![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Folks, please.
According to LPB, they are covering the inauguration live on January 14th.
http://www.lpb.org/programs/swi/
INAUGURATION 2008 - Louisiana Public Broadcasting will air live coverage of the inauguration of Governor Bobby Jindal on Monday, January 14. Louisiana: The State We're In Managing Editor Robyn Ekings, Producer Charlie Whinham and LPB President/CEO Beth Courtney will anchor the coverage from the State Capitol in Downtown Baton Rouge. In addition to the Governor, the other statewide elected officials and the Legislature will be sworn in at the event. Starts at 11:00 AM CST
Unless someone has good reason to explain why Saturday the 12th is the date instead of Monday the 14th, please don't change the date again. And if you do have a good reason, please leave it here for all of us. Thanks.
-- 12.152.105.2 ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the section on Limbaugh's remarks as unnoteworthy and POV. Another editor put it back. I intend to remove it again and persist until it stays gone. Imagine if someone made a section in this article about something negative some radio host said about Jindal. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 18:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I expected grim opposition from the supporters of a Louisiana governor. I read the book, you know. (insert smiley) I've never been in an edit war, don't know what one is. I was merely making it clear to the person who reverted my removal that promotional political material such as this section will not be tolerated in an open encyclopedia, and that his casual reversion will be met with a determined removal. And the only reason I'm in this at all is that I copyedited the article a while ago at random.
I'm not saying that the wording is POV but that the inclusion of laudatory empty conjecture on the part of a radio talk show host is POV. Again, imagine someone created a section whose only reason for being here was to say that some talk show host had called Jindal the next Hitler? Would that be OK? I think not. I like Sf's suggestion about the tag, except that I would feel disingenuous doing that, because a random comment from a radio, well, blowhard, will never be notable no matter how you word it, unless it's in an article called Amazing pointless things RL said. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Limbaugh's comments are clearly notable. They were discussed extensively in todays Washington Times. These comments are also being discussed in the Louisiana Press and in India. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It was wrong to remove the "neutrality" tag before we had a chance to hear from someone disinterested besides myself. I think that that removal signals the end of this phase of conflict resolution. Upon futher consideration, I've concluded that the section "Potential Vice Presidential Nomination" is patent cyber-stumping, and I will do whatever I can to see it gone. I see this as an interesting test of the power of an entity such as Wikipedia to resist having itself used by special interests. I'm submitting a Request for Comment. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Is article section "Potential Vice Presidential Nomination" POV by mere inclusion? -- Milkbreath ( talk) 15:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See above under "Rush". -- Milkbreath ( talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the proper forum to discuss this, however I came across this website ( http://www.jindalisbad.com/) and it turns out DanielZimmerman is the author of it. This seems to me to be a conflict of interests that should be discouraged in an objective encyclopedia. Sluhser589 ( talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like 90% of editors on wikipedia's political articles are obsessed with bashing conservative figures. I don't see how this guy is special, I'd give him credit for being forthright about who he is.
But on his most recent edit about Jindal not being in the New Orleans category: For some reason I thought Jindal's permanent home was Metairie. That not true? 71.128.195.213 ( talk) 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the reason why the youth of McCains running mate would be important (if such information should be included in the article to begin with)
I am concerned about the encyclopedic value of some of the information added. First of all, the article states the opinion of someone that states ""I don't think that's very important this time," (refering to the idea that Jindal being from a southern state could help Jindal be the VP choice). So i had to remove the "he is a governor of a southern state" portion of the last edit as being a reason why he could be picked by McCain.
The main question I have is this. Is including the speculation of every pundit/reporter/blogger/etc something that is encyclopedic? I would agree that Rush Limbaugh suggesting Jindal as a choice and stating he is the next "Ronald Reagan" may be an important enough of a statement to be included in the article. Perhaps the statements by Pat Toomey (president of the club for growth) would be appropriate as well... howevere Toomey's coment seems to contradict the claim made by the previous editor of the article. Now, are the opinions of Joseph Curl relevant enough for inclusion? The youth argument is one that seems to be made by Curl and not by anyone Curl is referencing. It seems to be his opinion and not a fact. And while it is a fact that Curl said it, does that merit inclusion in the article? I await the opinions of others. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The healthcare statement of turning a deficit into a surplus is factual. However, it also unbalances the article by ignoring the criticisms of those cuts. So I added a verifiable statement presented in a major publicaction by a "notable" organization who did not view the cuts that caused the surplus in a positive light. See Space and Balance. -- DanielZimmerman ( talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
After reading Wikipedia:External_links I came to the conclusion that the article linked two was problematic for many reasons. One problem was that it linked to the article three times. There is no reason to link to the article three times other than to spam the page. One link to the first page would suffice if linking to the article was valid for an encyclopedic entry. Readers are fully capable of clicking a link to turn to the next page if needed. Another problem was the entry that was linked to is not even attributed to a specific person to verify the credibility of the statements made in the article. Finally, the site is basically a large blog and according to the External Link guidelines, blogs should not be linked to. I wrongly linked to another blog previously and that link was rightly removed. And note, this was not done because I disagree with the content (as I am sure some might claim) in the article removed. I also disagree with the content on the RedState article that is linked to from the Bobby Jindal wikipedia page as well. However, the article is attributed to an actual person and not an anonymous blog id and can be placed in the external links category. One thing I would suggest is that we balance the links to show all sides and not just link to conservative points of view. This would make the article more complete. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I edited the wording regarding his opinion on embryonic stem cell research. The previous wording (especially the use of the words "experimentation" and "destruction") seemed biased against the topic of discussion, so I changed it to remove any bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshc99 ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Why was the qualifier "embryonic" removed? The Time magazine reference leaves off the qualifier as well, but I see no evidence from Jindal's voting record that he is opposed to any stem cell research except that which involves the destruction of embryos, whether they are created naturally or artificially. That he would be opposed to all stem cell research seems very unusual, and probably requires stronger documentation than an unsupported statement in a Time magazine article. I have seen some talking points memos that Jindal is opposed to stem cell research more broadly, but the evidence was his support for a bill that passed the Lousiana legislature by a vote of 89-1, so I find it hard to believe that support for that bill represents such an extreme view. Mazzula ( talk) 15:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone deleted some vital information on Bobby Jindal's position on abortion. I have reverted that information, and I also fixed some of the wording to place his votes as a Congressman in the past tense. If someone feels that his feeling that procedures that would terminate a pregnancy (medical definition of abortion) that do not specifically target the embryo/fetus (because of the double effect) are not morally equivalent to abortions on demand where the intent is clearly to terminate the pregnancy, should not be included in the article, lets discuss that here first. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 14:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The article suggests that there's no simple explanation for Jindal's 2003 runoff loss. That may be the case, but when making such a suggestion, blatantly obvious possible explanations should be addressed. In this case, the obvious explanation is that the Democrats held the upper hand throughout, and Jindal's initial first place finish was an anomaly due to the fact that almost 58% of the vote was split among four Democrats.
I'm not knowledgeable about any of these candidates, so I don't know who Ieyoub, Leach, and Ewing (or for that matter, Downer) endorsed. If they did endorse their party's candidate, that should be noted, and if they did not, that also should be noted. 24.184.97.102 ( talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The footnoted article says: "In high school, he gave up Hinduism and became a Christian; and during his first year at Brown University, he was baptized as a Roman Catholic."
The artilce says he became a Catholic in high School: "Jindal was a Hindu but converted to Catholicism in high school." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.216.3 ( talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems plausible that he became a Catholic in high school, but didn't become fully baptized until his 1st year of college. No big deal. Sf46 ( talk) 12:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Funny how this article is quick to jump on his pro-life positions (which I don't personally agree with), yet Barack Obama's stance against a ban on partial birth abortion in non-emergencies isn't mentioned anywhere in his article. This is just another groupthink article on a conservative that is designed to troll readers. 98.218.141.145 ( talk) 09:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The article has a quote:
This references this CNN transcript which makes no reference to this quote. If Gov. Jindal did say this, we need to get the correct reference for it. -- rogerd ( talk) 18:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
A little confusing text: "In 1997, Jindal married Supriya Jolly (born 1972). The couple has three children: Selia Elizabeth, Shaan Robert, and Slade Ryan. Contrary to Indian tradition, their names do not carry the father's ethnic title 'Jindal'." The tradition of giving the father's last name to his children is not a specific "Indian" tradition. Indeed, this tradition is one that most cultures and ethnicities follow. I fear that the aim of the sentence is semi-biased in demonstrating that Mr. Jindal is not a traditional Indian, which, while possibly true, is not shown by his act of not using his paternal name to be passed down to this children. ( Paradigm25 ( talk) 17:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)paradigm25)
This Wikipedia article says: "Jindal has stated that he is '100 percent against abortion, no exceptions.'" But that's not an accurate quote.
The cited reference is a blog titled “Catholics in the Public Square”. The blog says: “On September 21, 2003, The Times-Picayune profiled the views of Louisiana's gubernatorial candidates on a host of issues life and family-related issues from abortion to sex education. On abortion, Jindal told the paper, ‘I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.’” Again, that's not an accurate quote.
On September 20, 2003, the Times Picayune ran an article titled “Candidates for governor answer questions about social issues”. Here’s an excerpt: “Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?....JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.”
So, the quote from the blog is incorrect, and incomplete. We’re not supposed to use blogs in footnotes at Wikipedia anyway, so I’ll replace it with a cite to the actual Times-Picayune article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 05:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)This Wikipedia article presently has a footnote that links directly to the pertinent Times-Picayune article. Have you looked at the T-P article?
“Candidates for governor answer questions about social issues”, Times Picayune ( 2003-09-20): “Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?....JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.”
You have found some sources that have misquoted the Times-Picayune. Ferrylodge ( talk) 16:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(reindenting) You are not interpreting Jindal's view on abortion correctly. The link ONLY states that he is supportive of procedures that cause the termination of the pregnancy indirectly. It clarifies the direct quote (about the ridiculousness of the Democratic party for making an accusation that he would let women die) by saying the circumstances where he would allow a woman to protect her life. Those circumstances are where the termination of the pregnancy is indirect. Again, I will explain this one more time to you. If a woman has cancer of the uterus, normal treatment of that cancer would include chemotherapy or removal of the uterus. IF a pregnant woman got cancer of the uterus and was treated as a normal patient with cancer of the uterus would be treated, it would cause a termination of the pregnancy. However, that termination of the pregnancy would be indirect. Jindal is not opposed to a woman with cancer to seek out normal cancer treatment, even if that treatment would result in an abortion of the pregnancy. Now, on the other hand, if a pregnant woman had some condition (lets call it condition X) and the treatment of condition X is an abortion (i.e. the doctor has to induce or otherwise cause an abortion directly) then Jindal WOULD be opposed to that (because as the article YOU cited states, Jindal is not opposed to INDIRECT abortions, not abortions). The fetal death here would be PRIMARY, not secondary. Now, if you feel that the direct quote from Jindal followed by the paraphrase only discussing indirect abortions are contradictory then perhaps we need to do as I suggested below and reject your source as a reliable source if it is providing contradictory material. However, if you accept the idea that the statement of "He said he does not condemn medical procedures aimed at saving the life of the mother that result indirectly in the loss of the unborn child as a secondary effect" is a clarification of his direct quote, showing the circumstances that he would not allow a woman to die, then the source could still be a reliable source and absolutely backs up my statements about Jindal and his view on abortion. I am tempted to just remove the portion on abortion for now, until we can reach a consensus. However, I will not do so until i hear from others. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 20:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this sourced anywhere? DanielZimmerman ( talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
God Bless Google - [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.197.208 ( talk) 22:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This edit seems to be introducing original research. It attributes to Jindal a:
definition of abortion [that] is similar to the American Life League (using the double effect to justify certain procedures) and differs from the definition used in the medical community. This definition only includes procedures that target the embryo or fetus and excludes procedures, such as a salpingectomy, that do not target the embryo specifically but still terminate the pregnancy as a side effect (that would medically still be considered to be an abortion).
But no cite is provided to any source that mentions Jindal, and Jindal never said anything about "salpingectomy", nor anything about wanting to define abortion differently from how anyone else defines it. Ferrylodge ( talk) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Reindenting)
First and foremost, I don't need you to remind me to look at wikipedia policies. I have been on wikipedia long enough and I understand them just fine. If you feel that my edits are in violation of wikipedia policies then you are more than welcome to seek any of the resolutions available to wikipedia authors.
I was correct in that the salpingectomy is the only procedure that doesn't target the embryo. More specifically, the other two procedures have the direct effect of causing an abortion where as a salpingectomy, the target of the procedure is the tube itself and is not to abort a pregnancy. The result of the procedure may be an abortion of the pregnancy but it is not the primary intent. Your statement of "It seems clear that drug treatments (as well as surgery to remove the fetus or embryo) do not target the fetus or embryo, but rather are targeted twoard saving the mother's life." shows that you do not have a full understanding of the theory surrounding the double effect. Even if the intent is to save the life of the pregnant woman, if the procedure used directly causes an abortion it is not allowed.
You state: "You are making an extremely inflammatory accsation in a biography of a living person". Please show me where in the Bobby Jindal article that I have made an extremely inflammatory accusation. Removal of a quote that is contradicted in the article that it was found is not inflammatory at all. In fact, since the article seems to contradict itself then perhaps that should exclude it from consideration as a reliable source as a whole.
On this statement of yours
You clearly have misinterpreted what the encyclopedia is saying because of the words in bold. If the childs death is caused by an unavoidable consequence of the procedure then you can consider that the "fetal life" is not directly attacked.
If the ubilical chord was cut by mistake as part of a different procedure then it would not be considered a "direct abortion". However if the purpose of cutting the chord was to abort the pregnancy then clearly it is a direct pregnancy and is forbidden under Catholic law.
Here is a link to the vatican saying: "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:"
Need more? DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION ": It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another's life, even when that life is only beginning."
Need more? [9] "It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being."
The "blacklisted" page is the free republic, the only place where you can currently see Bobby Jindal's writing where I pulled his quotes from. And while it may not mention abortion, it shows Jindal to be a devout follower of the faith and a person who believes the rulings by the church are infallible.
At the moment, I would suggest that we remove all references to abortion on the Bobby Jindal wikipedia article until we can come to a consensus on the creation of a neutral toned, verifiable, reliable, and 100% correct wording of his stance.
I would also suggest you read WP:Common, as someone who clearly believes that the Catholic Church is infallible when it comes to interpreting the rules would tend to follow the double effect reasoning as a guide for his stance on abortion. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(reindent)
Is it encyclopedic, necessary, or otherwise "notable" (blah) to include information on someone writing a bill that does not become law? DanielZimmerman ( talk) 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Because IP accounts are changing Jindal's name, I have put forward the request to semi-protect the page so we can prevent anonymous IP's from changing the name over and over and over again. Hopefully this will help to maintain the integrity of the article. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Since his writings is now something new that is being added to the article, I figured it might be good to have a discussion about them before things get out of hand (as this is a subject that could get out of hand quickly). I don't have anything to add to the talk page on it as of yet, but I am sure we will. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The most recent offering of support came from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal who on Monday night said that he was glad to see RNC Chairman Michael Steele apologize to Limbaugh after Steele had called the conservative talk show host's program "incendiary" and "ugly." "I'm glad he apologized," said Jindal, appearing on CNN's Larry King Live. "I think the chairman is a breath of fresh air for the party. As I said before I think Rush is a leader for many conservatives and says things that people are concerned about."......
Little Bobby says: Steele is toast. I'm the anointed by Rush. All Hail to Rush Limbaugh
Tzerod ( talk) 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have found an article that displays Steele's apology best. It really should be considered for a section of its own on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 ( talk) 14:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Under this section, the Catholic Church supposedly "calls for a veto" against Jindal's actions. However, under the article that is cited, there is no mention of the Catholic Church or its position against the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act. There are some opinions that discuss this in the comment section, but because they are not part of the article, this section should be changed to remove any mention of the Catholic Church. Ejnogarb ( talk) 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep whitewashing. The Potemkin village looks good. JindallSr ( talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says "At age 36, Jindal became the youngest current governor in the United States. He also became the first non-white to serve as governor of Louisiana"
If by "Non-white" you mean "Non-European" why not say "non-European", rather than use a term that is easily misunderstood? "White" is often shorthand for Caucasian and people from India are also Caucasians. 24.209.9.181 ( talk) 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC) atomicbohr
I know that he is an American, but the name is non-western. It should be pronounced in the original dialect's accent as opposed to an American one? Arnabdas ( talk) 17:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is Jindal's endorsement of Rick Perry in the section on Jindal's "Writings"? The link is to a Youtube video, which is hardly a writing. Anyway, Jindal has endorsed a lot of people, so why is the Perry endorsement so notable that it needs to be mentioned in this article? 166.137.139.168 ( talk) 07:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest removing these two sentences from the "Early life and education" part:
Kasbee ( talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Recommend adding a section regarding the response to the oil spillage from the British Petroleum Deep Horizons drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Oversoul ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The "group" is not particularly newsworthy and it has been criticized by major newspapers for its anti-Republican bias. I am moving the section here pending justification of devoting a whole section to that criticism. - 68.29.87.87 ( talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
In its April 2010 report, ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Jindal one of 11 "worst governors" in the United States because of various ethics issues throughout Jindal's term as governor.
[1] [2] [3] Some of Jindal's ethics lapses cited by the watchdog include:
There is presently very little negative information and every little positive detail is exaggerated or presented the way Jindal wanted even in light of media research to the contrary. The article is 80% biased for Jindal and his followers. Negative details widely reported in the media are simply ignored or glossed over or delegated to references that further refute such details. 70.253.66.20 ( talk) 15:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I do believe the gentleman above was referring to the actual WP page. Though I do think if those managing this page had control to censor the discussion page I am sure they would! Matter of fact I have no doubt! Prime example are the statements that I have made that have been deleted, or the date and time stamp removed so they are not part of the archive. The behavior here is downright unamerican! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 ( talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Even 80% positive here is still only 0.000001% positive for Christians because we have a secular gay-dominated culture. We need to fight every slander against Christians wherever it might be. We need more accurate coverage of Governor Jindal and highlight his true nature which is a Christian conservative. He was really born Hindu so he wasn't born Christian but so far he has shown excellent fidelity to his adopted church fathers and to the conservative cause against government and regulation. Furthermore, not many people know he's a bona fide prodigy, so he's like our Mozart in politics and he will outshine Obama in every possible way. (P.S. Obama was not an Oxford scholar but Jindal was). God Bless Governor Jindal And His Beautiful Family. Ephesians-5 ( talk) 17:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I would be curious to see the reference confirming your prodigy claim. Personal opinions are fine (and encouraged! I love a good debate) so long as you are not attempting to pass them off as fact. And sense we are getting into personal opinion (that is until I see a source confirming your prodigy claims). I would like to state that thankfully we live in a free society where even a "secular gay-dominated culture" (odd, I was under the impression the gay community was still a minority) is constitutionally protected. I am also grateful that we live in a society where opposing opinion is protected as well(freedom of speech). Any group that thinks of themselves as above criticism is in serious need of a restructuring. All too often throughout history the suppressing of opinions (burning books) has paved the way to some of the greatest atrocities ever. Even our war on terrorism/extremism is tainted by the concept of killing in the name of god. It is also my opinion that government should not be a platform for mass conversion. given the fact that we are in the "information age" there are more then enough sources of information out there to guide a person toward a spiritual decision. If a particular group is experiencing declines in membership they may want to consider taking a good look in the mirror, and perhaps listen to what the masses are saying about their behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 ( talk) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies! I will do my best to stick to the subject matter. Though I do love a good thought provoking debate:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 ( talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Future editors with similar concerns, please be advised of WP:RS and WP:BLP. All information must be reliably sourced, and as a biography of a living person, there is a very real bias towards less negative information in the sense that the burden of proof lies with demonstrating the encyclopedic relevance. So if Keith Olbermann names Jindal worst person in the world for a gaffe it's probably not going to make the cut. Natural Cut ( talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In this regard, who selects the 'selected social and political issues'? It seems the principle of 'selection' was 'controversy'.-- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 14:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The parts regarding his parents are not well edited. In particular it isn't made clear that his parents were already well educated, payed for by the Indian taxpayer under socialism, and had a stable middle class life as college lecturers in India before they came to the United States. The older version made it seem as if they lived in abject poverty and his parents overcame all their struggles (with phrases like only educated up to the fifth grade) after emigrating. I believe it glorifies Bobby Jindal's background a bit so I've adopted a neutral PoV. Kasbee ( talk) 09:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Hindi name from the infobox because it really isn't appropriate. Even articles about people who actually live in India (or other countries that don't use English characters) don't usually have the foreign translation in the infobox. (eg Pratibha Patil, the President of India). I'm not overly convinced one way or another as to the appropriateness of giving it, even in the article. Does he give the Indian translation on his website? Does he ever use it? I am not overly thrilled with the idea that people of non-European descent should be singled out by having their names translated in their articles - it strikes me as rather biased. -- B ( talk) 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Some Wikipedians must be concerned lest Jindal be mistaken for a Choctaw or other sort of autochthonous Louisianan. As the Devanagari transcription has returned to his article, perhaps this should become a new WikiObsession: George Bush's first name should be spelled out in the original Greek, Sarah Palin's in Hebrew, and Strom Thurmond's in Futhark.
NRPanikker (
talk)
02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I completely disagree, I think his ethnic origin name and meaning should be spelled out in either Punjabi or Hindi. Rahm Emanuel, Jewish American for many generations has his name explained in Hebrew. Stephen Chu, Chinese American for many generations also has his name in Chinese in the infobar. Indian politicians (i.e in India) don't have their names explained for the same reasons George Bush or Margaret Thatcher don't. If someone has this information please add do it. Kasbee ( talk) 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree per B's reasoning above. Jindal has never mentioned his Hindi or Punjabi translation and it would not be appropriate. Boromir123 ( talk) 06:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Kasbee ( talk) 06:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The article has in the past stated that his full, legal name is Piyush Amrit Jindal. However, it has never cited any sources for the middle name and when I looked all I found was blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. Official and reliable sources such as Who's Who and the U.S. Congress simply give his name as Piyush. I have been aggressively removing mentions of Amrit and will continue to do so unless someone can find a reliale source. Eluchil404 ( talk) 21:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added Amrit as his middle name after finding reliable sources. Kasbee ( talk) 00:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
What are the reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.235.150 ( talk) 22:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering why his ethnicity should be indicated while there are thousands of pages in which people's ethnicity is not mentioned? -- And Rew 21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Kasbee ( talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, just wondering why his ethnicity says Indian, when "Indian" is a nationality. It should read Punjabi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.80.242 ( talk) 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Kasbee ( talk) 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There are two problems that I have with this wording. The first is that there is no documentation of Jindal saying "I am pro-life because I am a Catholic". The second is that even if he did say that, to word it as it was worded seems to imply that Jindal's stance on abortion matches the stance of the Catholic church. In fact, Jindal supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape, something the Catholic Church opposes as part of its pro-life stance. So clearly Jindal does not hold a view on abortion in accordance with his Catholic faith.
If we wanted to say "Jindal opposes abortions because he is a Catholic" we would need to find a source that states that he is pro-life because of his catholic belief. But that still wouldn't justify our saying that his beliefs are in accordance with the Catholic Faith.
And to include "personally" is something that is typically said by people who are against abortion but not supportive of legislation. I.E. people who say "I am personally pro-life but I would not seek to legislate it. And even if we believe that such a statement is obvious, then it is also redundant and not needed. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 19:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
A local radio broadcast had stated that he was putting his Kenner house up for sale a while back. So it may not be factually correct to say that he lives in Kenner. Obviously he does live in the mansion but that doesn't mean he claims residency in Baton Rouge. Just want to be sure the article is factual. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 16:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Is he really? Does anybody have a link that verifies that he belongs in that group. I am inclined to delete it. However, I will wait for a link if such proof exists. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 18:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
We really shouldn't be focusing a paragraph on a piece of legislation that was not signed into law. The bill that was signed into law by the President was the Senate bill and not the bill that contained his language. There is no reason to say that a bill Jindal sponsored failed. I am removing the section. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why there's edit-warring going on over Jindal's name in the infobox, but the common convention is for it to be the commonly-used name, same as the article title. See for example, Mitt Romney. There's discussion of this in the archives - could the editor who wants the change please discuss here rather than reverting? Kelly hi! 05:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following sentence since it is cited only to an editorial column. As such it is a primary source and not the best way to source such information. What is needed is a piece discussing the criticism of Jindal's presidential pre-campaign rather than one making such criticism directly.
Jindal has been strongly criticized for attending fundraisers outside the state instead of solving immediate problems at home. <ref> {{cite news |url=http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2010/11/louisiana_gov_bobby_jindals_wo.html}}</ref>
I also want to query the use of http://www.2theadvocate.com/blogs/politicsblog/107123234.html as a source since its URL identifies it as a blog which are generally not reliable sources even when published by news-websites. On the other hand the page contains the reprint of an AP story which was also picked up by various papers. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Clearly from my name you can see I'm not from Louisiana, nor do I care one way or another about this man or his politics as they don't concern me. I simply found myself on this page from a link. From the moment I saw this page though it was clear that this was written by someone from his staff. Every single section reads like a press release. It could not be more blatent. It is my mere, unbiased opinion that this article is so tainted and slanted towards making him seem incredible (Indian Jesus) that those who care, I not being one of them, should delete the whole thing and start anew. I really think starting over would be the only way to put forth an objective page on this man. Over the years I'v seen people fight over much, much, much less on Wiki pages and yet this one badly reaks of pro prejudice, which would be fine elsewhere as he seems like an all right dude, but it should never be allowed here on Wikipedia. For shame. JMHO Deepintexas ( talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Louisianastateseal.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
Recently there has been an effort due to the article subject's political activities to emphasis certain facts about where the subject attended school. This is a form of POV pushing, IMHO, and thus violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Information about the type of school the subject went to should be found in articles regarding the schools that the subject attended, not here. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite press release}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); |first=
has generic name (
help); |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |first2=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |first=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Folks, please.
According to LPB, they are covering the inauguration live on January 14th.
http://www.lpb.org/programs/swi/
INAUGURATION 2008 - Louisiana Public Broadcasting will air live coverage of the inauguration of Governor Bobby Jindal on Monday, January 14. Louisiana: The State We're In Managing Editor Robyn Ekings, Producer Charlie Whinham and LPB President/CEO Beth Courtney will anchor the coverage from the State Capitol in Downtown Baton Rouge. In addition to the Governor, the other statewide elected officials and the Legislature will be sworn in at the event. Starts at 11:00 AM CST
Unless someone has good reason to explain why Saturday the 12th is the date instead of Monday the 14th, please don't change the date again. And if you do have a good reason, please leave it here for all of us. Thanks.
-- 12.152.105.2 ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the section on Limbaugh's remarks as unnoteworthy and POV. Another editor put it back. I intend to remove it again and persist until it stays gone. Imagine if someone made a section in this article about something negative some radio host said about Jindal. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 18:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I expected grim opposition from the supporters of a Louisiana governor. I read the book, you know. (insert smiley) I've never been in an edit war, don't know what one is. I was merely making it clear to the person who reverted my removal that promotional political material such as this section will not be tolerated in an open encyclopedia, and that his casual reversion will be met with a determined removal. And the only reason I'm in this at all is that I copyedited the article a while ago at random.
I'm not saying that the wording is POV but that the inclusion of laudatory empty conjecture on the part of a radio talk show host is POV. Again, imagine someone created a section whose only reason for being here was to say that some talk show host had called Jindal the next Hitler? Would that be OK? I think not. I like Sf's suggestion about the tag, except that I would feel disingenuous doing that, because a random comment from a radio, well, blowhard, will never be notable no matter how you word it, unless it's in an article called Amazing pointless things RL said. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Limbaugh's comments are clearly notable. They were discussed extensively in todays Washington Times. These comments are also being discussed in the Louisiana Press and in India. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It was wrong to remove the "neutrality" tag before we had a chance to hear from someone disinterested besides myself. I think that that removal signals the end of this phase of conflict resolution. Upon futher consideration, I've concluded that the section "Potential Vice Presidential Nomination" is patent cyber-stumping, and I will do whatever I can to see it gone. I see this as an interesting test of the power of an entity such as Wikipedia to resist having itself used by special interests. I'm submitting a Request for Comment. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Is article section "Potential Vice Presidential Nomination" POV by mere inclusion? -- Milkbreath ( talk) 15:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See above under "Rush". -- Milkbreath ( talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the proper forum to discuss this, however I came across this website ( http://www.jindalisbad.com/) and it turns out DanielZimmerman is the author of it. This seems to me to be a conflict of interests that should be discouraged in an objective encyclopedia. Sluhser589 ( talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like 90% of editors on wikipedia's political articles are obsessed with bashing conservative figures. I don't see how this guy is special, I'd give him credit for being forthright about who he is.
But on his most recent edit about Jindal not being in the New Orleans category: For some reason I thought Jindal's permanent home was Metairie. That not true? 71.128.195.213 ( talk) 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the reason why the youth of McCains running mate would be important (if such information should be included in the article to begin with)
I am concerned about the encyclopedic value of some of the information added. First of all, the article states the opinion of someone that states ""I don't think that's very important this time," (refering to the idea that Jindal being from a southern state could help Jindal be the VP choice). So i had to remove the "he is a governor of a southern state" portion of the last edit as being a reason why he could be picked by McCain.
The main question I have is this. Is including the speculation of every pundit/reporter/blogger/etc something that is encyclopedic? I would agree that Rush Limbaugh suggesting Jindal as a choice and stating he is the next "Ronald Reagan" may be an important enough of a statement to be included in the article. Perhaps the statements by Pat Toomey (president of the club for growth) would be appropriate as well... howevere Toomey's coment seems to contradict the claim made by the previous editor of the article. Now, are the opinions of Joseph Curl relevant enough for inclusion? The youth argument is one that seems to be made by Curl and not by anyone Curl is referencing. It seems to be his opinion and not a fact. And while it is a fact that Curl said it, does that merit inclusion in the article? I await the opinions of others. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The healthcare statement of turning a deficit into a surplus is factual. However, it also unbalances the article by ignoring the criticisms of those cuts. So I added a verifiable statement presented in a major publicaction by a "notable" organization who did not view the cuts that caused the surplus in a positive light. See Space and Balance. -- DanielZimmerman ( talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
After reading Wikipedia:External_links I came to the conclusion that the article linked two was problematic for many reasons. One problem was that it linked to the article three times. There is no reason to link to the article three times other than to spam the page. One link to the first page would suffice if linking to the article was valid for an encyclopedic entry. Readers are fully capable of clicking a link to turn to the next page if needed. Another problem was the entry that was linked to is not even attributed to a specific person to verify the credibility of the statements made in the article. Finally, the site is basically a large blog and according to the External Link guidelines, blogs should not be linked to. I wrongly linked to another blog previously and that link was rightly removed. And note, this was not done because I disagree with the content (as I am sure some might claim) in the article removed. I also disagree with the content on the RedState article that is linked to from the Bobby Jindal wikipedia page as well. However, the article is attributed to an actual person and not an anonymous blog id and can be placed in the external links category. One thing I would suggest is that we balance the links to show all sides and not just link to conservative points of view. This would make the article more complete. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I edited the wording regarding his opinion on embryonic stem cell research. The previous wording (especially the use of the words "experimentation" and "destruction") seemed biased against the topic of discussion, so I changed it to remove any bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshc99 ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Why was the qualifier "embryonic" removed? The Time magazine reference leaves off the qualifier as well, but I see no evidence from Jindal's voting record that he is opposed to any stem cell research except that which involves the destruction of embryos, whether they are created naturally or artificially. That he would be opposed to all stem cell research seems very unusual, and probably requires stronger documentation than an unsupported statement in a Time magazine article. I have seen some talking points memos that Jindal is opposed to stem cell research more broadly, but the evidence was his support for a bill that passed the Lousiana legislature by a vote of 89-1, so I find it hard to believe that support for that bill represents such an extreme view. Mazzula ( talk) 15:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone deleted some vital information on Bobby Jindal's position on abortion. I have reverted that information, and I also fixed some of the wording to place his votes as a Congressman in the past tense. If someone feels that his feeling that procedures that would terminate a pregnancy (medical definition of abortion) that do not specifically target the embryo/fetus (because of the double effect) are not morally equivalent to abortions on demand where the intent is clearly to terminate the pregnancy, should not be included in the article, lets discuss that here first. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 14:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The article suggests that there's no simple explanation for Jindal's 2003 runoff loss. That may be the case, but when making such a suggestion, blatantly obvious possible explanations should be addressed. In this case, the obvious explanation is that the Democrats held the upper hand throughout, and Jindal's initial first place finish was an anomaly due to the fact that almost 58% of the vote was split among four Democrats.
I'm not knowledgeable about any of these candidates, so I don't know who Ieyoub, Leach, and Ewing (or for that matter, Downer) endorsed. If they did endorse their party's candidate, that should be noted, and if they did not, that also should be noted. 24.184.97.102 ( talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The footnoted article says: "In high school, he gave up Hinduism and became a Christian; and during his first year at Brown University, he was baptized as a Roman Catholic."
The artilce says he became a Catholic in high School: "Jindal was a Hindu but converted to Catholicism in high school." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.216.3 ( talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems plausible that he became a Catholic in high school, but didn't become fully baptized until his 1st year of college. No big deal. Sf46 ( talk) 12:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Funny how this article is quick to jump on his pro-life positions (which I don't personally agree with), yet Barack Obama's stance against a ban on partial birth abortion in non-emergencies isn't mentioned anywhere in his article. This is just another groupthink article on a conservative that is designed to troll readers. 98.218.141.145 ( talk) 09:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The article has a quote:
This references this CNN transcript which makes no reference to this quote. If Gov. Jindal did say this, we need to get the correct reference for it. -- rogerd ( talk) 18:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
A little confusing text: "In 1997, Jindal married Supriya Jolly (born 1972). The couple has three children: Selia Elizabeth, Shaan Robert, and Slade Ryan. Contrary to Indian tradition, their names do not carry the father's ethnic title 'Jindal'." The tradition of giving the father's last name to his children is not a specific "Indian" tradition. Indeed, this tradition is one that most cultures and ethnicities follow. I fear that the aim of the sentence is semi-biased in demonstrating that Mr. Jindal is not a traditional Indian, which, while possibly true, is not shown by his act of not using his paternal name to be passed down to this children. ( Paradigm25 ( talk) 17:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)paradigm25)
This Wikipedia article says: "Jindal has stated that he is '100 percent against abortion, no exceptions.'" But that's not an accurate quote.
The cited reference is a blog titled “Catholics in the Public Square”. The blog says: “On September 21, 2003, The Times-Picayune profiled the views of Louisiana's gubernatorial candidates on a host of issues life and family-related issues from abortion to sex education. On abortion, Jindal told the paper, ‘I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.’” Again, that's not an accurate quote.
On September 20, 2003, the Times Picayune ran an article titled “Candidates for governor answer questions about social issues”. Here’s an excerpt: “Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?....JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.”
So, the quote from the blog is incorrect, and incomplete. We’re not supposed to use blogs in footnotes at Wikipedia anyway, so I’ll replace it with a cite to the actual Times-Picayune article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 05:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)This Wikipedia article presently has a footnote that links directly to the pertinent Times-Picayune article. Have you looked at the T-P article?
“Candidates for governor answer questions about social issues”, Times Picayune ( 2003-09-20): “Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?....JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.”
You have found some sources that have misquoted the Times-Picayune. Ferrylodge ( talk) 16:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(reindenting) You are not interpreting Jindal's view on abortion correctly. The link ONLY states that he is supportive of procedures that cause the termination of the pregnancy indirectly. It clarifies the direct quote (about the ridiculousness of the Democratic party for making an accusation that he would let women die) by saying the circumstances where he would allow a woman to protect her life. Those circumstances are where the termination of the pregnancy is indirect. Again, I will explain this one more time to you. If a woman has cancer of the uterus, normal treatment of that cancer would include chemotherapy or removal of the uterus. IF a pregnant woman got cancer of the uterus and was treated as a normal patient with cancer of the uterus would be treated, it would cause a termination of the pregnancy. However, that termination of the pregnancy would be indirect. Jindal is not opposed to a woman with cancer to seek out normal cancer treatment, even if that treatment would result in an abortion of the pregnancy. Now, on the other hand, if a pregnant woman had some condition (lets call it condition X) and the treatment of condition X is an abortion (i.e. the doctor has to induce or otherwise cause an abortion directly) then Jindal WOULD be opposed to that (because as the article YOU cited states, Jindal is not opposed to INDIRECT abortions, not abortions). The fetal death here would be PRIMARY, not secondary. Now, if you feel that the direct quote from Jindal followed by the paraphrase only discussing indirect abortions are contradictory then perhaps we need to do as I suggested below and reject your source as a reliable source if it is providing contradictory material. However, if you accept the idea that the statement of "He said he does not condemn medical procedures aimed at saving the life of the mother that result indirectly in the loss of the unborn child as a secondary effect" is a clarification of his direct quote, showing the circumstances that he would not allow a woman to die, then the source could still be a reliable source and absolutely backs up my statements about Jindal and his view on abortion. I am tempted to just remove the portion on abortion for now, until we can reach a consensus. However, I will not do so until i hear from others. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 20:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this sourced anywhere? DanielZimmerman ( talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
God Bless Google - [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.197.208 ( talk) 22:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This edit seems to be introducing original research. It attributes to Jindal a:
definition of abortion [that] is similar to the American Life League (using the double effect to justify certain procedures) and differs from the definition used in the medical community. This definition only includes procedures that target the embryo or fetus and excludes procedures, such as a salpingectomy, that do not target the embryo specifically but still terminate the pregnancy as a side effect (that would medically still be considered to be an abortion).
But no cite is provided to any source that mentions Jindal, and Jindal never said anything about "salpingectomy", nor anything about wanting to define abortion differently from how anyone else defines it. Ferrylodge ( talk) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Reindenting)
First and foremost, I don't need you to remind me to look at wikipedia policies. I have been on wikipedia long enough and I understand them just fine. If you feel that my edits are in violation of wikipedia policies then you are more than welcome to seek any of the resolutions available to wikipedia authors.
I was correct in that the salpingectomy is the only procedure that doesn't target the embryo. More specifically, the other two procedures have the direct effect of causing an abortion where as a salpingectomy, the target of the procedure is the tube itself and is not to abort a pregnancy. The result of the procedure may be an abortion of the pregnancy but it is not the primary intent. Your statement of "It seems clear that drug treatments (as well as surgery to remove the fetus or embryo) do not target the fetus or embryo, but rather are targeted twoard saving the mother's life." shows that you do not have a full understanding of the theory surrounding the double effect. Even if the intent is to save the life of the pregnant woman, if the procedure used directly causes an abortion it is not allowed.
You state: "You are making an extremely inflammatory accsation in a biography of a living person". Please show me where in the Bobby Jindal article that I have made an extremely inflammatory accusation. Removal of a quote that is contradicted in the article that it was found is not inflammatory at all. In fact, since the article seems to contradict itself then perhaps that should exclude it from consideration as a reliable source as a whole.
On this statement of yours
You clearly have misinterpreted what the encyclopedia is saying because of the words in bold. If the childs death is caused by an unavoidable consequence of the procedure then you can consider that the "fetal life" is not directly attacked.
If the ubilical chord was cut by mistake as part of a different procedure then it would not be considered a "direct abortion". However if the purpose of cutting the chord was to abort the pregnancy then clearly it is a direct pregnancy and is forbidden under Catholic law.
Here is a link to the vatican saying: "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:"
Need more? DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION ": It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another's life, even when that life is only beginning."
Need more? [9] "It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being."
The "blacklisted" page is the free republic, the only place where you can currently see Bobby Jindal's writing where I pulled his quotes from. And while it may not mention abortion, it shows Jindal to be a devout follower of the faith and a person who believes the rulings by the church are infallible.
At the moment, I would suggest that we remove all references to abortion on the Bobby Jindal wikipedia article until we can come to a consensus on the creation of a neutral toned, verifiable, reliable, and 100% correct wording of his stance.
I would also suggest you read WP:Common, as someone who clearly believes that the Catholic Church is infallible when it comes to interpreting the rules would tend to follow the double effect reasoning as a guide for his stance on abortion. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(reindent)
Is it encyclopedic, necessary, or otherwise "notable" (blah) to include information on someone writing a bill that does not become law? DanielZimmerman ( talk) 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Because IP accounts are changing Jindal's name, I have put forward the request to semi-protect the page so we can prevent anonymous IP's from changing the name over and over and over again. Hopefully this will help to maintain the integrity of the article. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Since his writings is now something new that is being added to the article, I figured it might be good to have a discussion about them before things get out of hand (as this is a subject that could get out of hand quickly). I don't have anything to add to the talk page on it as of yet, but I am sure we will. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The most recent offering of support came from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal who on Monday night said that he was glad to see RNC Chairman Michael Steele apologize to Limbaugh after Steele had called the conservative talk show host's program "incendiary" and "ugly." "I'm glad he apologized," said Jindal, appearing on CNN's Larry King Live. "I think the chairman is a breath of fresh air for the party. As I said before I think Rush is a leader for many conservatives and says things that people are concerned about."......
Little Bobby says: Steele is toast. I'm the anointed by Rush. All Hail to Rush Limbaugh
Tzerod ( talk) 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have found an article that displays Steele's apology best. It really should be considered for a section of its own on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 ( talk) 14:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Under this section, the Catholic Church supposedly "calls for a veto" against Jindal's actions. However, under the article that is cited, there is no mention of the Catholic Church or its position against the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act. There are some opinions that discuss this in the comment section, but because they are not part of the article, this section should be changed to remove any mention of the Catholic Church. Ejnogarb ( talk) 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep whitewashing. The Potemkin village looks good. JindallSr ( talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says "At age 36, Jindal became the youngest current governor in the United States. He also became the first non-white to serve as governor of Louisiana"
If by "Non-white" you mean "Non-European" why not say "non-European", rather than use a term that is easily misunderstood? "White" is often shorthand for Caucasian and people from India are also Caucasians. 24.209.9.181 ( talk) 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC) atomicbohr
I know that he is an American, but the name is non-western. It should be pronounced in the original dialect's accent as opposed to an American one? Arnabdas ( talk) 17:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is Jindal's endorsement of Rick Perry in the section on Jindal's "Writings"? The link is to a Youtube video, which is hardly a writing. Anyway, Jindal has endorsed a lot of people, so why is the Perry endorsement so notable that it needs to be mentioned in this article? 166.137.139.168 ( talk) 07:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest removing these two sentences from the "Early life and education" part:
Kasbee ( talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Recommend adding a section regarding the response to the oil spillage from the British Petroleum Deep Horizons drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Oversoul ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The "group" is not particularly newsworthy and it has been criticized by major newspapers for its anti-Republican bias. I am moving the section here pending justification of devoting a whole section to that criticism. - 68.29.87.87 ( talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
In its April 2010 report, ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Jindal one of 11 "worst governors" in the United States because of various ethics issues throughout Jindal's term as governor.
[1] [2] [3] Some of Jindal's ethics lapses cited by the watchdog include:
There is presently very little negative information and every little positive detail is exaggerated or presented the way Jindal wanted even in light of media research to the contrary. The article is 80% biased for Jindal and his followers. Negative details widely reported in the media are simply ignored or glossed over or delegated to references that further refute such details. 70.253.66.20 ( talk) 15:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I do believe the gentleman above was referring to the actual WP page. Though I do think if those managing this page had control to censor the discussion page I am sure they would! Matter of fact I have no doubt! Prime example are the statements that I have made that have been deleted, or the date and time stamp removed so they are not part of the archive. The behavior here is downright unamerican! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 ( talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Even 80% positive here is still only 0.000001% positive for Christians because we have a secular gay-dominated culture. We need to fight every slander against Christians wherever it might be. We need more accurate coverage of Governor Jindal and highlight his true nature which is a Christian conservative. He was really born Hindu so he wasn't born Christian but so far he has shown excellent fidelity to his adopted church fathers and to the conservative cause against government and regulation. Furthermore, not many people know he's a bona fide prodigy, so he's like our Mozart in politics and he will outshine Obama in every possible way. (P.S. Obama was not an Oxford scholar but Jindal was). God Bless Governor Jindal And His Beautiful Family. Ephesians-5 ( talk) 17:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I would be curious to see the reference confirming your prodigy claim. Personal opinions are fine (and encouraged! I love a good debate) so long as you are not attempting to pass them off as fact. And sense we are getting into personal opinion (that is until I see a source confirming your prodigy claims). I would like to state that thankfully we live in a free society where even a "secular gay-dominated culture" (odd, I was under the impression the gay community was still a minority) is constitutionally protected. I am also grateful that we live in a society where opposing opinion is protected as well(freedom of speech). Any group that thinks of themselves as above criticism is in serious need of a restructuring. All too often throughout history the suppressing of opinions (burning books) has paved the way to some of the greatest atrocities ever. Even our war on terrorism/extremism is tainted by the concept of killing in the name of god. It is also my opinion that government should not be a platform for mass conversion. given the fact that we are in the "information age" there are more then enough sources of information out there to guide a person toward a spiritual decision. If a particular group is experiencing declines in membership they may want to consider taking a good look in the mirror, and perhaps listen to what the masses are saying about their behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 ( talk) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies! I will do my best to stick to the subject matter. Though I do love a good thought provoking debate:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.45.118 ( talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Future editors with similar concerns, please be advised of WP:RS and WP:BLP. All information must be reliably sourced, and as a biography of a living person, there is a very real bias towards less negative information in the sense that the burden of proof lies with demonstrating the encyclopedic relevance. So if Keith Olbermann names Jindal worst person in the world for a gaffe it's probably not going to make the cut. Natural Cut ( talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In this regard, who selects the 'selected social and political issues'? It seems the principle of 'selection' was 'controversy'.-- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 14:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The parts regarding his parents are not well edited. In particular it isn't made clear that his parents were already well educated, payed for by the Indian taxpayer under socialism, and had a stable middle class life as college lecturers in India before they came to the United States. The older version made it seem as if they lived in abject poverty and his parents overcame all their struggles (with phrases like only educated up to the fifth grade) after emigrating. I believe it glorifies Bobby Jindal's background a bit so I've adopted a neutral PoV. Kasbee ( talk) 09:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Hindi name from the infobox because it really isn't appropriate. Even articles about people who actually live in India (or other countries that don't use English characters) don't usually have the foreign translation in the infobox. (eg Pratibha Patil, the President of India). I'm not overly convinced one way or another as to the appropriateness of giving it, even in the article. Does he give the Indian translation on his website? Does he ever use it? I am not overly thrilled with the idea that people of non-European descent should be singled out by having their names translated in their articles - it strikes me as rather biased. -- B ( talk) 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Some Wikipedians must be concerned lest Jindal be mistaken for a Choctaw or other sort of autochthonous Louisianan. As the Devanagari transcription has returned to his article, perhaps this should become a new WikiObsession: George Bush's first name should be spelled out in the original Greek, Sarah Palin's in Hebrew, and Strom Thurmond's in Futhark.
NRPanikker (
talk)
02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I completely disagree, I think his ethnic origin name and meaning should be spelled out in either Punjabi or Hindi. Rahm Emanuel, Jewish American for many generations has his name explained in Hebrew. Stephen Chu, Chinese American for many generations also has his name in Chinese in the infobar. Indian politicians (i.e in India) don't have their names explained for the same reasons George Bush or Margaret Thatcher don't. If someone has this information please add do it. Kasbee ( talk) 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree per B's reasoning above. Jindal has never mentioned his Hindi or Punjabi translation and it would not be appropriate. Boromir123 ( talk) 06:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Kasbee ( talk) 06:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The article has in the past stated that his full, legal name is Piyush Amrit Jindal. However, it has never cited any sources for the middle name and when I looked all I found was blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. Official and reliable sources such as Who's Who and the U.S. Congress simply give his name as Piyush. I have been aggressively removing mentions of Amrit and will continue to do so unless someone can find a reliale source. Eluchil404 ( talk) 21:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added Amrit as his middle name after finding reliable sources. Kasbee ( talk) 00:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
What are the reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.235.150 ( talk) 22:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering why his ethnicity should be indicated while there are thousands of pages in which people's ethnicity is not mentioned? -- And Rew 21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Kasbee ( talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, just wondering why his ethnicity says Indian, when "Indian" is a nationality. It should read Punjabi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.80.242 ( talk) 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Kasbee ( talk) 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There are two problems that I have with this wording. The first is that there is no documentation of Jindal saying "I am pro-life because I am a Catholic". The second is that even if he did say that, to word it as it was worded seems to imply that Jindal's stance on abortion matches the stance of the Catholic church. In fact, Jindal supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape, something the Catholic Church opposes as part of its pro-life stance. So clearly Jindal does not hold a view on abortion in accordance with his Catholic faith.
If we wanted to say "Jindal opposes abortions because he is a Catholic" we would need to find a source that states that he is pro-life because of his catholic belief. But that still wouldn't justify our saying that his beliefs are in accordance with the Catholic Faith.
And to include "personally" is something that is typically said by people who are against abortion but not supportive of legislation. I.E. people who say "I am personally pro-life but I would not seek to legislate it. And even if we believe that such a statement is obvious, then it is also redundant and not needed. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 19:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
A local radio broadcast had stated that he was putting his Kenner house up for sale a while back. So it may not be factually correct to say that he lives in Kenner. Obviously he does live in the mansion but that doesn't mean he claims residency in Baton Rouge. Just want to be sure the article is factual. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 16:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Is he really? Does anybody have a link that verifies that he belongs in that group. I am inclined to delete it. However, I will wait for a link if such proof exists. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 18:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
We really shouldn't be focusing a paragraph on a piece of legislation that was not signed into law. The bill that was signed into law by the President was the Senate bill and not the bill that contained his language. There is no reason to say that a bill Jindal sponsored failed. I am removing the section. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why there's edit-warring going on over Jindal's name in the infobox, but the common convention is for it to be the commonly-used name, same as the article title. See for example, Mitt Romney. There's discussion of this in the archives - could the editor who wants the change please discuss here rather than reverting? Kelly hi! 05:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following sentence since it is cited only to an editorial column. As such it is a primary source and not the best way to source such information. What is needed is a piece discussing the criticism of Jindal's presidential pre-campaign rather than one making such criticism directly.
Jindal has been strongly criticized for attending fundraisers outside the state instead of solving immediate problems at home. <ref> {{cite news |url=http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2010/11/louisiana_gov_bobby_jindals_wo.html}}</ref>
I also want to query the use of http://www.2theadvocate.com/blogs/politicsblog/107123234.html as a source since its URL identifies it as a blog which are generally not reliable sources even when published by news-websites. On the other hand the page contains the reprint of an AP story which was also picked up by various papers. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Clearly from my name you can see I'm not from Louisiana, nor do I care one way or another about this man or his politics as they don't concern me. I simply found myself on this page from a link. From the moment I saw this page though it was clear that this was written by someone from his staff. Every single section reads like a press release. It could not be more blatent. It is my mere, unbiased opinion that this article is so tainted and slanted towards making him seem incredible (Indian Jesus) that those who care, I not being one of them, should delete the whole thing and start anew. I really think starting over would be the only way to put forth an objective page on this man. Over the years I'v seen people fight over much, much, much less on Wiki pages and yet this one badly reaks of pro prejudice, which would be fine elsewhere as he seems like an all right dude, but it should never be allowed here on Wikipedia. For shame. JMHO Deepintexas ( talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Louisianastateseal.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
Recently there has been an effort due to the article subject's political activities to emphasis certain facts about where the subject attended school. This is a form of POV pushing, IMHO, and thus violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Information about the type of school the subject went to should be found in articles regarding the schools that the subject attended, not here. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite press release}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); |first=
has generic name (
help); |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |first2=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |first=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)