Talk:Louisiana gubernatorial election, 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Tables 2 Closed primary congressional races start in 2007, not 2008. 3 Melancon not running. 4 Bolding/Debolding polling numbers 5 Religious Writings. 6 Louisiana SOS Website has practically crashed. 7 Removing "Piyush"

[edit] Tables

To keep this article similar to other articles about American Governor elections, we should not include tables under the candidate section. Also all the information can be found in the candidate pages. - Comedy240 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I've modeled these tables after the ones used on the Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Democratic candidates page. This format provides more information than the previous format. It provides photos of candidates, when available. It also provides a brief biographical summary of the candidates and their campaigns. Some of the more minor candidates don't have their own pages, and frankly don't necessarily deserve their own pages at this point. For these candidates, there's no other place to put this information yet. This new format provides a summary of all the candidates in one place, which is far more convenient than having to look at articles and stubs for what may very well eventually become at least a dozen candidates. If the reader wants more detail, they can go to the candidate articles. Just because other gubernatorial election articles don't use this format doesn't negate its usefulness. To my mind, increased information and ease of use wins out over uniformity. - Praxedis G 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What about a compromise, get rid of the bad tables and pictures, but keep the information. That way its easy to read and simple and better looking. - Comedy240 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. I'll change it now. Sorry about the last revert. It seems like we keep posting simultaneously. Praxedis G 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also putting the tables back; I don't think we should be having a revert war until we've resolved this issue...... - Praxedis G 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closed primary congressional races start in 2007, not 2008.

The law that made congressional elections take place in a closed election was effective in January of 2007. The next "regularly scheduled election" for Congress wont take place until 2008. However, if a seat becomes open for any reason, there could be a special election in 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Melancon not running.

http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?/base/library-122/1174456634193610.xml&coll=1 DanielZimmerman 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding/Debolding polling numbers

A number of times now, one or more editors - most anonymous - have edited the polling results so that Bobby Jindal's polling figures are in bold-face. I have been reverting this. I've got a couple of reasons for doing this. I've never seen it done on other election pages; someone please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that the anonymous editor(s) are doing this to highlight the fact that Jindal is consistently ahead in the polls. But this fact should be obvious to anyone who looks at the polling tables we've created. Why is the boldface necessary? It just looks partisan to me, and the article should be NPOV. If someone has a good reason why Jindal's polling figures -and only Jindal's- should be bolded, I'm willing to discuss it.

PS: This should go without saying, but this not a partisanship issue for me. I've got an interest in electoral politics but am not pro-Democrat or pro-Republican. Praxedis G 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just saying look at the 2008 senate election. Go to either North Carolina, Minnesota, Oregan, New Hampshire, and even your state Louisiana. look at the polls. The leader is in bold. It just means thta they are winning. i am willing to continue this debate on my talk page under "Bolding winning polls". p.s. this is for anyone to comment on, not just my friend Praxedis G.Politics rule 4:11pm EST.- 17 April 2007

• Well, you're right. Putting the lead candidate's poll numbers in bold seems to be common practice on election pages for other states. (I'd just never seen it in Louisiana election pages, which are the main election pages I edit and monitor.) So I'll leave them bolded. In the future, though, it's best to take these discussions debates to the talk page of the article in question, rather than just jumping to conclusions and accusing people of vandalism. Assume good faith. Praxedis G 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• As someone else who this has happened to, I'd like to say that I agree with Politics rule now as well on the bolding thing; I posted my full explanation on their talk page. And a note to Politics rule: Please don't tell me it's my "last warning" when I have never been accused of vandalism before. 68.45.34.67 16:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Writings.

To say that the conservative blog "determined" certain things "in fact" is to claim that the opinion is correct. Other blogs affirm that the quote is a quote from Calvin, that the use of that quote to back up Jindal's statements implies Jindal's agreement with those thoughts and that he uses those to prove that Protestant thought is incorrect. DanielZimmerman 12:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Jindal disagrees with Calvin. That he, as a Catholic, disagrees with Protestantism is pedestrian, wholly expected and hardly inflammatory. The allegation that he referred to Protestantism as "utterly depraved" is wholly false. I think we need to come up with some terminology which, while not determinative, does not reduce this to claim/counterclaim. Gabrielthursday 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the allegation that Jindal called Protestantism "utterly depraved" as false. However, the statement by Captain Quarters that claim that these are simply the words of Calvin as discussing humanity is false. It is also false to say that Jindal disagrees with Calvin. Jindal uses the words of Calvin to back up his claim that protestants cannot properly interpret the Bible like the Catholic Church can. This is a direct quote from Jindal's writing "The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their "utterly depraved" minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin. The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy. ". So, your claim that Jindal disagrees with Calvin is plainly false since he is using the words of Calvin to back up his own argument. The Captain Quarters entry should either be removed or reworded to show that it is a published opinion. It should not be worded that the blog "shows" anything because it does not show anything. DanielZimmerman 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looking again at the quote, I see the ambiguity over whether Jindal shares Calvin's view. I would suggest that he, by quoting Calvin, is attempting to hoist Protestant epistemology on its own petard. That said, I can see how your interpretation is also compelling. Regarding the entry as it stands now, my concern is that it is now largely reduced to a he said/she said claim, which is misleading, as the ad has been roundly condemned. Perhaps we need a sentence or two in which to summarize the reaction to the ads from outside the campaigns? To give the true significance of this event requires that some mention be made of the appeal to anti-Catholicism allegedly contained in the ads. Here's some refs: [1] [2] [3] Gabrielthursday 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well what we do with the entry about the ad really depends on what our duty is when we place information on wikipedia. Should we be citing criticism of the ad that may be flawed because that criticism was reported on in the media? Should we just refer to statements by the "attacker" and the "attackee" and leave the other opinions as not relevant for an encyclopedic entry? Should we refer to the story, and link to jindalonreligion.com and lagopblog.com and perhaps one or two other blogs that discuss the pro's and cons of the issue? I think once we answer those questions we will see if this issue is worthy for inclusing in an encyclopedia and if so, what information should be left in or taken out. DanielZimmerman 19:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think context is necessary. If this were merely a significant attack ad, I think a mere mention of the dispute over the accuracy of the ad would be appropriate. As it is, though, the ad has attracted controversy of its own- including whether it is an appeal to latent anti-Catholic prejudice. In other words, I think we're missing the most important part of the incident without reference to the reaction/allegations, etc. Gabrielthursday 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So what would be a good idea to use for soruces for both sides of the argument. I mean, I have given the same argument I gave here (expanded) on a blog, but I don't think me posting that would be following wikipedia's guidelines. DanielZimmerman 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the big deal is. This was over ten years ago when he wasn't active in politics. He is a devout Roman Catholic and you would expect any Catholic to disagree with some of Protestant theology, just like you would expect a devout Protestant to disagree with some of Catholic theology. A Jew might also write a paper arguing against the divinity of Jesus, which would be contrary to the beliefs of all Christians. I am a Protestant, and see nothing wrong with Jindal's writings. I don't agree with his reasoning, but so what? I am impressed with the fact that he is willing to defend his faith. He is not advocating the Protestantism be outlawed, he is writing about his beliefs. I doubt if anyone can show any acts he has taken, either as an elected or an appointed official that show any discrimination against non-Catholics. If the Catholic Church and mainline Protestant denominations had more people who had the enthusiasm for the faith and beliefs that Jindal has, those churches would be growing, instead of shrinking. --rogerd 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was included in the discussion of the Governors race because it was a well covered event within the governors race. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to determine what the big deal of something is. If something IS made into a big deal then it is probably worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia because it is a verifiable event. That event should be reported on in an accurate manner. DanielZimmerman 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that some editors have been trying to make this out to be a major scandal, and have been giving this undue coverage. I don't live in Louisiana, but I have been reading about this on nola.com, and they don't seem to have given it the coverage that some editors here have tried to give it. --rogerd 20:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This event within the campaign for Governor has gotten more coverage, at least in my opinion, than any other event in the campaign for governor. I didn't add the blurb about it (either on this page or on the Jindal page where it originally aired), I am just making sure that while it does exist, the coverage it does get is unbiased. DanielZimmerman 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louisiana SOS Website has practically crashed.

SesameRoad 02:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing "Piyush"

He's gone by Bobby since he was four-years-old and he's never used Piyush in his carrer. There are many instances where a candidate goes by one name when their real name is something else and we don't include it, why should we here? 67.160.106.255 10:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)