Talk:David Vitter/Archive 1

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)

Palfrey
We need to include a reference to the New Orleans Brothel Madam's comments about Senator Vitter visiting her too. http://www.wdsu.com/news/13657113/detail.html

Do we need to stick the Palfrey thing in the lead? It seems minor overall. JoshuaZ 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Remove it.  There is a Palfrey section to the Wiki entry.  It serves no purpose to be inserted into the lead beyond defiling the Wiki as nothing more than a breaking news dump. Gabrielsutherland 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. The scandal should be documented, but it does not belong in the lead as it is a current event & not something that defines him as a person.--LSUMeathead 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone who can should immediately take out the "but he has not yet acted honorably by resigning from office in spite of his religious family values advocacy" bit. That's definitely a POV, whether you like the guy or his party or not. - Anonymous 10 July 2007


 * That's already been removed. Now, if no one objects in the next few hours I'm going to remove the Palfrey mention from the lead, since it isn't that major a scandal. JoshuaZ 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly think it should remain in the lead, it's the only thing in his resume that has garnered national attention. Agrippina Minor 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly think it should be REMOVED from the lead. For example, his opposition to the immigration bill and his work for Katrina has also garnered national attention.  If you do not remove it, I will.  Rockules318 19:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to WP:Lead,"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.[emphasis mine]" This needs to be in the lede.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But looking at other politicians who have been involved in similar scandals, that is not true. Bill Clinton's lead does nto even mention the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  So if we are going to apply sexual scandals to the leads, let's do it fairly across the board.--LSUMeathead 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The criteria for WP is not what is done on other pages. If other pages are deficient, then they should be corrected. The criteria for WP Lead is spelled out on WP:LEAD. I can list you hundreds of pages that include controversies in the lead.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pertinent examples: Bob Livingston -- his sex scandal is mentioned in the lede. His subsequent resignation brought Vitter into power. Randall L. Tobias whose Palfry involvement is included. Mark Foley. William J. Jefferson. The Bill Clinton article, in fact, does mention his charges of perjury, impeachment and subsequent acquittal in the lede. WP:Lead is clear.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * However, it the articles you cite, the scandals led to impeachment or resignation, thus not chronicling the scandal itself, but discussing the long term impact of the scandals. Nothing about JFK's, FDR's, or LBJ's extramarital affairs are in their respective headers.  Nothing about John McCain's Keating Five scandal is in his header.  Until this "scandal" leads to the resignation of Vitter does it belong in the header. Rockules318 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. However, WP:LEDE doesn't require resignation as the criteria for "notable". On-going controversies, using just one example, the dismissal of US attorneys, is mentioned in the ledes for Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson. I don't believe that either have resigned to-date. Nor has William J. Jefferson resigned. At this point, this controversy is notable. The affairs of FDR, JFK, LBJ (and DDE) were not notable -- had no impact on their careers. And comparing presidents with their weighty bios to a junior senator is (arguably) problematic. If you feel the McCain page is deficient, then I recommend changing it.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * William Jefferson was indicted. Vitter has not been.  Who knows, he may.  We do not know the long-term impact of this incident.  I do not feel the McCain page is deficient.  I feel this one is.  I'll let this stay in the header for a few weeks.  Then I think we can reevaluate it as to whether it is notable enough to stay in the header.  Rockules318 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Well, I may have worded "I'll let this stay" a little differently, but, certainly these matters should be open to constant reevaluation.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, Mary Jo Kopechne isn't mentioned on Ted Kennedy's header, either. Rockules318 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, Rockules, I have given several examples with on-going controversies (this is a controversy even if you surround it with scare quotes). The criteria for WP isn't what is or is not included on other pages but is guided by WP:LEDE. Do you really believe it is purposeful to have a battle of article quotes? The policy is clear -- notable controversy is appropriate.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So, who's the cretin who removed the factual bit about " "but he has not yet acted honorably by resigning from office in spite of his religious family values advocacy"? Someone who works for Vitter's office or campaign? It's true--he has not yet resigned from office in spite of all this. -- Whippersnapper, July 10, 2007


 * To User:WhipperSnapper: Please discuss these matters in a civil manner, per Wikipedia policy and assume good faith of other editors. Although I didn't remove it (I would have), this quotation that you are concerned about has several problems: a) It is a POV statement that is b) not attributed. If you find a reliable source that makes that assertion, then it is a candidate for inclusion.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  00:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be inclusion of Vitter's call for Clinton to resign
 * “I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess,” he said. [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]

with Republican Vincent Bruno's call for Vitter to resign:
 * State party member calls for Vitter’s resignation at http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070710/BREAKINGNEWS/70710025

Another hypocritical two-faced conservative, no way.


 * To 216.37.136.26 -- there are plenty of blogs and usenet groups where that sort of comment would be both welcome and productive. Wikipedia talk pages are not soap boxes. We welcome any discussion about improving the article.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

i read the discussion above, most of it very professional. i think there is a natural tension for any encyclopedia to be timeless and relevant at the same time. An article about ted kennedy at the time of the car accident and for several years beyond would likely have included, in the lead, a reference to the accident, even though it's not today. time has changed how most people view him and define him, reinforced by the fact he gets elected by large margins every cycle. i think for this article, this issue should be in the lead now; however, future events will dictate whether this is a blip or his political and/or personal undoing. If this becomes nothing more than a blip, and his constituents send him back, then i think it should not be in the lead. But for now, there is no doubt that this issue is a defining event and should be in the lead. All in all, i think the editors have done a fair job of giving both sides, including his full statement. Journalist1983 12:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Journalist1983 pretty much has it right. A few years from now, depending on what Vitter does between now and then, his career may rise or fall in such a way that the Palfrey scandal is no longer the most notable thing that he's accomplished as a politician -- but until then, I think even his most ardent supporters would have to admit that the Palfrey thing is, for the time being, the biggest thing he's done the whole time he's been in Congress. I mean, even most of the stuff included under the "Political actions and positions" subheads is mostly controversial statements as opposed to actual, substantive legislation. I'm not trying to ridicule anyone by pointing all this out, but the Palfrey scandal does seem to be what has defined his political career thus far -- and maybe one day he'll do something so important and momentous that it wipes all this from our collective memory, but until then, the Palfrey thing should stay in the lead. Captain Annoying 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Captain Annoying and Journalist1983. I believe it's time to end the semi-protection, incidentally. Why? Because nobody but long-term registered users can add information. This can effectively block new information that established users may be biased towards, yet is a solid, verifiable fact. For example: not one section contains the fact that Senator Vitter is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committe and holds a security clearance. It's verifiable with a quick search. As a result of Randall L. Tobias calling Ms. Palfrey's service, it's possible Vitter has committed an oversight failure. This can be proven eventually, but the basic facts are pertinent and deserve an airing. Individuals can challenge them after they've been posted for their veracity. User:Matt Janovic/MattJanovic 3:21 PM EST, September 20th, 2007. (Corrections on 22 September) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattJanovic (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, every member of the Senate and the House is, by virtue of their public office, entitled to read classified information without the normal security clearance process. While the Senate and House have their own processes for allowing members access to classified info (not any old Senator or Congressman can wander up and read whatever they want), there is no formal clearance granted to Senators or Representatives.  So, while members of the Foreign Relations Committee may deal more frequently with classified information than do other rank-and-file Senators, the only big difference is that members of that committee have authorization to read classified info (whereas other Senators don't have it by default, but can request it at their convenience).  In other words, Vitter and other members of the committee have the same access to classified info that any Senator can get if he/she wants it. --Folic Acid 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I kept searching on this, and it's not that easy to find the specifics. What search words could other users use to find these facts in a web search? I would still say that there are subtleties as to who can read 'Top Secret' clearance materials, it often gets-down to semantics when you're dealing with the intelligence world. I would argue that more senior members have a fuller access, and that they've fast-tracked Vitter in some areas, though I cannot prove this for obvious reasons. We should remember the issue of secrecy oaths as well, such as the case of Rockefeller writing his note about the warrantless surveillance program to cover himself. This is because he couldn't legally tip anyone off about it, he could have been arrested. They brief these guys and then they cannot talk about it. I should also correct what I previously wrote: Senator Vitter would be in-trouble for oversight failures as part of his responsibilities of oversight regarding the State Department and USAID, that would be more precise. Nonetheless, he surely qualifies for an ethics investigation, just as Larry E. Craig should, and both should for possibly committing felonies while holding office. I believe there are subtleties here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattJanovic (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanctity of marriage
I changed this paragraph:

Same-sex marriage
In 2003, Vitter proposed to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriages. 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." 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. 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." 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)
 * 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)


 * OK -- If no one disagrees with Media anthro, then fair enough. SmallRepair 20:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sanctity of marriage" was used as a reason to ban same-sex marriage; it's two ways of looking at the same issue. I support the header change. Have any news organizations made note of these comments in light of recent events?--Gloriamarie 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

speculation on Vitter stepping down
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)


 * 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.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although temporary, incumbency would give an advantage to the Democrat.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Enough already with "paraphrasing/synthisizing(sp)" material from articles. --Tom 17:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  18:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

INCOMING! Diapers, five hookers, and a love child with one of 'em
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)

Reaction deletion
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!  &#8756; Therefore  talk  17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  18:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly where in the Wikipedia policies, guidelines and standards does it say we can't paraphrase?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, I will back off. Thanks! --Tom 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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!  &#8756; Therefore  talk  19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Escort service vs. prostitution
Walkiped changed the heading from "Prostitution scandal" to "Escort service scandal" on the argument that "whether or not Pamela Martin and Associates was a prostitution business is a heavily disputed matter" which is true -- I don't know if "heavily disputed" is completely accurate, but disputed is right. However, the heading's section involves discussion of the D.C. Madame and of accusations from known prostitutes. Therefore, I'm changing the heading to "Controversy" unless someone can come up with a better idea.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  00:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the public commentary seriously questions the fact that what Vitter has admitted to is hiring prostitutes. Personally, I'd go with "Prostitution scandal."  In any case, "Controversial scandal" is redundant (what scandal isn't controversial?) and should be scrapped.--Media anthro 01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no kidding -- it's horrible, sorry. Change away to whatever you think is best.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.--Dr who1975 02:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Vitter hasn't admitted to hiring prostitutes. No "public commentary" has seriously claimed that Vitter has made such an admission. Palfrey claims that her business was an escort service, not a prositution business. That claim is currently being disputed in a federal court case. Per WP:BLP I'm changing the heading title back to "Escort service scandal". - Walkiped (T 05:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please address, then, that the scope of the paragraph encompasses more than just the DC Madame scandal? Realize, also, that four other editors disagree with your assessment. I would call that a consensus.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  05:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm open to section titles other than "Escort service scandal", but calling it "Prostitution scandal" when only Maier's accusation deals with prostitution (and that's not the one that's received the most press) is sensationalistic and mis-leading. - Walkiped (T 05:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about just "Scandal" or "Scandals" or "Controversy"? Or "Escortmonger"? (Please, sorry, I couldn't help myself -- I agree with your sentiments!) ;)  &#8756; Therefore  talk  05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm fine with "Scandal" or "Controversy", although ideally it'd be good to have a more descriptive title. Sorry I can't think of anything good right now... it's getting late for me. - Walkiped (T 05:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, way to late. I'll leave it up to other editors. (How about "'I did have sex with that women' scandal"?)  &#8756; Therefore  talk  05:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any cursory Google News search shows that news sources have been calling it a "prostitution scandal" among other things. Still, I suppose it's true that Vitter did not directly say, "I hired women for sex."
 * I'm fine with dumping "prostitution scandal" because I do see your point regarding the contested nature of Palfrey's business. I think the heading needs to accurately address the nature of the scandal surrounding Vitter, which goes beyond his involvement with Palfrey and includes allegations that he paid for sexual services. So how about "Sex scandal"?--Media anthro 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the more common epithet used in the media: CBS: "Vitter Back In Senate Amid Sex Scandal", Reuters: "US senator apologizes for sex scandal", LA Daily Advertiser: "Some say Vitter performance unlikely to end scandal", Time: "apologizing privately to GOP colleagues but refusing to take reporters' questions about a sex scandal that....", Houston Chronicle: "David Vitter, who is enmeshed in a sex scandal...." So, I vote for "Sex scandal" and will change accordingly.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "sex scandal" is appropriate. Thanks for being willing to work with me on this. - Walkiped (T 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sex scandal" violates WP:NPOV. See Words_to_avoid. "D.C. Madam phone records incident" or something similar is better. THF 23:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct that "scandal" is a weasel word best unused. But "controversy", per the same link, is proper. I'm not entirely comfortable with the term "Sex controversy" either -- something the editors on this page have been struggling with. Do you have a suggestion that would encompass all the subject matter which includes more than the Martin "incident" (a term as equally as iffy as "scandal")?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggested escort service controversy, but that was reverted with the strange edit summary that there wasn't talk-page discussion, when there has been talk-page discussion. THF 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that you have not discussed your changes, which (inadvertently) retread old arguments over this article. If you look above, you'll see that after some disagreement, three or four editors came to a consensus that escort service did not fully describe the situation.  It seemed as if your edit ignored all of that. --Proper tea is theft 01:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To be clear, Proper tea is theft was questioning your suggestion for "Pamela Martin phone records scandal", not "Escort service controversy". Hopefully someone will come up with a more expansive title but less sensationalistic than "Sex controversy".  &#8756; Therefore  talk  04:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion -- why not just call the section "Controversies"? That is commonly done. Thoughts?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

unbalanced tag
There is a distinct lack of WP:WFTE in this article. Surely Vitter has done something in Congress other than make remarks that his political opponents have ridiculed. THF 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed this hit and run tag. I recommend that you first attempt to resolve a dispute over WTFE (an essay and not policy nor even a guideline). In place of casting a vague declaration, specifically lay out where your concerns lie so that discussion may attempt to address them. Which part of your source "David Vitter is dedicated to making life better for his young family and all Louisiana families. He’s focused on putting Louisiana first as an independent and outspoken reformer, and on advancing mainstream conservative principles." do you recommend including? Which part of the sex controversy do you feel is written with POV? Should the article be tagged because editors (such as yourself) have not made the effort to include his entire resume? Because the article is sketchy, then the noteworthy controversy should correspondingly be incomplete?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll say WP:NPOV then, since you seem to be taking me too literally when I say WFTE. And since the following three paragraphs weren't immediately obvious to you, let me spell them out:

In the Senate, David serves on the Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation; Environment and Public Works; and Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Working on these committees allows David to focus on jobs, infrastructure, and economic development for every region of the state. He’s been particularly focused on lowering prescription drug prices, saving our coast, and preserving and improving Social Security for future generations.

Prior to his service in the U.S. Senate, David represented the First Congressional District of Louisiana from 1999 - 2004. During that tenure, he authored and passed legislation establishing a prescription drug program for military retirees, advancing missile defense, and cleaning up Lake Pontchartrain.

For his work in Congress, David has received numerous awards from leading organizations such as Americans for Tax Reform, the 60 + Association, and the Family Research Council.
 * The article violates NPOV, and the tag will be returned. THF 01:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article violates POV because the above components of his resume are not included? Which part of WP:NPOV are you utilizing to make this conclusion? Why don't you add these elements into the article? Please don't re-add tags without further discussion here to avoid an unnecessary edit war.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a fair tag. The purpose of which is to begin discussion here on the talk page. Please go ahead and address my questions above -- particularly which parts of the article are POV violations? Specificity and discussion is the purpose of the neutrality dispute tag, not simply tagging it and not talking. Thoughts?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The article violates WP:WEIGHT and is unbalanced. It consists almost entirely of anti-Vitter anecdotes and points of view. That's not a reason to dilute the notable incidents that reflect badly on Vitter (though one questions the notability of a couple of the anecdotes), but someone interested in writing a good encyclopedic article should do some research. Vitter has done more in eight years in Congress than make a couple of silly remarks about hurricanes, but one wouldn't know it from this article. The tag merely calls attention to this problem to other editors who have the time to spend on it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Democratic Party opposition research wiki. There's a reason other editors have adjudged this article to only be start-class, and it merits a tag to identify the problems with it. THF 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that isn't entirely accurate (not the sarcastic "not a Democratic party OR" remark -- that's just plain POV). Now that you have initiated the process of fixing POV problems with the page, your responsibility is to come and discuss them. Neutrality tags are, themselves, a POV issue. Defend the tag and let us come to agreement on how to repair the perceived problems. Hit and run tags are not generally welcome. Which anecdotes do you think should be removed? All articles are set as "start class" -- it doesn't change until a request has been made. I am not doubting your sense of it being POV -- just asking you to productively improve the article. That is the purpose of neutrality tags. If no discussion is forthcoming, then policy is to remove. May I suggest that you thread your discussion?   &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've discussed the reasons for the tag, and how the article can be improved. The tag stays until the problem is fixed.  You are confused about the purpose of neutrality tags: they are to notify readers that there is a dispute about the neutrality of the article.  Appropriately tagging articles is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, because it highlights problems for other editors by sorting the article into the NPOV controversy category. An editor with more time than I have can fix the problem, or perhaps you can. Right now, the vast majority of edits to the article have been to add nasty anecdotes about Vitter.  THF 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:NPOVD and I quote"Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."Your opinion about tagging, notwithstanding. So, again, I ask you to be specific. If the issue is the lack of certain elements of his resume, then that would satisfy your concerns? Which specific anecdotes do you object to? Specificity is critical, not the opinion of an editor. To tag, for you, I believe, was a first resort.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your characterization that most of the edits have been "nasty anecdotes". Many edits have been to correct POV additions to the article.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NPOVD "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral." If discussion has ended on this matter because the editor lacks the time to contribute productively, I will be removing the drive-by tag later this evening.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reread the sentence you quoted. Nothing there says that the editor who placed the tag must be the person who fixes the problem, it just says that the tag indicates the problem should be fixed.  I've identified a specific problem and pointed to specific issues, namely, the complete lack of balance in the article and the violation of WP:WEIGHT by devoting the article to Vitter's foibles.  That the article needs a complete rewrite that I don't have time to do myself does not mean that it satisfies NPOV.  See WP:TPFP.  THF 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean this sentence?"The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"Which part of "The editor who" doesn't apply to you? You have not pointed to specific issues. You've not answered one of my specific questions. Declaring "the complete lack of balance" doesn't make it so. "I think, therefore it is" isn't WP policy. As per NPOVD, if the only discussion involves process and repetition of your vague declarations, then removal of the drive-by tag is warranted unless this is follow up "by actual contributions to the article".  &#8756; Therefore  talk  03:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to play Argument Clinic. I've listed specific problems that editors need to address in my 1:29 comment; I've noted the "followed up by actual contributions" language nowhere requires the editor who placed the tag to be the one who fixes the problem, much less fix it on your timetable. I've noted WP:TPFP. If you want me to fix the problem, I'll be happy to spend a few minutes a day between now and 2008 trying to fix the problem, but I suggest that an editor who has the time to leave a dozen comments complaining on the talk page without once addressing the problem might have more time to fix it. THF 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If I agreed with your POV, then I would certainly do so. I do not. As per the unambiguous NPOVD, if you (or any other editor) does not participate in contributing to the article to repair perceived problems, then this temporary tag will be removed. I'm spending my time protecting the page from the graffiti of proscribed drive-by tagging.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOVD is policy. WP:TPFP is only a newly authored essay (as in July 31, 2007) authored, coincidenctly, by THF himself.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  03:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is undue weight toward the current events because they are.... current events. The news makes mention of this Scandal just about every other day. I agree that at some point it may be a good idea to shorten the extent to which Vitter's various scandals are discussed but that time is definetly not today or any time in the near future. If you look at the page for William J. Jefferson there is just as much weight on his scandal as the scandals on this page.--Dr who1975 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really uncommon for our articles on congresspersons to be biographical background plus all the controversies. Any member of congress has their name attached to so many "legislative accomplishments" which are so collective by their nature that very few make it in to their articles. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but where do you start? With what the candidate trumpets as their own accomplishments on their web site and press releases? Or by looking at THOMAS for all the bills they sponsored or co-sponsored? I've done both for two different other congressmen in the past, and wasn't satisfied with either. &larr;BenB4 08:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Upon review, I see that no sources have been challenged. WP:WEIGHT has to do with the quality of individual sources, not the choice of topics.  This is just an ordinary NPOV dispute (with which I agree -- there should be at least some positive accomplishment; although maybe it's telling that nobody complaining about it can find any.) So, I'm retagging it as such. &larr;Ben B4  16:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag
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)


 * 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 expand 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.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  04:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, this was the clincher from WP:UNDUE:"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints." and then the rest that you quoted.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've accordingly moved the pov tag to the disputed sections.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I understand your argument that the lack of meat in his biography gives the entire article a misleading feel. However, the purpose of the POV-section 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 POV-section. 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.   &#8756; Therefore  talk  05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

I very much resent the fact that I go to sleep between 2 and 7, and someone vandalizes the tag. Put the tag back immediately. THF 12:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Denied Relationship Controversy News Addition
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)

Controversies vs. "Sex Controversy"
I have a suggestion -- why not just call the section "Controversies"? That is commonly done. "Sex controversy" is sensationalistic (even if arguably descriptive) and doesn't belong. Thoughts?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  05:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought "Escort service controversy" was more accurate, fair, and less sensationalistic. &larr;BenB4 05:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you read the section above that addresses the concern that "Escort service" is inadequate? Thanks.


 * While "Controversies" is rather general, it seems a decent compromise for now.--Proper tea is theft 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Larry Flint gives Wendy Cortez a polygraph test

 * 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 &larr;Ben B4 13:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(reposted from User talk:MattJanovic)
Your edits to David Vitter violate at least a couple of Wikipedia guidelines or norms, including WP:LEAD and WP:OR. A lead (intro) section should summarize the article in a balanced way, while your version dwells on the prostitution scandal. Additionally, Wikipedia articles must not engage in original research, which is "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories" as well as "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." So for instance, this:

''Specifically, since the evening of July 9th of 2007, the public has been aware of his five calls to Pamela Martin & Associates spanning 1999-2001, which could have been repeated 'Master 9 severity' violations under District of Columbia prostitution statutes. It's unclear whether this could impair his ability to continue serving as a ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights. This is a subcommitte of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.''

...probably violates the policy against original research.

One way to avoid original research is to post information that have been published in reliable sources and to cite them. --Proper tea is theft 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're being partisan and your own objectivity is questionable for the removals--the research is published at www.yardbird.com, by Bill Keisling. However, all of the basic information is searchable and verifiable. Until you can disprove it, I'm reposting it. Look at the talk page--the scandal is what he's known for nationally. Best to let the board decide, frankly. I wouldn't leave it to you. There's nothing in the additions that has a POV. Where's the POV exactly? He's on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--this is a commonly known fact. He has oversight over USAID and the State Deptartment--also a fact. DC prostitution statutes describe seeing a prostitute as a "Master 9 severity" offense. If it helps you, you might know that I neither like or care for either the DNC or the GOP, I'm a Socialist. There's nothing in there that isn't factual. :--MattJanovic7:00 PM, EST, 09.23.2007
 * If you'll read the link I posted above regarding reliable sources, you'll see that yardbird.com likely does not qualify.
 * Additionally, it is your obligation to provide citations or support for any edits that you make. It is never mine or anyone else's job to "disprove" your edits.
 * That aside, there is also the issue of such a lengthy and speculative chunk of text in the intro regarding the prostitution scandal. As someone else above has pointed out, WP:LEAD says:
 * The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.
 * My main concern here is that the additions you continue to make here violate these policies and guidelines.--Proper tea is theft 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And I tend to strongly disagree. The sources are reliable, and you are not. Fortunately, you're not the final word, either. Additions are the context you're speaking of, they stand alone as factual. But hide behind a psudonym, that's fine. I'll use my own name, I have nothing to hide.
 * --MattJanovic 3:44 PM, September 24th, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattJanovic (talk • contribs) 19:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Proper tea is theft. I think, Matt, that it would be best if you carefully review the policies of Wikipedia as carefully outlined by Tea. Please keep your comments civil without attacking other editors. Tea has carefully outlined the problems with your additions. &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the fourth attempt by Matt to insert this information. There are several problems:


 * Don't put so much information in the lede. If you want this info in the article, it belongs in the body of the article in an appropriate section.


 * Regardless, yardbird.com is not a valid citation for Wikipedia. Find an appropriate citation.


 * Including "As of September 18th, 2007, there has been no serious oversight or ethics investigation of Senator Vitter. though Senate Ethics Committee probes are usually confidential at their inception. It's unclear whether any of these facts about Vitter have caught the attention of other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Ethics Committee, and other members of the Senate" as if it was part of the Marianne Means citation is false. Please provide an alternative source. &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt -- thanks for no longer adding this detail to the Lede. However, let me outline why I continue to revert your edits:


 * Yardbird.com is not a reliable source. Please read up in detail what that entails. In particular: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." This is not a published source. And again:"Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."Yardbird.com has no such structures. And more:"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Yardbird.com is none of those. More:"Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."


 * That aside, where in the yardbird article does it state:"But more specifically, since the evening of July 9th of 2007, the public has been aware that the five calls to Pamela Martin & Associates spanning 1999-2001, could have been repeated 'Master 9 severity' violations under District of Columbia prostitution statutes." Answer: nowhere. So where is the citation for this "fact"? The "public is aware" is not a valid Wikipedia citation. Ditto for:". It's unclear whether this could impair his ability to continue serving as a ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights."


 * You add:"Another factor could cause Senator Vitter some very serious problems within the Senate: he had Senate Foreign Relations Committee oversight responsibilities over the State Department when the Palfrey scandal had broken in the Spring of 2007. These oversight failures were specifically breached by inadequate oversight (known as 'oversight failures') of Randall L. Tobias,"None of this is stated in the article. It doesn't use the phrase "oversight failures". The article doesn't state nor even imply that Vitter was responsible for Tobias. And all the detail about Tobias is irrelevant for this page. I'm sure it is part of the Tobias page.

Matt, you can be a productive editor but you really need to stick to the Wikipedia guidelines here. One thing: instead of making unilateral edits, come to the talk page and discuss and defend your suggestions. Also, please be careful and preview your edits. You probably didn't notice that your changes caused some serious formatting problems with the citations. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)