Talk:David Vitter/Archive 1

message: I added the bit about the Katrina quote to offset the criticism Vitter has made.  In the wake of all the finger pointing, it's interesting for people to note that everyone has made mistakes and everyone is playing the blame game anyway... I hope I kept it non-POV while making it two-sided. I'm a relative Wiki newbie so please comment if I've written something out of sorts. Neospooky 13:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

message: I changed this paragraph:
====Same-sex marriage ====
In 2003, Vitter proposed to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriages.Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House), HJ 56 IH, 108th CONGRESS, H. J. RES. 56 May 21, 2003, Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) In 2004, he said, "This is a real outrage.  The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history...We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values." In June 2006, he said "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one ... I think this debate is very healthy, and it's winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we're going to show real progress.""Senate set to reject gay marriage ban: Backers see 'important debate'; critics blast effort to 'misdirect'", CNN, June 7, 2006 In 2006, he told The Times-Picayune, “I’m a conservative who opposes radically redefining marriage, the most important social institution in human history.” 
to read:
====Sanctity of marriage ====
Vitter, when running for the Senate in 2004, promoted protecting the sanctity of marriage, saying, "This is a real outrage.  The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history...We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values." 
In 2003, he proposed to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriages.Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House), HJ 56 IH, 108th CONGRESS, H. J. RES. 56 May 21, 2003, Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) In June 2006, he said "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one ... I think this debate is very healthy, and it's winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we're going to show real progress.""Senate set to reject gay marriage ban: Backers see 'important debate'; critics blast effort to 'misdirect'", CNN, June 7, 2006 In 2006, he told The Times-Picayune, “I’m a conservative who opposes radically redefining marriage, the most important social institution in human history.”
I made this change because Vitter frames this issues as "protecting the sanctity of marriage" -- i.e., I led the paragraph with the pertinent sentence from his press release titled, "Vitter Statement on Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage." Hence, I believe it is both fair and appropriate to change the heading and the text accordingly. Media anthro reversed my change on the argument that it was POV. I don't agree. I am framing the issue in the same manner (sourced) as Vitter. SmallRepair 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vitter's comments were made in the larger context of the same-sex marriage debates, not the "sanctity of marriage" debates. Why should the article predominantly reflect how Vitter (and other members of his party) choose to frame an issue?  Doesn't that violate NPOV? --Media anthro 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK -- If no one disagrees with Media anthro, then fair enough. SmallRepair 20:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanctity of marriage 

message: Vitter, when running for the Senate in 2004, promoted protecting the sanctity of marriage, saying, "This is a real outrage.  The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history...We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values." 
In 2003, he proposed to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriages.Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House), HJ 56 IH, 108th CONGRESS, H. J. RES. 56 May 21, 2003, Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. HALL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. VITTER) In June 2006, he said "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one ... I think this debate is very healthy, and it's winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we're going to show real progress.""Senate set to reject gay marriage ban: Backers see 'important debate'; critics blast effort to 'misdirect'", CNN, June 7, 2006 In 2006, he told The Times-Picayune, “I’m a conservative who opposes radically redefining marriage, the most important social institution in human history.”
I made this change because Vitter frames this issues as "protecting the sanctity of marriage" -- i.e., I led the paragraph with the pertinent sentence from his press release titled, "Vitter Statement on Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage." Hence, I believe it is both fair and appropriate to change the heading and the text accordingly. Media anthro reversed my change on the argument that it was POV. I don't agree. I am framing the issue in the same manner (sourced) as Vitter. SmallRepair 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vitter's comments were made in the larger context of the same-sex marriage debates, not the "sanctity of marriage" debates. Why should the article predominantly reflect how Vitter (and other members of his party) choose to frame an issue?  Doesn't that violate NPOV? --Media anthro 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK -- If no one disagrees with Media anthro, then fair enough. SmallRepair 20:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanctity of marriage 

message: I'm not sure that the article should engage in such speculation, but regardless the way that passage is phased now isn't quite right.  Because Vitter's term is up in 2010, any appointed replacement would be temporary until a special election could be held. --Proper tea is theft 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that the statement is speculating -- it is phrased in the subjunctive tense. It is stating (as does the source) that IF he stepped down, Blanco would likely elect a Democrat. And that is one reason there is little pressure from the Republican party. Implicitly, if Blanco was a Republican, this motivation would not be applicable and hence there might be more pressure.   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although temporary, incumbency would give an advantage to the Democrat.   ∴ Therefore  talk   21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll accept that this info is relevant at present.  However, the passage is still phrased in a way that implies that Blanco gets to appoint a permanent replacement.  This is not the case. While it undoubtedly furthers GOP interests that Vitter not step down, were he to do so, there would be a general election soon after Blanco appointed a Democratic replacement, something the passage fails to note. (Also, I don't see how using the subjunctive would preclude speculation.)--Proper tea is theft 21:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right on both counts -- temporarily should be added to the sentence. And I erred in implying that the subjunctive precluded speculation. I should have simply said that in this case the statement was presented subjuncitively without speculation.   ∴ Therefore  talk   22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough already with "paraphrasing/synthisizing(sp)" material from articles. --Tom 17:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This command confuses me. The art of writing encyclopedic articles is the art of paraphrasing -- are you suggesting that all articles should instead simply be quotations? We have Barlett's for that.   ∴ Therefore  talk   18:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  speculation on Vitter stepping down 

message: This can't be added to the article yet, because currently the only source is Larry Flint and some blogs nobody's heard of, but if the rumors are true, Vitter's got:
* a diaper fetish;
* a history with five New Orleans prostitutes; and
* a child with one of them; presumably Wendy Cortez, now living in Alexandria, VA.
Wow. If you are having trouble following all this, someone has put most of it in convenient musical form. BenB4 11:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  INCOMING!  Diapers, five hookers, and a love child with one of 'em 

message: Threeafterthree deleted the following:pointing out if Vitter did step down, Democratic Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco would likely appoint a Democrat to take Vitter's place until a special election took place, thus increasing Democratic control over the Senate. stating "still not what the ref says."
Let me quote from the source:
------------------------
If Vitter were to resign, the Democrats are all but certain to gain a Senate seat.
Under's Louisiana's Election Code, the governor picks the replacement for a U.S. senator who leaves office before his or her term is done.
Louisiana's governor is a Democrat, Kathleen Blanco.
Blanco's not running for reelection this year, so there is little likelihood that she would bother to try and win favor with Republicans by appointing one of their number to replace Vitter.
To be sure, any appointment would be temporary.
According to Louisiana's election code, a special election would have to be held -- perhaps this year, perhaps next, depending on when Vitter might leave office.
By the time the special election rolls around, however, the Democrat would have the advantage of incumbency in a state that -- even after losing a lot of Democratic voters from New Orleans in the post-Hurricane Katrina exodus -- could probably still elect the right Democrat to a Senate seat. Amusingly, that right Democrat might be Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu, whose sister Mary holds the state's other Senate seat. Two-term State Treasurer John Kennedy is another prospect, as is south Louisiana Congressman Charlie Melancon. 
---------------------------
Will you please explain how this does not support that statement? Thanks!   ∴ Therefore  talk   17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Therfore, where in the material above does it say that "Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco would likely appoint a Democrat"? Thanks, --Tom 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From "so there is little likelihood that she would bother to try and win favor with Republicans by appointing one of their number to replace Vitter." I guess one could infer that she may appoint someone form the Green Party or Libertarian Party, but I don't think it is an inappropriate leap to infer the Democratic Party. That is what the article is about.   ∴ Therefore  talk   18:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus "If Vitter were to resign, the Democrats are all but certain to gain a Senate seat." How exactly would they gain a seat if she elected a Green Party member? This is a clear implication that doesn't require a big inferential leap.   ∴ Therefore  talk   18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly where in the Wikipedia policies, guidelines and standards does it say we can't paraphrase?   ∴ Therefore  talk   18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I will back off. Thanks! --Tom 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I too questioned this paragraph and reverted it until the original editor actually sourced it. I agree that it did require additional sources and I hoped that this rewrite did it. Thanks!   ∴ Therefore  talk   19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction deletion 

message: Because serious discussion was buried by meta discussion and personal attacks, here are, once again, the specific problems with this article meriting an NPOV tag.  Simply put, the article is unbalanced.  Vitter has been in Congress for eight years, but the section on his congressional record consists entirely of anecdotes about gaffes, though he has a record of legislative accomplishment.  In this Congress alone, he has sponsored 139 bills, and it's not the case that not a single one of them is notable.  (Surely, his work on abolishing the estate tax is of some note.)  I'm not asking for Vitter's misdeeds to be whitewashed, but NPOV requires all points of view to be fairly represented, and no one has taken the trouble to fairly represent Vitter's career.  Material can readily be incorporated with some research; some places to start:   THF 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for any and all personal attacks. Let me suggest that the problem is neither with POV nor WP:UNDUE, strictly speaking, but that you feel that the article needs additional meat. I would recommend, then, the use of the  tag. Change the title of this section of the talk page from "NPOV tag" to "Expansion suggestions" and we will be in agreement. You have made a good argument for expansion.   ∴ Therefore  talk   04:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both tags are appropriate.  But NPOV also refers to the fact that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."  A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information.  THF 05:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do make a good point. On the grounds that the biographical material lacks a balanced, full scope of his work does imply a lack of neutrality, given the quotation from policy. OK. I stand corrected.   ∴ Therefore  talk   05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, this was the clincher from WP:UNDUE:Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. and then the rest that you quoted.   ∴ Therefore  talk   05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've accordingly moved the pov tag to the disputed sections.   ∴ Therefore  talk   05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is holistic.  It's perhaps fixed by fixing the sections, but the article flunks NPOV, not just the sections. THF 05:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your argument that the lack of meat in his biography gives the entire article a misleading feel. However, the purpose of the  tag is to avoid tagging the entire article. If "a bad apple spoils the lot" was actual WP policy, then there would be no need for . The problem with tagging the entire article  is that it implies that all sections of the article are disputed. It isn't designed to give the reader a holistic sense of disputatiousness. You have identified two sections as being so inadequate as to give a biased viewpoint of Vitter. I agree. Are you now expanding your concerns to, say, the 2008 endorsement? The controversy section?  If so, what specific statements violate POV? Many editors, despite your characterizations, have worked on this section to insure neutrality. But consensus can at any time be challenged and reconsidered and your ideas are encouraged. You agreed that the size of the controversy section shouldn't be faulted because of the sketchiness of his bio. Therefore, why damn the entire article when we can zero in on those sections that are causing the overall problem? The controversy is, inevitably, taking up a large amount of acreage. This is the nature of controversy, particularly with the bio of a first-term Senator. (The vast majority of articles about our representatives lack, to my disapointment, much detail.) With time, this section will shrink as it becomes less of a defining moment for him. I hope you are working on the William J. Jefferson to improve how little space is given over to his political stances.   ∴ Therefore  talk   05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have justified the NPOV tag with specific issues that infect the entire article.  WP:NPOVD forbids you to unilaterally remove the tag.  In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. You have correctly identified a problem with the Jefferson article, and you could have tagged that one; since you didn't, I did.  I can't read the entire encyclopedia, I just ran across this article and found the problems.  Wikipedia edits incrementally.THF 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be consensus that this article as a POV issue.  I'm comfortable with User:TedFrank's argument that the POV problems in the relevant sections are sufficient to tarnish the entire article (even the most POV article is going to have some NPOV sections if it's long enough).  However, debate about exactly what kind of POV tag should be applied is, forgive me for saying, far less useful than actually fixing the article.  I know nothing about the article's subject, but User:TedFrank seems to - any possibility you could edit it to include his accomplishments, so we wouldn't need any POV tag at all? Sarcasticidealist 08:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: News about the senator's denied alleged relationship with the prostitute : 
http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/09/new_orleans_prostitute_tied_to.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon2007-1 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denied Relationship Controversy News Addition 

message: :Hustler publisher Larry Flynt took a fresh jab on Tuesday at scandal-plagued Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), administering a lie detector test to a New Orleans prostitute who contends that she and Vitter had a relationship in 1999.
:Vitter has denied extramarital relations with Wendy Cortez, who appeared with Flynt in Los Angeles to address reporters. Flynt said the lie detector offers 99.9 percent proof that Cortez, whose ties to Vitter have long set tongues wagging in Louisiana, is telling the truth....
Schor, E. (September 11, 2007) "Larry Flynt keeps Vitter in his crosshairs" The Hill ←BenB4 13:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Flint gives Wendy Cortez a polygraph test