Talk:Bobby Jindal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.147.187.80 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Parents

didn't his parents disown him for selling out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 06:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs) 07:01-17:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

-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".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.189.240 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC).

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.189.240 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.106.16 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.189.240 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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.

DanielZimmerman —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC).

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.189.240 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.189.240 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Zeus1233 —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC).

The word controversy is used to describe abortion in a wikipedia article. How about this, I will reword to Stance on Controversial issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.106.16 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:51, 25 August 2005 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Skewed

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)

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)

I deleted it. It was irrelevant in the context. --JackConnor1 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, here's the deleted material: "While at Oxford, he wrote an article for the New Oxford Review in which he described witnessing a friend seemingly being possessed by a demon.[1] In that article, Jindal wrote of being unsure about what he had witnessed: 'Did I witness spiritual warfare? I do not have the answers....'[1]"

[1]"BEATING A DEMON: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare," New Oxford Review, December 1994.

I'm not enthusiastic about mentioning this in the Wikipedia article, but it does seem somewhat notable. Anyway, if someone inserts it back into the article, it will be important to include the last sentence, which makes it clear that he was not claiming to have witnessed demons possessing anyone.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been reinserted in biased fashion, by Skiddum.[4] JackConnor1, I think it's best for the article to address this (e.g. so that people won't keep trying to reinsert it, or claim that the article is a whitewash), but address it in a somewhat neutral way.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OOPS! Didn't see this section before adding my own. See my comments below. DanielZimmerman (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please clarify the exact way that bias was "inserted" by me. The article is definitely noteworthy; simply because it has proven to be an important political liability for him does not make it biased to mention, just unfortunate for him.skiddum (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2008 (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)

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)

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". - - Syberghost 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Newt says [5]:

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your source leads nowhere. Check that out. ;^) -- OtherAJ (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OOPS! New source DanielZimmerman (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

According to that source, you are absolutely correct. Nice catch. -- OtherAJ (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2008 (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)

Stem cell research.

The article currently states: 'He opposes stem cell research28 and voted against increasing federal funding to expand embryonic stem cell lines.29'. Now, someone added "embryonic" before the first mention of stem cell. However, the Time article does not specify that it is embryonic stem cell research. So we cannot just place that he is against only embryonic research without a verifiable source (even though I am absolutely sure that he is against embryonic research and not adult stem cell or chord blood research). I am not opposed to adding embryonic IF we can find a new source that states his objection is only to embryonic research. DanielZimmerman (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Found this article Jindal to meet Friday with McCain which states Jindal is seen as solid on conservative social issues such as opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. So I clarified the article and put back in "embryonic" since it is now verified. DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and relevancy of the position of the Catholic Church.

This edit includes information about the catholic church and its stance on abortion as it pertains to Jindal and his stance on abortion as a Catholic. As Ferrylodge pointed out in our previous discussion on the issue, there is no link given to connect Jindal to the official view of the Catholic church on abortion. For example, if a verifiable website contained a quote from Jindal saying "I follow the Catholic Church and its teachings on abortion" then putting the information about where Jindal differs from the Catholic Church in his public statements on abortion would be both relevant and encyclopedic. However, since nobody has produced a link giving us this information, including it in the article is suspect. I deleted the change. DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 2 paragraphs on ID/Creationism. Should we remove more?

In this edit I removed two paragraphs. The first paragraph contained an action by the legislature and not by Jindal. The only reference to Jindal is a conjecture on what he might do (that he is expected to sign it). Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.

The second paragraph contained sources that happened to be blogs. Blogs should not be used as a source. See WP:V#Self-published_sources.

I also think this should not be a section of the article. It really deserves one sentance as part of the "positions" section. I would word it as

Jindal supports the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.[40]

This way, it would follow the general way we have been covering Jindal in his article, by only describing his stance and allowing people to go to the cited source to see more specific items about the topic. If there are no objections by tomorrow, I will make that change. DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Screwed up REFs in "Writings" Section

Regarding Writings: When I click on the endnote numbers in this section nothing happens (though I can see the references in the source code) Could improper use of named refs be a problem here? I am unable to fix this despite several attempts. If someone else fixes this can you let me know where the syntax screw up is? -- 70.237.220.184 (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The problem was after the reference to Jindal's support of ID in public schools. The end tag said </rer> and not </ref> DanielZimmerman (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pay raise veto section

Should this remain a section? Should it be shortened? DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has an opinion on if the Veto section should be removed (or reduced and moved)? DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Youngest VP?

Would he be the youngest VP ever if chosen and elected? Naurmacil (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. John C. Breckinridge was 36. --Elliskev 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Along a similar line - while he was born in the United States, the time line of his parents' immigration from India suggests neither of his parents were citizens at his birth. Are we sure he is even eligible? (which is different question than if he is a citizen)StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone born in the United States is eligible - as long as he is at least 35 years old and has lived in the U.S. for at least fourteen years. (s:Constitution of the United States of America#Section 1 2). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that he won't be VP this time around (that honor will go to Democrat Joe Biden or Republican Sarah Palin. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

copyvio link?

The link at the end of the “writings” section appears to be copyvio. I flagged it as such, and another editor went ahead and deleted it, but still another editor reinstated it. I thought that copyvio. links violate Wikipedia policy. Please advise. Bwrs (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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.[6]. 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)

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)

Supplying a reference for his nickname

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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)

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)

You're right. The link ought to be replaced to be useful.Qbas (talk) 19:02, 3 March 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)

David Brooks being representative of "conservative commentators" is a real stretch. He's a self-proclaimed moderate [[7]], and most conservatives (Limbaugh, Ingrahm) would call him a liberal. But I suppose if the intent of the wikipedia author is to make it sound like Jindal is being shot by his own troops, then it's "not really a lie if it serves the greater good" (Lenin), right? To really drive the falsehood home, David Brooks was not named in the wiki article, only "conservative commentators." I call weasel word alert to the extreme. We have an exact quote "a disaster for the republican party" being attributed to a weasel source (i.e unnamed "conservative commentators"). A vague source is ostensibly being quoted verbatim? I think if the strength of the quotation mark is to be invoked, then if attribution and support by citation means anything, verbatim quotes should be attributed to a specific person, named if possible, particularly described if not. To use quotation marks attributed to a vague source, especially with a misleading designation (i.e. "conservative commentators") is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty, and a cloak for somebody's personal POV. Real conservatives (i.e Laura Ingrahm, et al) never used words even remotely like "disaster for the republican party." Then again, if the wiki article spoke the WHOLE truth, then it would have to say something like "New York Times' self-described moderate columnist David Brooks called Jindal's speech a '...disaster for the Republican Party.'" But then, the intended "shot by own troops" effect would be lost, wouldn't it? 75.131.212.127 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 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)

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[8] 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)

The anonymous obsessive demands accuracy, and when he/she gets it objects to "semantics." Now that we have got over the error of thinking that the University of Oxford consists of University College, Oxford, alone, we have a demand to be told the precise "school" he went to. However, at Oxford and Cambridge, while students have to be members of a college, the colleges themselves have limited significance for postgraduate research students, which those studying for an M.Litt. degree would be. At that level the university's departments, which exist apart from and above the individual colleges, are more significant. If students for a research degree attend any courses they do not have to be in their own college, or in any college at all. He may or may not have lived in a particular college building, but if his research was in health economics it was probably not carried out in his college's library. Thus it makes more sense to say that he studied at the University of Oxford, which is the body that awarded his degree, than to say that the degree was from New College, Oxford. NRPanikker (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Not! (your supposed to say "Is Too") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.38.152 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Piyush means a mad fellow - not

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)

The word "piyush" (with both vowels marked as long) is translated as "nectar, ambrosia" in "A Practical Hindi-English Dictionary" edited by Chaturvedi & Tiwari, New Delhi: National Publishing House, 11th edition 1984. Other sources add "first milk" and "cream," and these meanings are confirmed by several more recent Indian Name/Baby Name sites on the web. NRPanikker (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not if you go to the urban dictionary! The definition in the urban dictionary: Piyush means mad fellow, then there is the second definition: A poor public speaker for someone that attended Oxford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.38.152 (talk) 19:02, 13 March 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)

Politico was the source or this story and later issued a correction on the grounds that they misreported what had taken place. Jindal's story was accurate as he told it, it was just misreported by Politico, by Politico's own admission. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Jindal_aide_Story_was_set_after_Katrina.html 69.149.47.15 (talk) 13:56, 4 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? [9] 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)

If he has participated in or performed an exorcism then this should be discussed and certainly mentioned on the section describing his experience. I can think of no reason not to include it...unless the editors of his page are more concerned with bad PR then accuracy. hmmmm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the exorcism actually worked and the cancer disappeared? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be ok under"personal life" to say : In 1994 Jindal wrote an article for the New Oxford Review which recounted his experience at an exorcism.[10] Abbarocks (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And precisely how is that relevant to the BLP? IIRC few articles list every article or paper written by the subject ... Collect (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already covered under Bobby Jindal#Writings. I think we should avoid making more of an issue about something than most articles about the subject do. It's up to the public, their elected reprentatives and the press to determine how important this is. Mind you it does explain why he felt no need to go to medical school. Any idea what he thinks about voodoo economics? My guess is that if this story were better known it would increase his popularity. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite notable. I don't know of any other politician of this stature who has been at an exorcism and wrote about it. Abbarocks (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's notable too. But I don't think it should be treated as notable in the article unless there is a consensus that it is notable. It is not the role of the article to tell people what is notable just to tell them what is considered notable. (See: Npov#Undue_weight). Note that Sarah Palin was filmed during her exorcism and it's not even in her article. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the current consensus on this here? Maybe there is none and if not, should it not go in on purely a RS basis? Just wondering about that. Abbarocks (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll put it in. Abbarocks (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There most certainly are valid objections. Collect (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. And no valid objections that I can think of. Though some may have personal objections. Add it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.32.180 (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will do, but look out for the conventional theorists :) Abbarocks (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Daily Kos is an overtly political site, and not RS. Try finding one which meets WP:V etc. Collect (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so but please try to collaberate by finding a source that fits with your RS opinions rather than just deleting the info.This one was the basis for the one you removed but it's not constructive to force editors to keep trying to guess what you will accept as RS. Abbarocks (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of non-RS sources is hard to defend. As for what is RS , see WP:RS and WP:RS/N and archives. The rule is basically that material which has editorial opinions therein are useful only as fully cited opinions. Cites which have routinely posted contentious material are more likely to be challenged in any event. And please AGF as you promised you would. Collect (talk) 20:58, 13 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 [11] 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)