelines (since not all press releases are qualified to be sources for wikipedia).There is also the question of whether you are giving Bobby Jindal's stance on ID undue weight. For example, currently Bobby Jindal is getting a lot of press about his refusal to veto the legislative pay raise. Much more so than any recent press he has received on his ID stance. Finally, I would point out that just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it merits including, especially if the fact given violates neutrality DanielZimmerman (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not every mention of evolution or intelligent design necessitates a mention of Kitzmiller or the use of the adjective pseudoscience. There are times when this odd instinct reminds me of the Islamic coda to the name of Muhammad (to whit - peace be upon him) where every mention of ID requires the parenthetical remark- "which is pseudoscience and not science at all, which Kitzmiller proves". I agree with Daniel Zimmerman on this one. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gabe. Very good point. DanielZimmerman (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I wanted to also respond to the point made by paper45tree about wikipedia's policy on Pseudoscience. WP:Psci discusses writing articles about topics that are considered pseudoscience. In fact, it starts off by asking "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?". It does not discuss writing articles about people who happen to believe in topics that may fall under the label of pseudoscience. Such entries fall under other policies and guidelines of wikipedia. So while the article about ID should contain the majority opinion of the scientific community about ID and its validity, the article on Bobby Jindal should not. I hope that makes sense and along with the comments of ferrylodge and gabe help to form a consensus that such entries are not appropriate for the article. DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I know everyone will hate me for re-opening this, but I really do think Jindal's endorsement of creationism and signing of a bill supporting it is notable, especially since a very large biological society just decided to reject New Orleans for their annual meetings (of nearly 2000 members) specifically because of it, and sent him a letter saying so (http://www.sicb.org/resources/LouisianaLetterJindal.pdf). I've been to this society's meeting before, and based on my costs and the numbers who attend, he just flushed about $1,000,000 or so down the drain at a time when his constituents need it most. IMHO, this automatically qualifies as notable. News articles relating to this can be found right on the main page at www.sicb.org Mokele (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal, Exorcist

Jesus, how do people like this get to be governor? What an asshole... In college, Bobby and a gang of his friends held a woman against her consent to perform a bizarre religious ritual on her. The facts are not in dispute--Bobby's written about it himself:

Kneeling on the ground, my friends were chanting, "Satan, I command you to leave this woman." Others exhorted all "demons to leave in the name of Christ." It is no exaggeration to note the tears and sweat among those assembled. Susan lashed out at the assembled students with verbal assaults. [...]

Maybe she sensed our weariness; whether by plan or coincidence, Susan chose the perfect opportunity to attempt an escape. She suddenly leapt up and ran for the door, despite the many hands holding her down. This burst of action served to revive the tired group of students and they soon had her restrained once again, this time half kneeling and half standing.

Why is there nothing about this incident in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.69.2 (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The article contians this at the end.

Additionally, Jindal’s pre-2001 writings include several articles in the New Oxford Review, one of which later made news during Jindal’s 2003 gubernatorial race.[43] In that 1994 article for the New Oxford Review, Jindal described witnessing a friend seemingly being possessed by a demon, but also wrote that he was unsure in retrospect what had happened.[44]

What more do you want? DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For one, it would be helpful to the reader to name the article. Maybe that is why the reader above missed it. Additionally, we should quote him rather than put words in his mouth. The claim that he was "he was unsure in retrospect what had happened" is more ambiguous than the title and article leaves the reader with. He simply claimed, "I do not have the answers" as to if it was "spiritual warfare." Paper45tee (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article was listed in the reference, so I agree that it would be helpful to the reader to have the name of the article there and it was already there for the reader to click on. And I disagree with your assertion that we should quote him. We are under no requirement to quote people and wikipedia specifically states that we should write in our own words and then cite the source. DanielZimmerman (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I want to make it plain that I don't share this fellow's politics, religion, or outlook on life (I think it would be fair to say that we're political opposites) because it's important to realise that what I'm suggesting is based, rather, on my interpretation of Wikipedia policy.

I think that the reference given as "[43]" in the quote above is inadequate as a source for the statement that the New Oxford Review writings "made news during Jindal’s 2003 gubernatorial race." The source given is a personal blog called "Taegen Goddard's Political Wire", and in it the writer makes it plain that he has merely received a personal email about the article from another person. He does not cite any news items, nor does his blog entry otherwise constitute evidence that the New Oxford Review writings "made news" during that campaign. Goddard refers to another blog entry somebody called Dan Conley (his site is apparently now password-only), and a PDF posted by the Daily Kos, a general political blog. I think we'd want better sources for the claim that it made news.

I propose that we remove the paragraph until such sources become available to support the claim. Currently it is based on three blog postings, and no news media. If it made news we should be able to cite new items on radio bulletins, television bulletins, current affairs coverage on TV or radio, or news articles in newspapers. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the footnote to the blogs. Seems like the rest of the paragraph is legitimate, though, so I left it in for now. For whatever it may be worth, here's a recent op/ed about it from the Sacramento Bee.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sacbee opinion piece is evidence that the writings may become a news item in the Presidential campaign if Jindal is picked as a running mate by McCain, but it doesn't support the claim that it made news in the 2003 campaign. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the bit about 2003 from the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Honestly, even though I was aware of the story, I don't remember the Spiritual Warfare article getting a huge amount of press in 2003. However, that could be because I was paying more attention to other aspects of the 2003 campaign. I think his other writing (the subject of the "Jindal on Religion" ad) got more press in 2007 than the exorsism writing did in 2003. DanielZimmerman (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the way Ferrylodge edited it. The work was a publication by Jindal and illustrates how his thinking on religion developed. A neutral description of the work is appropriate for now. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jindal does not simply state "I do not have the answers:" the article in the New Oxford Review of December 1994 is headed "Beating A Demon" above the main title "Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare." It costs $1.50 to download, and your interpretation of the events described will depend very much on your own outlook. It is not clear that Jindal's woman friend was held wholly without her consent, though she did make a break for the door and was restrained by the other students. The University Christian Fellowship's "staff member" (presumably the preacher who is castigated for refusal to attend) regarded the woman as psychologically disordered and advised her to seek professional help. Probably a dissociative ("hysterical") episode was suspected. Jindal seems to think that demons were cast out of her and she was also miraculously cured of cancer, thanks to his prayers to the Virgin Mary and the application of a crucifix blessed by the Pope, and he says this event led three other lapsed participants to return to the Catholic Church.

Jindal's final paragraph (from a long article) may be quoted to clarify what he said: "I left that classroom with a powerful belief in Mary's intercessions and with many questions about spiritual warfare. I also learned a lasting lesson in humility and the limits of human understanding. Was the purpose of that night served when so many individuals were inducted into the Church? Did I witness spiritual warfare? I do not have the answers, but I do believe in the reality of spirits, angels, and other related phenomena that I can neither touch nor see." NRPanikker (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A politician writing that he "beat a demon" during an exorcism, in Jindal's 1994 article "BEATING A DEMON Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare " seems encyclopedic as part of his personal beliefs and his political campaign history. That he smelled "sulfuric" scents coming from the woman, and that the group with which he did the exorcism shouted "Satan, I command you to leave this woman!" seems appropriate top include, as does that he wrote he could feel "some type of physical force... as if something was pushing down on my chest, making it very hard for me to breathe.. I began to think that the demon would only attack me if I tried to pray or fight back..". His writing that he had fought with and been attacked by a demon was publicized by his opponent Blanco in the 2006 Gubernatorial campaign, and he responded to the attack. It is all part of his political history. Edison (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The real article Jindal wrote is archived on the Internet at
http://web.archive.org/web/20061213075345/http://images.dailykos.com/images/jindal.pdf
Wristell (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Placement of nickname in lede

His new nickname is: Icarus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.49.93 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

His birth name is Piyush. His legal name is Piyush. He uses a nickname. But his nickname is not like John Edwards or Newt Gingrich's nicknames - which are simply derivatives of their legal birth names. Jindal's nickname is unrelated to his birth or legal name. It is akin to a stage name and for encyclopedic clarity should be presented in the appropriate style - not as a name in quote marks.Davidpatrick (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Manual of Style covers situations like this in WP:MOSBIO#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names. Reliable sources all refer to him as Bobby Jindal, so it's not just him stating this as his nickname. This also seems to be covered above in #Jindal's name. Why the urgency for the sudden change? It's likely controversial to do so, and the original version should probably be restored unless there's a consensus for a change. Kelly ^hi! 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The manual of style starts off by saying:

For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:

Certainly it is not just him that uses the nickname he adopted for himself - it has become very widely known. But he has not taken the name legally. Any documents he signs have to be signed with his legal name. Not to be pedantic, but any change is by definition "sudden" at the point it happens. There were certainly a couple of exchanges about this a while ago. But Jindal's profile has grown considerably since then so there is no harm in revisiting it. As a matter of encyclopedic style - I think it is far more appropriate. The style involving the name in quotes in the middle of a legal names is often when the name is a derivative Newton "Newt" Gingrich. But where the nickname is unrelated to the person's given name - there is a fairly common style.

We don't see Gordon "Sting" Sumner.
We see: Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner, CBE (born 2 October 1951), almost universally known by his stage name Sting

We don't see: Paul "Bono" Hewson
We see: Paul David Hewson (born 10 May 1960 in Glasnevin, Dublin, Ireland), also known by his stage name Bono

I think it is time to treat this aspect of this important article in a suitably encyclopedic manner. I don't see why that should be controversial - but please present the case why what is proposed is not appropriate. Thanks Davidpatrick (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The stage names you've given are radically different from the person's real name. I think one example given in the MOS is Slim Pickens - something that would look awkward in quotes in the middle of the person's real name. However, in this case, Jindal does not use a different last name - he just uses a nickname as a first name, so using it in quotes is appropriate in this case. The MOS states the example of John Edwards but does not say we only use that because his nickname is similar to his real name. I did a little looking just in the category of musicians, and found Big Mama Thornton, Bing Crosby, James Ulmer, Blue Mitchell, Tom Malone (musician), and dozens more just in a couple minutes of looking at List of nicknames of jazz musicians. I can't find any that use your style when the only difference in names is a nickname in place of the first name. Kelly ^hi! 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced by your argument. I think that the placement of a non-legal nickname in quotes in the middle of a real name is inappropriate in this case. However I am happy to work towards a compromise. Given that his nickname has no connection to his birth/legal name - it is essential to have a reference and brief explanation in the lede. So I would - with reluctance - accept the "Bobby" in quotes - but there has to be some reference in the lede. Which I have done. Davidpatrick (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why we would need to emphasize that in the lede (which contains his significant accomplishments) when it's covered in the first subsection of the article immediately below. Kelly ^hi! 06:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Because this is a nickname that is not - like John Edwards or Newt Gingrich's - simply a derivative or abbreviation of his name. This is a person who has an unusual and distinctive birth name that is his legal name and yet has elected (as he is entirely entitled to do) to use an idiomatic nickname that is radically different and unrelated to his given - and legal name. It is an important fact to note. Many many things are noted in the lede of an article that are subsequently amplified upon in later paragraphs. The later mention of his nickname explains at what age he took the nickname and the inspiration for his nickname. And that rightly belongs there. But the fact of this unusual nickname is not something to ignore until the second paragraph. It has undoubtedly been a factor in his assimilation into the American mainstream - and thus important to note.Davidpatrick (talk)

It has undoubtedly been a factor in his assimilation into the American mainstream - and thus important to note. - important according to who? There are a lot of things with more discussion by reliable sources in the article, like his political positions, but we don't cover those in the lede. Why is the origin of his nickname particularly significant? Kelly ^hi! 07:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Because - and this is to Jindal's great credit - he overcame considerable odds to win election in a state where people who were not white or of traditional American stock did not usually succeed electorally. One of the elements that contributed to his friendly persona was having a familiar sounding All-American first name rather than an unusual ethnic first name. So the fact of this nickname is an aspect that needs to be flagged. Without it as part of his overall persona, his political positions might not have been of interest to people in the first place. Davidpatrick (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - do you have sources for that claim? Kelly ^hi! 13:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

(ec)I think it best to use the intent of three policies here, WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:MOSBIO#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names. Taking the latter first, the example of John Edwards is instructive in that it tells us we should be careful not to imply anything by the way we state the legal and alternative name. Clearly, a phrase like widely known by his self-designated nickname "Bobby Jindal has implications that Piyush "Bobby" Jindal doesn't (the 'self-designated' term is particularly worrisome). Though not directly applicable (since we're not talking about the name of the article), in spirit, WP:COMMONNAMES tells us that common names are generally preferable to official names. Piyush "Bobby" Jindal captures the common name as well as the legal name perfectly while avoiding any implication on how or why the gentleman got that name. That avoidance of implication ensures that we comply with the spirit of the third policy mentioned above, WP:NPOV. Best to go with the current formulation. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 16:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus reached a while ago

The issue on how Bobby Jindal's name should be referenced on the page was discussed and a consensus was reached a while ago. Check the archives. DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion a while back. DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that to say that our opinion is now being censored because some other people already talked about it? Does this mean that the discussion is over? If there was an official closure, and censure of this topic I think it should be stated on the national news. Quick! contact CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. Headline: Piyush Jindal's official Nickname is "Bobby". There will be no more discussion on this because it is upsetting the fragile few. Does it really matter? He chose to be on the national stage. People will call him whatever they want to call him. This webpage will not change that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.49.93 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Irresponsible Moderators and Vandalism

"On February 24, 2009, Jindal delivered an absolutely abysmal rebuttal to Barack Obama's speech to Congress; in which he attempted to pose an opposing, "traditionally Republican" view, with antiquated ideas and little relevance to the current issues facing the country."

This sentence does not belong anywhere on this page, no matter what your politics. Worse yet, the page is locked. I hate republicans (and democrats) as much as the next guy, but since when is shoving POV, then locking a page kosher? The mods or whoever needs to get on this. Now.

208.120.18.60 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

at the very least the brief info about jindal's "rebuttal" should include something to the effect that it was roundly panned by both republicans and democrats.

to not include that jindal's speech was widely acknowledged to be an embarrassing and amateurish effort robs the reading public of context and meaning. "neutral" does not mean "sanitized." Colddayinhell (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jindal's Speech Was Historical

I mean, histrionically hilarious. Way to go, Piyush!!!! Piyush Sr (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote for Mr. 'Kenneth' Rogers Piyush Sr (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

“Government doesn’t work. Put us in charge and we’ll prove it.” - Jindal.

The GOP = the party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead. TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion section, and the above comments about vandalism, are a perfect example of 2 of wikipedia's greatest criticisms. IF there is no liberal bias in this page, I'm not sure what is. This page is treated like a forum where kids get off to cheering the loudest about their respective political philosophy. --Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.46.191 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Even conservatives thought Jindal sucked.This hotel doesn't have color tv (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i posted this in the box above but it really should go here (my apologies, but i'm new making entries here -- the whitewash on jindal's wiki page is too much):

at the very least the brief info about jindal's "rebuttal" should include something to the effect that it was roundly panned by both republicans and democrats.

to not include that jindal's speech was widely acknowledged to be an embarrassing and amateurish effort robs the reading public of context and meaning. "neutral" does not mean "sanitized." Colddayinhell (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

SYNOPSIS OF SPEECH Jindal: (1) "Hi. My name is Bobby Jindal and my head is in Rush Limbaugh's rectum", (2) "You people are morons so I'm talking like a moron". Limbaugh: "I approve little Bobby's message"

TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to volcano monitoring

I removed the ridiculous statement about his alleged "strong" opposition to volcano monitoring. That was a complete distortion of what he was saying. Get real, people. InFairness (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The transcript http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/sotn.jindal.transcript/ can be read at cnn. What he actually said was "$140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C." I am not sure how that could be read other than he does not support congress allocating funds to monitor volanoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.165 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Posibilities, that he thinks that $140M is too much to spend, and/or that this allocation should not be within a bill that's sole perpose is purported to be economic stimulation.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

None of those possibilities are supported by Jindal's actual remarks. Jindal's use of the phrase "something called volcano monitoring" clearly indicates that he regards the whole idea of "volcano monitoring" with contempt.163.1.234.109 (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what his position on hurricane monitoring is. I guess potential natural disasters only matter when they devastate HIS state. KyuzoGator (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything is frivolous spending - except for the $130B and more that the federal government is giving to Louisiana.TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

5th or 6th Governor not of European descent

Piyush Jindal was elected governor of Louisiana in 2007. Before Piyush's election there had already been five other governors not of European descent who were ELECTED to office following reconstruction. Deval Patrick (Massachusetts, African American, 2006), Ben Cayetano (Hawaii, Filipino, 1994), Doug Wilder (Virginia, African American, 1989), John Waihee (Hawaii, Native Hawaiian, 1986), and George Ariyoshi (Hawaii, Japanese, 1974). Ariyoshi descended to office upon a governor being declared incapicated in 1973 but was elected so that makes 5. Why is Piyush Jindal noted as the fifth one then in this article? Capoliticswatcher (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Whoever wrote that section simply forgot Cayetano and Waihee--if you look at the earlier diffs, they had included Patrick, Wilder, Ariyoshi, and Gary Locke (whom you forgot). I've edited the statement to "one of fewer than ten" until someone does a more precise evaluation; I'm not sure that being the seventh or eighth or ninth governor of primarily non-European ethnicity is particularly notable, but that's another discussion entirely.IceCreamEmpress (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Man, how did I forget Gary Locke??? Yeah, it starts to get silly when you get into seventh, eighth of ninth -- your way is pbly the best way to do it. Capoliticswatcher (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal = Kenneth the Page

I'm not quite prepared to say that it rises to the level of internet phenomenon, but it appears that Jindal has earned himself the nickname Kenneth the Page. This is just my personal point of amusement for the day, but it did just occur to me that this may warrant inclusion in the article (not today though). Hiberniantears (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jindal's speech last night received mostly negative reviews even from conservatives e.g. Brooks who said it was a "disaster" and "insane". It was NOT a success. This needs to be mentioned!

TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

it has indeed risen to the level of internet phenomenon. i wish i had it bookmarked but somewhere there is a picture of jindal/kenneth that morphs from one to the other. it's pretty hilarious. googling "jindal kenneth" just now gives 118,000 results. a blog i read had done the same google search earlier in the day and got 85,000 results. Colddayinhell (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. It is official: http://thedw.us/post/81401310/via Hiberniantears (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jindal earns bad reviews in national debut

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It was billed as a "coming out party" for one of the GOP's most promising young stars. But after nearly universal criticism was heaped on Gov. Bobby Jindal's high-profile response to President Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night, the Louisiana Republican may be wishing he had stayed home. The criticisms came from all sides of the political spectrum http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/25/jindal.reaction/?iref=mpstoryview

Piyush Jindal was an EPIC FAIL.

RushieConTyn (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

More info on Jindal's pre-political history, please

I heard that Jindal had been a Rhodes Scholar (sorry if I mispelled that--obviously I was not a Rhodes Scholar). Anyway, I think it would be useful to include this information about him as well as other stuff from his early life. Sorry if this information is already in the article and I missed it... (in that case could we put it under its own section like you find for most other politicians?)--210.248.139.35 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jindal's response on Feb. 24th has been removed from the internet

Kinda scary, I can't find an audible version anywhere? 70.29.77.175 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Full text here.[1]. It's also here. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

fyi the wikisource video you provide is under review for "possible copyright infringement". The text is not the issue, it's his delivery which was/is the big issue. It is on the Republican National Committee website but all of the media (e.g. CNN) and youtube videos (except one which is abbreviated and unaudible) have been taken off the air. For a story this size, there is certainly something going on here and I suspect it's something to do with an aggressive legal attempt to prevent wide distribution of such an embarrassing video. Maybe there is another explanation? 70.29.76.121 (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If a reliable source can be found which says the speech video was suppressed to prevent embarrasment, or disappeared quicker than comparable reply speeches by the opposition party, then that would be appropriate to include in the article. If it just seems to a Wikipedia editor to have disappeared more quickly than comparable speeches, that would be Original research. Edison (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• This Republican Response to Obama speech is one of the most important things Jindal has done. I never heard of him before. Surely we must be able to find a video link to the speech that we can put with the article? Abbarocks (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, I found a cspan video on YouTube and included it. Abbarocks (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Youtube is not RS on WP. Collect (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Jindal cited Hurricane Katrina in rebuttal speech

Governor Jindal said the reason we don’t need our government anymore is because after the hurricane the government at the time was incompetent to handle the disaster. I wonder if anyone had mentioned to the Governor that the government during that disaster was led by George W. Bush, a Republican and was ruled by a Republican majority in both Houses. Hotoat (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jindal is against government spending, but had no problem with the $130 BILLION federal taxpayers gave to Louisiana for Katrina. TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

College of St. Mary not Oxford University

Jindal did not attend Oxford University. He attended one of the constituent schools "The college of St. Mary". Not to say that this schools does not have a prestigious, and impressive background. It has been around for almost 650 years. But given the governors new found fame bits of spin, and exaggeration like this do not serve him well. It would only serve to raise other questions regarding the validity of his background. I would suggest correcting the section listing his Alma mater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.51.41 (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your unsourced assertion is wrong. Jindal earned an M.Litt. in Politics from the University of Oxford as a member of New College. See, e.g., http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4840931/Bobby-Jindal-profile-the-Republican-answer-to-Barack-Obama.html. 163.1.234.109 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I see what you're trying to say. You *are* referring to New College, which is officially called the College of St Mary. But you're still wrong to suggest that this means that Jindal didn't attend Oxford: you can't attend Oxford without attending one of its colleges, and you can't attend New College without attending Oxford.163.1.234.109 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am not wrong. The quick reference section of this page suggests he went to The University of Oxford. The University of Oxford is actually a separate college/hall at a different location originally founded in 1249, and is the oldest of all of the 44 colleges, and halls under the Oxford name. The New College, Oxford (College of St. Marry). Albeit under the Oxford name, is one of it's "constituents" and was founded in 1379. If you wish to maintain the encyclopedic accuracy of this page, and not use it for political spin (however small) it should be changed for accuracy to: The New College, Oxford. Oh! and I did not say that he did not attend "Oxford" I said he did not attend "Oxford University". It is this kind of minute inaccuracies that are taking away from the encyclopedic value of this page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.49.93 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You remain mistaken. University College and the University of Oxford are not the same thing. New College is not a constituent college of University College; the two are both constituent colleges of the larger University of Oxford. Jindal attended and took a degree from the University of Oxford; the article is correct on this point as it stands.163.1.234.109 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I will give you this The New College, Oxford is not a constituent of "University College" lol. It is a constituent of The University of Oxford. Obviously your debate is not about facts. It is something personal, and obviously a pride issue for you. But ignoring the details for personal pride does not change the fact. Oh! I take it you never took debate in College. In a debate of the facts the one who resorts to semantics first has gotten away from the issue at hand, and made it personal. In what is "supposed" to be an encyclopedic fact based environment, personal opinion does not belong. This has nothing to do with the ongoing political issues. It has everything to do with providing as factual a reference as possible. And so you know! Just as The New College, Oxford is referred: The New College of Oxford, as is The University College, Oxford referred: University of Oxford or otherwise known as Oxford Univeristy. It maintains that reference because it was the first, and oldest of the schools under the Oxford name. I am sorry if this hurts your feelings in some way. That is not my intention. I am just presenting the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.49.93 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You argued that "Jindal did not attend Oxford University." Jindal did, in fact, attend the University. End of discussion.163.1.234.109 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note also that the University of Oxford (http://www.ox.ac.uk/) and University College, Oxford (http://www.univ.ox.ac.uk/) are not the same thing. The latter is a constituent college of the former.163.1.234.109 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean to say that he attended The New College of Oxford, or The New College, Oxford, or by its official name The College of St. Mary then I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.49.93 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jindal attended "Oxford University" just as Bill Clinton did. The normal usage is that attending one of the constituent colleges is attending the university. See Colleges of the University of Oxford. Unimportant cavils here. Collect (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Jindal has an entry in the Bodleian Library's online public access catalogue[2] as "Jindal, Piyush Robert" for "A needs-based approach to health care" which is described as "Thesis (M.Litt.) - University of Oxford, 1994." Without having seen the published list of degrees granted in 1994, this would support the claim that he obtained his degree in the normal way, that is from the university itself rather than from one of its constituent colleges, as the anonymous contributor above has claimed.NRPanikker (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, semantics, if you guys were concerned with accuracy you would list it as the precise school he went to. Oh but wait! If Jindal's supporters were focused on the facts, and details of an issue (not spin) then he would not be in office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.49.93 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Piyush means a mad fellow

Someone said that Piyush means in Hindi a mad guy. If it is so, someone needs to delete it from Bobby Jindal's mainpage. Glunnbuck (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If Piyush is the one arguing in favor of the incorrect reference on the Oxford University debate above then yes he is a mad fellow. And perhaps should have taken anger management in college, not politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.49.93 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jindal's Katrina Story: A Tall Tale?

The evidence continues to grow that the story Bobby Jindal told Tuesday night -- about how he backed a tough-talking sheriff's efforts to rescue Katrina victims, government red-tape be damed -- was, made up:

- First, Jindal's story has Lee railing against the red-tape in the midst of the crisis. But Lee, the sheriff of Jefferson Parish in suburban New Orleans, told CNN he didn't find out about the license and registration issue until about seven days after the incident....

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindals_katrina_story_a_tall_tale.php?ref=m1

TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bobby was going to pray for the devil to keep Katrina away, but the government wouldn't let him. ProteinZ (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

pro-life or "pro-life"

To say:

Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record is incorrect.

Better to say:

Jindal has a 100% "pro-life" voting record

"Pro-life" is a movement that should be titled as such, and should properly distinguish the pro-birth faction among us from those who are both pro-life (in a cradle to grave sense) and "pro-choice".

Wkgreen (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Scare quotes are inappropriate, as they convey an obvious bias of the writer. Quotation marks should be used for actual quotations. As long as the article makes clear who thinks he's pro-life (the NRLC), there's not a problem. --Rob (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly not the case that quotation marks are always used only for quotations as is demonstrated a little further in the same article where it says that Jindal "voted for the 'Stelly Plan'". Here, quotations are use to denote the title of something, in this case a referendum. Without similarly putting "pro-life" in quotes it is unclear that this is the title of a movement, which is what it is. The "pro-life" faction does not own the English language any more than the "pro-choice" faction does.

To not use quotations is tantamount to saying that anyone who does not agree is somehow anti-life. I find this highly offensive.

68.161.181.253 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm "sorry" that you're "offended". We're not saying he's pro-life, we're saying somebody says he's pro-life. We don't say:

Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record.

The article says:

Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record according to the National Right to Life Committee.[45]

You would have a point, if the article said "Jindal is pro-life". It doesn't say that. --Rob (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. You've just given a perfect example of actual scare quotes while simultaneously contradicting yourself. I'm sorry that you are ""sorry"" and not truly remorseful. On the other hand, when the NRLC gives Jindal a certified 100% "pro-life" rating, are you not effectively quoting that organization? And if you say that somebody says some thing should not that thing be wrapped in quotation marks? Otherwise you risk implying a universal understanding that does not exist in this case.

You are obviously the arbiter of something that I have little control over, but I really do find this attempt to stake the high ground by monopolizing the meaning of words to be both offensive and aggravating as do many others. I hope that you give it some thought if you haven't already. As a compromise, I might suggest, at a minimum, extending the quotation out a bit to say: "100% pro-life". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.181.253 (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm "sorry" you didn't appreciate an attempt at humour. One way to avoid the problem is to avoid the word "pro-life" entirely, with or without quotes. This would require finding some other sources to cite, which shouldn't be to hard. I'm not the arbitrator of anything, and hope others will have some input into this. --Rob (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that avoidance would be preferable if it were possible. Unfortunately we must refer to something, and the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" mean little when disassembled. Coupled together with the prefix "pro", however, the words, with the roots "life" and "choice", become loaded with meaning and connotation that are not always desirable. Unfortunately, as well, we have drawn up sides in this battle over how to deal with unwanted pregnancies in our failure to acknowledge nuance. Until more appropriate words can be defined by reasoned individuals, I believe that it's best that the sides should be understood to be what they are, as titled factions, in quotes.

As for my sense of humor, I do have one (or so I'm told). But whatever you do, please do not use the term "pro-abortion" (with or without quotations), or I'm liable to burst a blood vessel!

Wkgreen (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobby will sign every death warrant he sees. He's pro-life. ProteinZ (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are Wiki editors avoiding the exorcism?

It's on the New York Times website today: Bobby Jindal, the Exorcist http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/bobby-jindal-the-exorcist-pro-or-con/?em

"Bobby" Jindal: The Story They Don't Want You to Read

http://www.dailykingfish.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=224

Battr5 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because most of that is nicely irrelevant to a BLP? Perhaos because opinions by an Op-ed columnist are opinions? Perhaos because the upshot was that he did not consider it an actual exorcism? Collect (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference for Jindal's story is a pay site; all you can see is a little introduction.
This exorcism that Jindal participated in - not just witnessed - lasted for hours and is a 'controversial' part of Jindal's background, which Jindal has been trying to suppress.
The Christian Broadcasting Network has a shorter but perfectly legal reprint of Jinda's story at
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/547231.aspx
I don't care about Jindal or any of his opponents in either party, but this exorcism thing is all over the Internet and will be an issue if he runs.
Also, Jindal never said he didn't "witness spiritual warfare". His exact answer was "I do not have the answers, but I do believe in the reality of spirits, angels, and other re­lated phenomena that I can neither touch nor see."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.231.40 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that Jindal is not accused of being an "exorcist." He wrote an article and said he did not know if anything happened in it really. As for people's beliefs -- a huge majority of people believe in things they can neither touch nor see. If you find that a mjor issue, find a cite and see if you can get such an edit to stick. I suspect that it would not. Collect (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the GOP's new rising star just went supernova. *BOOM!* What was that?...Oh just another ultra-right-wing extremist conservative being boo'd out of the public spotlight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.35.58 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

what a trip - the girl's problem was she wanted to have sex with jindal - but jindal thought she was inferior... she spontaneously recovered after he hugged her... he even cured her of cancer (or was it a skin mole?) - turned out her predicament was her own fault. jindal (the great sex symbol of our age) summarised his expert diagnosis thusly: “Susan, who had experienced visions and other related phenomena as a child, thought her intense flirting with guys and straying away from God had led to this punishment.”

http://www.patrolmag.com/times/1373/the-exorcism-of-bobby-jindal-s-intimate-friend

The Exorcism of Bobby Jindal's Intimate Friend

In a 1994 essay, G.O.P. star Bobby Jindal relives an incredible story of unrequited love … and demons.

Xman5ny (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

All the above links are incomplete. The real article Jindal wrote is archived on the Internet at
http://web.archive.org/web/20061213075345/http://images.dailykos.com/images/jindal.pdf
Wristell (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention Bobby can lay hands and cure cancer. ProteinZ (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the topic of discussion not being addressed? Is there a RS for this or not? Abbarocks (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this belong in the article? [3] Abbarocks (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like that is exactly what is happening. Collect (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reason for conversion to Catholicism

No story tells why Jindal a Hindu Punjabi people with Turban converted to Catholicism in high school. Was a Sikhs ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glunnbuck (talk • contribs) 02:56, 2 March 2009

Is it relevant? Would you specify Jain if that was the group he belonged to? Or if you wish to have the whole "Hindu v Sikh" "Sikhs are Hindus" stuff (can of worms to be sure) played out here, this is not the place. The statement here is quite sufficient for a BLP. Collect (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what I wrote above. Read carefully the Wiki page Sikhs. It says that most sikhs are Punjabis. That is nothing wrong if I want to know more on that (Educational).

Jindal behaved as if he was a squawk in the street while his rebuttal failed hopelesly. No one bothered much in the past to know more about him. Now time has come to know more about him as he holds a very important position in the American politics. I respect all religions, castes and the people.

Was the reason for conversion to Catholicism from Jindal? (read one of the references in the article). That does not make a sense to me and to many. There must be some involvement from his family. Again do you say that this question is irrelevant here? If so, please justify or help me.

Glunnbuck (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be asking for OR on this. I found no RS stating any particular reason for conversion, other than he was in a mainly Christian nation, and he likely took university classes which discussed religions of the world. Sikhism (although most Sikh families have "Singh" in them in my experience) is an unusual religion, and is as much or more a philosophy as a religion. See [4] which draws strong parallels between Sikhism and Christianity -- the basic concepts are not that different as he puts them. BTW, I know of "Christian Buddhists" as well. Collect (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop asking questions. Jindal was a Catholic from the moment of conception, and Father O'Reilley will testify to that. Little Bobby is a true American Catholic just like Bobby Kennedy. ProteinZ (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is one's rights and one's thinking about God and the universe. My questions were how Jindal being a kid took that bold decision. That is painful to believe. Thanks a lot - I do not need further clarifications. Glunnbuck (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's and easy question to answer! He knew early on that he wanted to get into politics. What better way to manipulate the polls then to convert to a widely accepted belief. If that is not the case then why would he convert from a family backed belief, and turn his back on his culture? To know the answer to this question gives us insight into the person. hmmmm? This is what this webpage is about right? Or is it just an advertisement for the person he wants us to see? Which based on what I have read seems to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.43.249 (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too guessed that one. But it stuns me how Jindal being a small kid then perceived participating in American politics. We should not grudge now on this – it’s one’s personal thing.

There are many out there who come to this country hoping to become a citizen one day and getting benefited. (Looks like those days are getting over for many under the present economy of the US and so on…). That does not mean that they do not love anymore their birthplace, their maiden names/names given by their parents, their birth caste, their religion, their parents, and their siblings and so on. All of us are patriotic in some or the other way.

When Jindal was elected as the Governor, his folks way back in Punjab celebrated and saluted him. Likewise we hope he too remembers his people and his ancestors and his roots. Glunnbuck (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that the age one attends high school is considered to be a small kid. I was under the impression that is around that time period that people seriously consider what they want to do when the become adults. I could be wrong, I may have been very mature for my age. Aside from girls :-) I was thinking about which college I wanted to attend. what subjects I wanted to study, and how I was going to get there. I even went as far to ally myself with mentors that could guide me. But my perception about him could be wrong! That is why I like debate. It opens up options that a person would normally not consider. Kind of like my perception about his interview last night on Larry King. Am I wrong in thinking that he blamed his public speaking abilities for the public's lack of ability to get the message he was trying to put across. Personally, I think I got it! We should not monitor volcanos. It is a total waste of money! What were we thinking! Or wait! perhaps it is because the GOP threw him on the stage, and he was unprepared. He only being armed with the knowledge that he needed to attack Obama any way he could. He just happened to do it very ineptly! Now last nights attack was far more quordinated. I give credit to his well paid speech writers. Now! the question becomes...can a politician that can not think for himself properly defend against someone that shoots so well from the hip (Obama). I am curious to see! Personally...I think it will be a slaughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.43.249 (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Supplying a reference for his nickname

{{editsemiprotected}}

In Bobby Jindal#Personal life, replace

According to family lore, Jindal chose to re-name himself "Bobby" inspired by the sitcom character Bobby Brady after watching The Brady Bunch television series at the age of four.

with

Jindal's nickname ("Bobby") dates back to his school days; according to Jindal, "Every day after school, I'd come home and I'd watch The Brady Bunch. And I identified with Bobby, you know? He was about my age, and 'Bobby' stuck."

Please use {{editsemiprotected}} for semi-protected pages. Changed it for you. Martin^msgj 08:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done (Nobody would've complained if you'd done it, Martin!) —Ms2ger (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So Jindal was going to school at four? Did he play the piano and read Plato in Greek at two? ProteinZ (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2009 (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)

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!