Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) |
Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
:Again, as a compromise, I would consent to mentioning the candidacy in the first paragraph provided that we don't repeat it elsewhere in the lead. I offer as examples [[John Edwards]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Chris Dodd]], [[Rudy Giuliani]], and several of the other bios that you have edited of people who have been candidates in previous elections.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 02:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
:Again, as a compromise, I would consent to mentioning the candidacy in the first paragraph provided that we don't repeat it elsewhere in the lead. I offer as examples [[John Edwards]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Chris Dodd]], [[Rudy Giuliani]], and several of the other bios that you have edited of people who have been candidates in previous elections.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 02:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Obviously, none of those people is currently running for president. I don't like your proposed "compromise" for reasons that are now being evaluated at a noticeboard, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Perry|here]]. SO let's see what the feedback is.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 02:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
::Obviously, none of those people is currently running for president. I don't like your proposed "compromise" for reasons that are now being evaluated at a noticeboard, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Perry|here]]. SO let's see what the feedback is.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 02:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::You really should have took it to the MOS talk page. BLP/N is for policy related concerns.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 02:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::The MOS talk page is for changing and improving the MOS. I am not seeking to do that. If I did try to do that in furtherance of a dispute at this BLP, then I would likely be banned from Wikipedia.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 02:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:53, 31 July 2015
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Education
This article needs to address the fact that Bobby was a huge proponent and even on the governors board of Common Core, and did not have the least problem passing it. Once it started to come under fire by far right commentators, he gladly reversed his position.
May 2014 Times-Picayune:
After years of backing Common Core, Jindal has come out against the academic standards, which have come under fire from conservative groups this year. The governor, specifically, wanted the Legislature to bow out of the use of a Common Core standardized test
By David Catanese May 30, 2014 | 11:01 a.m. EDT + More
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to be clear: He really dislikes Common Core, the educational initiative that seeks to unify certain classroom standards across the country.
At least, he does now.
During his speech Thursday night to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Jindal couldn't have been more explicit.
"I'm against the Common Core, and I don't want Louisiana to be in the Common Core," he said.
"We've taken a lot of criticism in this state from folks that have criticized me for being against it," he went on.
[READ: The Unshackling of Bobby Jindal]
The room boomed with applause, according to reporters there.
But Jindal's full-throated denouncement of the policy is likely motivated by his past support for it.
He's seen how the conservative base of the party has turned virulently against it over the past year and is making sure they know he's now with them.
That wasn't always the case.
The original policy – adopted by over 40 states – was developed through a collaboration of governors and education leaders that included Jindal, who was described by The Times-Picayune as "a strong supporter of the standards."
"Over the past four years, we’ve already taken steps to meet [our education] goals, including … adopting the Common Core State Standards," Jindal said in early 2012, according to a timeline posted by The Huffington Post.
Jindal expressed reservations about Common Core last fall, as opposition from conservative state lawmakers and tea party members began to mushroom.
[ALSO: Bobby Jindal and the 'Path' Less Taken]
He's sharpened his rhetoric against the policy in recent months as he's traveled the country in preparation for a potential presidential bid.
The RLC speech marked his most emphatic – and publicized criticism – of Common Core, likely due to the throng of national reporters in the audience.
But as evidenced by commentator Michelle Malkin, the right won't soon forget who saddled up to Common Core at the start.
@jmartNYT Jindal was for it before he was against it. The recantation is complete. #StopCommonCore — Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) May 30, 2014
That means if Jindal runs for president in 2016, he'll need a pithy, well-rehearsed answer for why he was for it before he was against it. Msjayhawk (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Last I checked, BLPs are not campaign pamphlets. The wording above would not meet the policy requirements for Wikipedia, and appear to substantially reflect opinions, which can only be cited as such. Collect (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
How exactly does the New Orleans Times-Picayune fall short of being a RS on the positions of the governor of their state? Hcobb (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- The article appears to be editorial in nature, and not a simple reportorial statement of facts. We could possibly state the opinions of a newspaper column as opinions, but we would then need to figure out precisely the weight to give to such opinions in a BLP. Clearly, though, presenting it as a series of arguments is the one thing we can not do. Collect (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
So how about "Commentators theorized that Jindal's sudden reversal against Common Core in 2014 and his executive orders to stop implementation in the face of continuing support by the state legislature, board of education, and business community for the standards was due to pressure from 'tea party activists'." and toss in this ref also: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/bobby-jindal-louisiana-common-core-108022.html Hcobb (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- What you might be able to use is "In 20xx, Jindal supported Common Core in principle, but in2014 he has opposed the implementation of that program" or the like. Ascribing "ta party" causality is opinion, and clearly opinion. Do you wish to say "The Times-Picayune theorized the change was due to Tea Party pressure" or the like? The source as given appears not to meet the Wikipedia hurdle for much else. The lagniappe of "continued support by everyone else" is pure argumentation and campaign rhetoric AFAICT. The more we stick with facts, the better in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional sources on Jindal's XXX on education standards:
- Education Secretary Arne Duncan http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/211452-duncan-jindal-spar-over-core-values
- AP "Jindal acknowledged he targeted the testing contract to undermine Common Core in Louisiana." http://siouxcityjournal.com/ap/state/analysis-compromise-seems-unlikely-on-common-core/article_3b455a63-3a9d-5609-9e25-664ee8771815.html
- washingtonpost "Last week, he completed his reversal on the heels of a fundraising visit to South Carolina" http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bobby-jindals-common-core-reversal/2014/06/26/e668375c-f894-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html
- USnooze "with only a vocal minority of ideologues opposing it, some elected officials still insist on playing politics with children's futures" http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/18/louisiana-gov-bobby-jindal-makes-plans-to-end-common-core
- NRO "the Common Core has pitted the tea-party wing of the GOP against business interests and more moderate, establishment forces" http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381858/will-bobby-jindal-have-fight-common-core-court-eliana-johnson
How widely must something be reported before we take their word for it? Hcobb (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- And you believe calling his position a "jihad" conforms to the absolute policy of WP:NPOV in what manner? Collect (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, the term has been used far too much in this context. http://www.educationviews.org/teachers-union-jihad-aganist-gov-bobby-jindal/ Hcobb (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please let this article not become an attack page, or become a coatrack of negative content about the subject; lets remember WP:BLP and WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, the term has been used far too much in this context. http://www.educationviews.org/teachers-union-jihad-aganist-gov-bobby-jindal/ Hcobb (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Ice Bucket Challenge
Although cited to a reliable source, does the fact that the subject of this article has accepted the viral ACSA Ice Bucket challenge relevant? Does it fall under WP:RECENTISM, and as the sole source is one within the state of Louisiana does this fail WP:GEOSCOPE?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Mike Edmonson
Why has there been an entire paragraph dedicated/added focused on the issue around Mike Edmonson? Does the events around this single state employee (and one state trooper) deserve this much WP:WEIGHT in this article? IMHO, I think this is better off in the article about the individual, and not in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
No-go Jindal
It's the most I've seen him speak out on Europe. Not worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- He "imagined to be there"? Are there multiple reliable sources to verify the content, to show that it is significant? "imagined"? Seriously, like there are not reliable sources about (even if an editor doesn't believe it, alleged) No-go zones in Europe (Google Books, Breitbart, Google News)?
- The way it was written does not meet WP:NEU or WP:BLP, so best it is removed. But if neutrally worded well sourced content is proposed, perhaps there is something to work with.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please cite actual reliable sources rather than linking to Google search results consisting of books by creationist bloggers and 'Obama is a Muslim' conspiracy nuts, along with books discussing Kurdistan, Algeria and conservation areas for Whales. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Executive order
Is Jindal's opposition to the use of executive orders notable? Hcobb (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it's a political move, and hypocritical. Whether his criticism of President Obama's use of executive order is notable, I don't know.- MrX 13:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Highlighting a single gubernatorial executive order, when not giving a neutral representation of other executive orders would be undue weight. Regardless of our personal opinions of the subject, they should not play any roll in how we edit the article, and should not be reflected on the talk page. Therefore, per WP:NOTFORUM, I have changed the title of the section to a neutral term about the possible content being discussed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Jindal has a lot about executive orders.
- “[T]he federal government, to date, has failed to implement protections at the national level to prevent the entry of the Ebola Virus Disease into the United States of America,” Jindal said in the order. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/bobby-jindal-ebola-order-louisiana-112066.html
- "As a viable and necessary action, BESE is urged to grant districts the ability to offer nationally norm-referenced or other comparable assessment appropriate for Louisiana as an alternative to the PARCC test, the order states http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2015/01/30/just-in-jindal-issues-executive-order-on-parcc-tests/22603021/
- More federal regulations and lawless executive orders are not the way to improve health care in this country. http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=4622
- If the President wants to make the case that the law should be changed, he should go make the case to Congress and our people. This is an arrogant, cynical political move by the President, and it’s why so many Americans no longer trust this President to solve the problems we face. (link at the top)
Hcobb (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Main Image
The main image is repeated. Plus would an image of Jindal at the 2015 CPAC be a better image? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Removed the duplicate. Maybe? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I feel like the main image should be a recent photo. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Redundant content in the lead
I object to the repeated addition of redundant content in the lead. Either we should follow a chronological flow or a significance flow, not both. It's poor writing.- MrX 01:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think it's poor writing for the lead paragraph to give a broader overview, and then supply more detail in the rest of the lead? See how it's done in the Hillary Clinton lead. Her candidacy is briefly mentioned in the lead paragraph, and then later details of the announcement date are given at the end of the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Jindal is known for being a governor. His pre-primary candidacy is not especially significant. As I mentioned before, I think the lead should follow a chronological order (like the article). The opening paragraph should be very short and succinct. The Hillary Clinton article has a lead that I think is a little too long, but it really has little bearing on this article. Clinton and Jindal have had very different careers.
That's not how the guidelines say it should be done. See Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for example. The guideline wants a greater level of generality in the lead paragraph than in the rest of the lead:
“ | [T]he opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually have…. The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; Why the person is notable….[A]void overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. | ” |
This is Wikipedia 101.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again, as a compromise, I would consent to mentioning the candidacy in the first paragraph provided that we don't repeat it elsewhere in the lead. I offer as examples John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Rudy Giuliani, and several of the other bios that you have edited of people who have been candidates in previous elections.- MrX 02:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, none of those people is currently running for president. I don't like your proposed "compromise" for reasons that are now being evaluated at a noticeboard, here. SO let's see what the feedback is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- You really should have took it to the MOS talk page. BLP/N is for policy related concerns.- MrX 02:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- The MOS talk page is for changing and improving the MOS. I am not seeking to do that. If I did try to do that in furtherance of a dispute at this BLP, then I would likely be banned from Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- You really should have took it to the MOS talk page. BLP/N is for policy related concerns.- MrX 02:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, none of those people is currently running for president. I don't like your proposed "compromise" for reasons that are now being evaluated at a noticeboard, here. SO let's see what the feedback is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)