Talk:David Vitter/Archive 2

LFF Section
I am removing the LFF portion as it is libelous to LFF and the executive director. The section only cites one newspaper editorial that is extremely biased and is part of a larger agenda against Louisiana conservative causes. Attempted edits to clear up the libel problem were removed by Therefore before sources could be added. Since Therefore appears to be unwilling to allow time to cite the press releases, the only option to prevent libel against the mentioned individuals is to remove the section until Therefore is willing to assist in a fairer edit or until archived LFF press releases can be located. Cheers Anothersliceofhistory 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The source is not an editorial but a front page news article. You can't just state by fiat that it is libel without some detail. The source is reliable. Provide a contrary viewpoint from a reliable source. Removing the section can be considered vandalism. &#8756; Therefore | talk 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Therefore, please remember to assume good faith, even if you don't agree. User:Anothersliceofhistory seems to be relatively new, at least, and may not be familiar with the rules.  I'll continue to offer my help to him, and hopefully we can get this sorted out.  Cheers Folic_Acid 00:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, could you please highlight from the above text which part doesn't assume good faith? In fact, I am doing just that. Assuming good faith does not imply that I can't correct the facts. The two editors on this page vandalized this article twice by deleting the entire, sourced section. I needed to get the help of another editor via WP:ANI to reverse this as I didn't want to revert more than 3 times. And another administrator thinks the page may need to be protected. I wish that you had done the reversion but I'm sure you didn't notice the vandalism. See? I do assume good faith. ;) Please review: Assume the assumption of good faith. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken. :)  I'm just trying not to bite the newbies.  Carry on!  Folic_Acid 01:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right -- I've been more officious than necessary. I attempted (in the next section) to detail the reasons I reverted the changes. I welcome these users to work on a consensus paragraph to correct any biases it may have. &#8756; Therefore | talk 01:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully explained my reasoning here before I blanked the section. Libel is not allowed on a living individual and since Therefore would not allow the edits I suggested, he was libeling the executive director of LFF.  The only way to prevent this was to blank the section until Therefore was willing to work with me on a more NPOV writing of the article - which I offered.  He seems to think reverting the change and forcing us to work for him is the only way to proceed.  I have invited cooperation and he is accusing of vandalism and sockpuppetry.  I think his continued revisions of our edits is vandalism - I mean everyone has an opinion right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothersliceofhistory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, everyone has an opinion. But opinion is not to be included in Wikipedia. You never explained why it was libelous. Simply saying, "Hey, it's libelous" is quite a distance from "I fully explained my reasoning". If libelous, your issue is with the Times-Picayune and not Wikipedia. Deleting a section is vandalism. This paragraph is properly sourced and another editor reverted your deletion. An administrator has considered protecting the page. &#8756; Therefore | talk 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Louisiana Forum section
Both User:Anothersliceofhistory and User:Araphel made identical edits: and they both blanked the section. Presuming they are not disallowed sock puppets and recognizing they may not be aware that section blanking is vandalism, I will discuss the reason for my reverts here:


 * They want to change"the Louisiana Family Forum, known for supporting the removal of the teaching of evolution" to read:"the Louisiana Family Forum, known for supporting a balanced approach of creation and evolution" This is not supported by the source which states:"[The] group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties." The statement "a balanced approach" is point-of-view. Edit: Here is more of the source's statement:"The group's stated mission is to 'persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking.' Until recently, its Web site contained a 'battle plan to combat evolution,' which called the theory a 'dangerous' concept that 'has no place in the classroom.' The document was removed after a reporter's inquiry."


 * They want to add:"' It is unclear if the earmark was meant for the group's 501(c)(4) 'Action arm' or 501(c)(3) which"which is original research unsupported by the source.


 * They want to add:"Although the group originally encouraged Vitter's 2004 senatorial campaign, it has been critical of the senator in several press releases and YouTube videos."again, unsourced.


 * They want to change:"Two members were hired by Vitter's office during his 2004 senatorial campaign and the group has been a proponent for Vitter. In particular, the Executive Director defended him in the D.C. Madam controversy."to read:"An editorial published by The Times-Picayune is highly critical of both the senator and Louisiana Family Forum and draws a connection of 'close ties' by correctly pointing out that two members of the organization were hired by Vitter's office during his 2004 senatorial campaign and that the group has praised Vitter when he voted for measures the group supported" The source used is not an editorial but a news article. And no explanation why the deletion of the support offered to Vitter by the group which is properly sourced. &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm doubtful that they are socks, since User:Araphel was created in March and has a varied edit history, and User:Anothersliceofhistory was an account created in October. Still, it bears watching.  As for the edits in question as currently written, they do seem to run counter to the WP:NPOV policy.  I'd suggest that Anothersliceofhistory and Araphel try rewording their edits to be more neutral, or provide sourcing for their edits.  Folic_Acid 20:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest that they discuss suggested changes here first, as is common Wikipedia policy. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 00:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you not read my section directly above this new section you created? I told you exactly why I blanked the section.  The entire section is written on the basis of reading the one newspaper article AND LACKS A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW!  You are welcome not to call the newspaper article an editorial if you want - but the article is written with an obvious bias against Vitter and Louisiana Family Forum (which is generally to objective readers considered more editorial in nature than neutral).  Other contemporaneous writings of the newspaper writer and of the newspaper reveal slants against the senator and LFF.  Both the edits made by me and Araphel are much more balanced than the original section as they incorporate an additional aspect that is not revealed by the newspaper article.

I have made some additions (which I promised earlier I would make - and even asked Therefore's help in doing so - but Therefore decided to call me a sockpuppet (even after Folic_Acid doubted this assertion) and removed my additions without any presumption of an innocent intent to better the article - who looks more POV oriented?) Let me address each of your concerns here:


 * Actually, your complaint is not with the article but with the source. You claim the source (the front page TP news article) lacks a neutral point of view. But that is not how Wikipedia works. It is a reliable source. Your responsibility is not to "correct" reliable sources as that is a violation of no original research. Instead, your responsibility is to find another reliable source that balances the one in the article. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * the change to: "the Louisiana Family Forum, known for supporting a balanced approach of creation and evolution" is supported in the Times-Picayune article which states: "Gene Mills, the group's executive director, said it is not the Family Forum's intention to displace the teaching of evolution in science classrooms, only supplement it with other views." Now since this sentence is about what activities the group is involved with - the Director's own comments about the groups motivations and intentions about A PROPOSED USE OF AN EARMARK is probably a better revelation about the groups true intentions than a newspaper writer's article who is on the outside looking in!  POV is appropriate here as the article is talking about what the group is about.  If Therefore would like to propose a different way of writing this sentence that has a more NPOV then let him write it - however - this edit should remain as the old way of writing incorrectly reports what the group is about.


 * Really, no need for all caps. Provide the link for that quote and we can incorporate it. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My edit which states "' It is unclear if the earmark was meant for the group's 501(c)(4) 'Action arm' or 501(c)(3)" is an un-reported piece of information that I have gathered. There is simply no "source" to cite here as nobody cares.  My reason of writing my edit was to correct the mistaken assertion originally written which stated "Even though the Louisiana Family Forum is forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status"  If Therefore wants to keep this type of statement in then HE needs to provide some type of source that indicates the 501(c)(3) has engaged in political activity that is outside the 501(c)(3) ability.  (This will be difficult as even 501(c)(3)s are allow limited political activity.)


 * If there is no "source" then it can't be included. Please take the time and read up on Wikipedia policies that I've quoted. It is not up to me to disprove your original research. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement "Although the group originally encouraged Vitter's 2004 senatorial campaign, it has been critical of the senator in several press releases and YouTube videos." is now supported by sources. I promised you earlier that sources were coming soon and that my edits were only an attempt to prevent the blatant libel that was on the page at the time.  I even asked for Therefore's help - but I think I have addressed that fully above.


 * I've already addressed Therefore's final item.

I understand that Vitter is a controversial political figure since the revelation of his alleged infidelity with a prostitute - however - Therefore taking out his political vengeance against Vitter by forcing inaccurate reporting about LFF is irresponsible. Anothersliceofhistory 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got a suggestion for Anothersliceofhistory. All you have to do is find a decent source for this stuff. It is actually ok for a wikipedia page two have two conflicting points of view on it as long as the basis for those points of view are well sourced. It's simple.--Dr who1975 02:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion Dr who. I see that you undid my revision without providing any reason for the revision.  Can you assist me in understanding how I did not support my edits with sources?  I agree that an article can have two points of view - which I believe I tried to accommodate by leaving the text as close to the original while still correcting mistakes.  Isn't this what Wikipedia is all about!?!  After being accused of being a sockpuppet, I kind of wonder if you and Therefore are the same person.  Just to be fair I will make the same invitation to you that I did to Therefore - please assist me in writing a NPOV article.  I feel that my last edit that is supported on the discussion page by a thorough explanation and is backed up by sources is an NPOV edit.  I will leave my edit alone until tomorrow to wait and see if you desire to assist in the NPOV edit. Anothersliceofhistory 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Above, I outlined the problems with your additions. Please use that as a guide and review the core Wikipedia policies: reliable sources, no point-of-view and verifying. For the record, the Request for Check User concluded "Possible on a technical level" which means"that by IP comparison, it is entirely possible that the accounts are owned by the same person, but that it is not possible to prove it definitively, nor is it possible to definitiviely prove they are not owned by the same person."Bottom line: you two share a very similar IP which, given your statement that you don't know the other user, seems unique.


 * Also, please review don't modify more than three times -- you are up to three. Unless, of course, your buddy chimes in again. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly what verified, reliable sources did you include in your changes? Address my particular concerns above and I'm sure we can come to an agreement within the policies of Wikipedia. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are my proposed changes.


 * ==== Louisiana Family Forum earmark ====

In September, 2007, Vitter earmarked $100,000 in federal money for a Christian group, the Louisiana Family Forum, known for supporting a balanced approach of creation and evolution in public schools. The earmark was included in the labor, health and education financing bill for 2008, with the intent "to develop a plan to promote better science education." It is unclear if the earmark was meant for the group's 501(c)(4) "Action arm" or 501(c)(3) which is forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status. Although the group originally encouraged Vitter's 2004 senatorial campaign, it has been critical of the senator in several press releases and YouTube videos. An editorial published by The Times-Picayune was highly critical of both the senator and Louisiana Family Forum and draws a connection of "close ties" by pointing out that two members of the organization were hired by Vitter's office during his 2004 senatorial campaign and that the group has praised Vitter when he voted for measures the group supported. Further investigation, however, reveals that the individuals cited were not employed or involved in leadership roles within the organization during Vitter's Senate campaign. Both individuals, Dan Richey and Beryl Amedee, joined the LFF leadership team in 2005. After Hustler's Larry Flynt and a prostitute alleged infidelity against the senator, the non-profit organization released a press release praising the senator's wife for standing by her man and not rushing to judgment after being compared to the impeached former President's wife and current New York senator Hillary Clinton.

On October 17, 2007, the liberal organization People For the American Way along with other organizations who stand opposite the senator on social values asked the Senate to remove the earmark. Later that same day, Vitter withdrew the earmark request.


 * I can't get my links to work - oh well I'm a newbie at Wikipedia. The links are: http://www.lafamilyforum.us/FFarchives/v9i11.htm ; http://www.lafamilyforum.us/FFarchives/v9i13.htm ; http://www.lafamilyforum.us/FFarchives/v9i29.htm ; http://youtube.com/watch?v=d7vDSF0IkuE.


 * Here is Gene Mill's response to the the "editorial." A friend emailed me a copy:

reationists just want to balance science classes Times-Picayune, The (New Orleans, LA) October 2, 2007

Estimated printed pages: 2

Re: "Creationists are Vitter's latest hookup," Other Opinions, Sept. 26.

I am writing to respond to James Gill's column describing a proposal by U.S. Sen. David Vitter to allocate $100,000 toward science education improvements in Louisiana. The proposal in Congress, which has not yet passed, tapped Louisiana Family Forum as the local agency to administer these funds, if approved.

Louisiana Family Forum is a statewide nonprofit education and research organization charged with providing a voice for traditional families in Louisiana. Funding for research of all scientific models, a permissible taxpayer-funded objective according to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, should be encouraged in a thinking and open America. In our free society, this even includes refinements and outright challenges to current ideas regarding the origin of life. Given the opportunity, the truth will indeed set us free.

Numerous scientists and teachers across Louisiana agree with Louisiana Family Forum's findings that factual inaccuracies and uncritical teaching of controversial subjects pose a serious threat to students, families and our communities.

Louisiana Family Forum commends Sen. Vitter for assessing correctly this threat and attempting to address it through educational initiatives.

Whether this proposal passes in its current form, or whether Louisiana Family Forum will administer the funds, remains to be seen.

What is clear is that Louisiana's students deserve to hear all sides of scientific discovery and debate, even those that some would prefer to keep off limits.

Gene Mills

Executive Director

Louisiana Family Forum

Baton Rouge Memo: Letters Section: METRO - EDITORIAL Page: 06

Copyright, 2007, The Times-Picayune Publishing Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Used by NewsBank with Permission. Record Number: 422790589 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothersliceofhistory (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good start. Let's parse. One at a time -- be patient, there is a lot to discuss here. I'm going to break it down into sections.

Description of Mission

 * "Known for supporting a balanced approach of creation and evolution in public schools." vs. the current "known for supporting the removal of the teaching of evolution in public schools." As noted above, the Times-Picayune supports the statement whereas the former is a point-of-view statement. Edit: here are the pertient quotes from the article:"[The] group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties. ... The group's stated mission is to 'persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking.' Until recently, its Web site contained a 'battle plan to combat evolution,' which called the theory a 'dangerous' concept that 'has no place in the classroom.' The document was removed after a reporter's inquiry." If you would like to extend the section, then it is possible to state:"reported by the Times-Picayune to be known for combating the teaching of evolution in the classroom. However, the group itself describes its mission as 'blah blah blah'." Please feel in that blank *and* provide a source from LFF that supports this statement. Thoughts? (additional sections will the forthcoming) &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already provided the source. Its in the same article. "Gene Mills, the group's executive director, said it is not the Family Forum's intention to displace the teaching of evolution in science classrooms, only supplement it with other views."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothersliceofhistory (talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this:
 * As stated by the organization itself, the Louisiana Family Foundation advocates for the teaching of both evolution and creationism in public schools.

Folic_Acid 04:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, color me obtuse, but which source are you referring to? The three LFF links, the TP article nor the letter to the editor appears to have this quote. I'm sure I'm missing it, so point me in the right direction and then we can include both the TP characterization and LFF's. Are you referring to the editorial which isn't a source? What is the link to the editorial. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in a neutral statement. This will include a verified reliable source that states that the group intention's are to combat the teaching of evolution. The source clearly supports this. Whether it is true or not is not relevant here. I'm more than happy to include LFF's position on this matter. Just need a good source. 04:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: I found the source that ASOH is using:  a cite not part of the original section and is another news article and not an editorial.  This, then, is my suggested rewrite:"In September, 2007, Vitter earmarked $100,000 in federal money for a Christian group, the Louisiana Family Forum, reported by the Times-Picayune to be known for combating the teaching of evolution in public schools though the group stated that its aim is to supplement the teaching of evolution."

Use of letter to the editor
Please get your friend to find out the date of this letter plus the page number. Then we can use this with a complete reference. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * addressed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothersliceofhistory (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ack! I see! I'm blind. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Target of earmark
You want to add: "It is unclear if the earmark was meant for the group's 501(c)(4) 'Action arm' or 501(c)(3)" I could not find in any of the LFF sources nor the letter to the editor that supports this statement. If you can provide a source, then it should stay, though I would recommend that it be written less technically. It isn't clear what the point of the section is. But a proper source will make that obvious. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My only reason for adding was simply to replace the unfounded assertion that the group is engaging in illegal political activity. I was trying to leave some semblance of what the original author wrote.  Maybe your correct that this is not appropriate.  But I also believe the statement "Even though the Louisiana Family Forum is forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status" lacks a NPOV.  I think the whole section that tries to draw connections between LFF and Vitter has been substantially disproved by verfiable sources from LFF.  The two individuals did not work for LFF at the time of working for Vitter.  Also, LFF is just like any other advocacy group - it praises politicians when they vote the way they want and writes disapprovingly when they vote opposite the group's position.  The sources I added indicate that by showing that LFF PUBLICLY disagreed with Vitter on numerous occassions.  Surely the objective individual would read this as the typical behavior of a public interest group and doesn't indicate "close ties" as much as public advocacy.  Your welcome to attempt to write an edit of this to reflect a NPOV but if written correctly it indicates that these sentences really don't have any substance and should be removed from the article.  I would recommend something along the lines of "The Times-Picayune attempted to draw a connection between Vitter and LFF but press releases from the group indicate that the group has no more connections to Vitter than any other Louisiana politician." Anothersliceofhistory 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be entirely appropriate to add in the statements that balance out the TP's article -- just provide the source. We assuredly don't want the reader to infer that, in fact, the organization was involved with illegal activity. The TP article states:"The group's tax-exempt status prohibits the Louisiana Family Forum from political activity, but Vitter has close ties to the group."which I don't think does imply such a thing. Nor does this section go any further than the source. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article is necessarily claiming that LFF is engaging in political activity, but I think you are right in that it's probably exaggerating the ties between Vitter and the group. Perhaps it could be reworded to say something like "Though not directly connected, LFF and Vitter often agree on many social positions, and  former Vitter staff members have subsequently been employed by LFF." I'm not sure if that's really very notable though, so take that with a grain of salt. Folic_Acid 04:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat myself -- this is the core standard of Wikipedia:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."The section appropriately attributes the quote to TP. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to determine if a source is "exaggerating" -- that is a violation of No original research. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Support and criticism of Vitter
You want to replace"Even though the Louisiana Family Forum is forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status, the group has 'close ties' with Vitter according to The Times-Picayune."with"lthough the group originally encouraged Vitter's 2004 senatorial campaign, it has been critical of the senator in several press releases and YouTube videos" The original statement is verifiable so we need to incorporate the criticism with your sources (however, Youtube can't be used). I would suggest:"Even though the Louisiana Family Forum is forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status, the group has 'close ties' with Vitter according to The Times-Picayune. In spite of this, the group has criticized Vitter previously for his support of Rudy Giuliani." You only need, then, the first LFF reference for this. The second reference is redundant, particularly because it simply restates the same thing from the same group. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this has been addressed above. The reference of "close ties" is fluff by the Times-Picayune and should be removed as it lacks real content.  You are welcome to try to better defend your position for including.  Not every published word desires to be quoted and since this article is about a living politician editors should err on the side of not printing "fluff." Anothersliceofhistory 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

501(c)(3)s are not "forbidden" from political activity. That statement shows lack of understanding regarding 501(c)(3) status. See the 501(c)(3) page. 501(c)(3)s cannot collaborate with political candidates or endorse candidates. It's mindless to continue using this sentence, even if some reporter did include it in a newspaper. It doesn't comport with the facts. Araphel 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the most difficult thing about Wikipedia -- it is a shock to all new users including me. From verifiabilty:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."You may believe that TP's use of the term "close ties" is fluff and it may well be so. But it comes from a verifiable reliable source and that is what counts. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To be clear: my position for including it is because it is a verifiable reliable source and therefore meets the standard for inclusion in Wikipeida. 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my suggested rewrite:"Though the Louisiana Family Forum is forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status, the group has 'close ties' with Vitter according to The Times-Picayune. However the group has criticized Vitter for his support of Rudy Giuliani."

Ties between Vitter and LFF
You want to add:"Further investigation, however, reveals that the individuals cited were not employed or involved in leadership roles within the organization during Vitter's Senate campaign. Both individuals, Dan Richey and Beryl Amedee, joined the LFF leadership team in 2005"but your only reference is: "nterview with LFF Vice President, Jason Stern". However, this is, unfortunately, not a reliable source. How can this be verified, the cornerstone of Wikipedia? Furthermore, to keep it written with a neutral voice, we would want to make say something like, "According to the Vice President of LFF, the individuals etc." But, before we cross that bridge, let's come up with a reliable source. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Louisiana Family Forum's Wiki has good cites for this information. According to citations, Richey consults for LFF Action - began doing so in 2005. Amedee was appointed the new Education Council Chair in 2007. Araphel 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Wiki's are not allowed as a reliable source nor are blogs. Wikipedia itself can't be used as a source. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good gracious Therefore - you love rules! His point was to show that the unsubstantiated claim is inappropriate.  Instead of rushing to correct him you should rush to fix the article to remove incorrect material. Anothersliceofhistory 04:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I always want to correct statements that are not verifiable from reliable sources. The TP article is a reliable source. You disagree with the source. But that is a violation of no original research. To add in the information he wants to add would also violate no original research.


 * You'll find that all Wikipedia editors "like rules". I really think you are viewing WP more as a blog. However, if you would like to take the issue of whether WP is governed by rules, then we can reuqest arbitraion on the question. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My suggestion for the "shortened version" at Talk:David Vitter is to exclude all mention of the "details" of said "close ties" and let the interested reader go to the source. &#8756; Therefore | talk 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say use their wiki as a source, Therefore. I said their wiki PROVIDES CITATIONS THAT YOU CAN UTILIZE.  Araphel 01:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. Give me the links to said wiki and I will review the citations they list. &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vitter ties with the group
You want to state:"An editorial published by The Times-Picayune was highly critical of both the senator and Louisiana Family Forum and draws a connection of 'close ties' by pointing out that two members of the organization were hired by Vitter's office during his 2004 senatorial campaign and that the group has praised Vitter when he voted for measures the group supported."However, as I have stated previously, the source for this information is not the editorial but instead the news article. The qualifying statment, "the group has praised Vitter when he voted for measures the group supported" is not in the source. Therefore, I would argue that the verifiable sourced statement should stand as is. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lary Flynt
You want to add:"After Hustler's Larry Flynt and a prostitute alleged infidelity against the senator, the non-profit organization released a press release praising the senator's wife for standing by her man and not rushing to judgment after being compared to the impeached former President's wife and current New York senator Hillary Clinton."but there is no source for this. This LFF source doesn't discuss Larry Flynt. Nor did they use the term "standing by her man". However, the use of this source could support changing the statement from:"In particular, the Executive Director defended him in the D.C. Madam controversy." to read:"In particular, the Executive Director offered support for Vitter in the D.C. Madam controversy by saying, 'LFF commends the Vitters for remembering that marriage is worth preserving and that family is the cornerstone of society.'" &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about After Hustler's Larry Flynt and a prostitute alleged infidelity against the senator (see D.C. Madam section of article), the non-profit organization released a press release praising the senator's wife for standing by her man and not rushing to judgment after being compared to the impeached former President's wife and current New York senator Hillary Clinton. The organization press release stated, "Most compelling was Wendy Vitter's assertion that 'I am proud to be Wendy Vitter,' and proclaiming that her 'marriage is stronger today than ever before.'"  Your suggested phrase "offered support for Vitter in the D.C. Madam controversy" is the misleading type of statement that needs to be corrected.  This statement incorrectly leads the reader to assume the press release was a measure to support Vitter.  Instead it was a release that praised WENDY VITTER for sticking it out and not giving up on her marriage like the media was suggesting she would have a right to do. Anothersliceofhistory 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK -- Let's clear this up (and hopefully with a lot less verbiage to avoid giving this section undue weight. According to the LFF source (which is what we are depending upon):"LFF commends the Vitters for remembering that marriage is worth preserving and that family is the cornerstone of society."which is offering support for the both of them. Let the "D.C. Madam controversy" fill in all the details you want to add. How about this:"In particular, the Executive Director offered support for Vitter and his wife in the D.C. Madam controversy by saying, 'LFF commends the Vitters for remembering that marriage is worth preserving and that family is the cornerstone of society.'" Really, "standing by her man" when it isn't sourced (and if it was, it would have to be attributed) is very unencyclopedic. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My thoughts - its a wiki and not an encyclopedia. Anothersliceofhistory 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is where I think our disagreement lies. A Wiki as at LFF is basically a blog. Wikipedia has a set of standards that I have referenced repeatedly. I would recommend reading them and then come and contribute since you obviously have good ideas -- they just need to fit within WP's standards. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My suggestion for the "shortened version" at Talk:David Vitter is to exclude any mention of this. &#8756; Therefore | talk 13:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to the earmark
You want to change:"On October 17, 2007, the progressive orgranization People For the American Way along with more than 30 scientific, educational, civil liberties and religious groups asked the Senate to remove the earmark."to read: On October 17, 2007, the liberal organization People For the American Way along with other organizations who stand opposite the senator on social values asked the Senate to remove the earmark. I have no problem with the term "liberal" which accurately portrays the organizataion. However, your characterization of these groups as standing "opposite the senator on social values" is a point-of-view, editorial statement nor supported by the sources. I would argue that the original, descriptive, neutral statement should stay. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The response by Gene Mills to the Times-Picayune article addresses this somewhat. Let's not kid ourselves.  This attempt at perfect NPOV is not achievable. I don't have time to sit here and nickpick over EVERY WORK OF THIS ARTICLE.  You don't have a problem with labeling the group liberal.  Do you have a problem labeling Vitter conservative?  Surely the statement "opposite the senator on social values" reflects that they are opposite on views.  This is not POV oriented!  On the other hand, trying to bolster People for American's claim by stating they have the support of scientific, educational, civil liberties, and religious groups writes the article in a way that makes Vitter sound like he wide base disapproval when only LIBERALS were against the earmark.  I mean this is ridiculous - every sentence shouldn't have to read, "Liberals say this...conservatives say this."  Get off your high horse and realize that just because you don't like what another editor posts doesn't mean you are correct!  Some of what other people put on Wikipedia should be allowed to stay without having to defend word for word what you disagree with.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothersliceofhistory (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Another - like it or not, WP:NPOV is an ironclad rule on Wikipedia, and it must be followed. Achieving a neutral point of view is difficult, make no mistake, but it requires good faith on the part of all involved editors and the willingness to achieve consensus.  Please don't take any of this personally, but rather, continue to hammer out a good, NPOV section that we can all live with.  Respectfully Folic_Acid 04:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Addressed to ASOH: It is standard Wikipedia policy to use the terms "conservative" and "liberal" and qualifying the sources as such is mandatory when they represent a POV. The section quotes the sources. I have no problem with including a reliable source that states that "this group and that group" thought the earmark was a good idea. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Folic_Acid. I'm just getting aggravated because Therefore feels the need to challenge every word of this edit.  I'll retract most of my last post here to state that I disagree that "opposite the senator on social values" is a POV statement.  IF liberal is not POV then opposite liberal is not POV.

"I have no problem with including a reliable source that states that 'this group and that group' thought the earmark was a good idea." Fine - then go find a source that says it. I'm not doing your homework for you. I would also support a reading that said "On October 17, 2007, Vitter withdrew the earmark after the liberal organization People for the American Way asked the Senate to remove the earmark." Anothersliceofhistory 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I'll pass on your kind offer for me to do that research. Thanks, though.


 * The statment:"along with more than 30 scientific, educational, civil liberties and religious groups" is supported by the source:"More than 30 organizations have joined forces to urge the U.S. Senate to remove a provision from an appropriations bill that directs tax money to a Louisiana group that promotes creationism. ... Groups endorsing the letter come from the scientific, educational, civil liberties and religious communities. They include Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Association of University Women, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, the National Education Association, the National Science Teachers Association and the Union for Reform Judaism."Should we really list all 30? The article acknowledges that "People for the American Way" is a sourced liberal group -- which satisifed the need for neutrality. I would argue that your statement somehow connects the two events. I'm willing to bet that Vitter didn't even know about this -- he withdrew it because of pressure from fellow congress members. &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Therefore's proposed rewriting?
After an all day affair I am afraid that Therefore is stuck in defending a non-neutral POV based on one source (granted it fits all the requirements of being a verifiable source). He has done a great job of pointing to every Wikipedia policy possible but refuses to sit down with integrity and attempt to actually try to achieve the one bulwark policy, NPOV. When one source is the basis for inaccurate reporting, silly results occur. I can no longer sit here and defend sockpuppeting attacks and all the nickpicking suggestions. I have made more than adequate points about the basis for a revision to this section but it is obvious that an unspoken agenda by Therefore refuses to allow him to actually agree to substantive changes. At the end of the day, this earmark was shot down, and was really only reported in the (major) media by this one article. As a result I recommend removing this entire section as it is inconsequential to the history of Vitter's office and as shown here unfairly and inaccurately reports on another organization that is not the subject of this article. Should complete removal not be supported a simple statement stating, "In September, 2007, Vitter earmarked $100,000 in federal money for Louisiana Family Forum for the stated purpose 'to develop a plan to promote better science education.' After opposition from liberal groups, Vitter withdrew the earmark request." This simple statement would be in line with the policy of not placing undue weight on an insignificant section. Also, I would request that others review the entire talk page for the article and see how many times Therefore has defended that this page does not lack a NPOV. Why is he so vehemently fighting to keep the content in this article? Anothersliceofhistory 05:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate you questioning my integrity. Here's a new rule for you: act civilly.


 * How do we determine that the source is inaccurate? I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you -- if you get to the point where I believe you've actually read some of Wikipedia's policies, then I will be happy to discuss it further. "Truth" isn't the goal here. "Verifiability" is. Also, the withdrawal of the earmark was covered in several sources. I am vehemently defending the standards of Wikipedia. If you took the time to review all of my edits to this article, you will see I make every effort to keep the tone neutral. I defend the inclusion of the article with the compromise changes listed above. To exclude verified facts from the article would, in fact, be a detriment to the NPOV of the article. Remember: your complaint is with the source. Write a letter to the editor. Wikipedia depends on sources. Your responsibility is to find alternative sources that balance the paragraph. &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My point exactly Therefore. You point out policies but don't correct the problem when a point you like is refuted.  Why don't you show everyone that you are able to compromise and agree to the shortened version that accurately reflects the insignificance of this topic?Anothersliceofhistory 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read all the above sections that discuss these matters. This is how the consensus process is done here: breaking down the issues into sections, discussing them, coming to consensus. Please read Verifiability, reliable sources and no original research. The insignificance is your opinion (oh, yeah, read no point of view). The "problem" that you want to correct is with the Times-Picayune's article. That is where you should direct your ire. It is not allowable for editors to decide on the veracity of sources. Editors may provide balancing sources where necessary, as I've tried to hammer out above. &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite status
Please put your comments in the sections above that outline all the desired changes. Here is the current state of the paragraph."In September, 2007, Vitter earmarked $100,000 in federal money for a Christian group, the Louisiana Family Forum, reported by the Times-Picayune to be known for supporting the removal of combating the teaching of evolution in public schools though the group stated its aim is to supplement the teaching of evolution. The earmark was included in the labor, health and education financing bill for 2008, with the intent 'to develop a plan to promote better science education.' Even though the Louisiana Family Forum is forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status, the group has 'close ties' with Vitter according to The Times-Picayune. In spite of this, the group has criticized Vitter previously for his support of Rudy Giuliani. Two members were hired by Vitter's office during his 2004 senatorial campaign and the group has been a proponent for Vitter. In particular, the Executive Director defended him offered support for Vitter and his wife in the D.C. Madam controversy by saying, 'LFF commends the Vitters for remembering that marriage is worth preserving and that family is the cornerstone of society.'"

"On October 17, 2007, the progressive liberal orgranization People For the American Way along with more than 30 scientific, educational, civil liberties and religious groups asked the Senate to remove the earmark. Later that same day, Vitter withdrew the earmark request."

If you want to shorten the article, how about this:"In September, 2007, Vitter earmarked $100,000 in federal money for a Christian group, the Louisiana Family Forum, reported by the Times-Picayune to be known for supporting the removal of combating the teaching of evolution in public schools though the group stated that its aim is to supplement it the teaching of evolution . The earmark was included in the labor, health and education financing bill for 2008, with the intent 'to develop a plan to promote better science education.' Even Though the Louisiana Family Forum is forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status, the group has 'close ties' with Vitter according to The Times-Picayune. However the group has criticized Vitter for his support of Rudy Giuliani. Two members were hired by Vitter's office during his 2004 senatorial campaign and the group has been a proponent for Vitter. In particular, the Executive Director defended him offered support for Vitter and his wife in the D.C. Madam controversy by saying, 'LFF commends the Vitters for remembering that marriage is worth preserving and that family is the cornerstone of society.'"

"On October 17, 2007, the progressive liberal orgranization People For the American Way along with more than 30 scientific, educational, civil liberties and religious groups asked the Senate to remove the earmark. Later that same day, Vitter later withdrew the earmark request."

Here's what I'd suggest (with appropriate wikilinks in the final version):

"In September, 2007, Vitter earmarked $100,000 in federal money for a Christian group, the Louisiana Family Forum, reported by the Times-Picayune to be known for supporting the removal of  combating the teaching of evolution creationism alongside evolution in public schools though the group stated its aim is to supplement the teaching of evolution . The earmark was included in the labor, health and education financing appropriations bill for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for fiscal year 2008, with the intent 'to develop a plan to promote better science education.' Even though the Louisiana Family Forum is largely forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status, the group is reported to have has 'close ties' with Vitter according to The Times-Picayune. In spite of this these alleged ties, the group has criticized Vitter previously for his support of Rudy Giuliani. Two former members of the group were hired by Vitter's office during his 2004 senatorial campaign, and the group has been a proponent for of Vitter. In particular, the Executive Director defended him offered support for Vitter and his wife in the D.C. Madam controversy by saying, 'LFF commends the Vitters for remembering that marriage is worth preserving and that family is the cornerstone of society.'"

"On October 17, 2007, the progressive liberal orgranization People For the American Way, along with more than 30 several other groups from the scientific, educational, civil liberties and religious groups communities asked the Senate to remove the earmark. Later that same day, Vitter withdrew the earmark request."

Thoughts? Folic_Acid 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to like the "shortened version" above as it decreases the detail which, on review, doesn't add much -- that is the purpose of sources: to provide the interested reader with more detail. Obviously, the same editing done for the shortened version can be done to yours.


 * I would be concerned with the statement that "reported by the Times-Picayune to be known for supporting the teaching of evolution creationism alongside evolution in public schools". This isn't what either of the two TP sources state. The objective of the rewrite was to provides two different, balancing viewpoints on this very issue.


 * The statement "Louisiana Family Forum is largely forbidden" is again not from the TP source which does not use the phrase "largely forbidden" but instead says, "is forbidden". I recognize that the other two editors believe that that statement may be incorrect but we have to be careful, when quoting directly from a source (which is needed when a statement is contentious) that we paraphrase properly.


 * Good idea to add the "alleged" to the "close ties".


 * I'll defer to others whether or not "several" correctly encompasses "30 groups". &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me add, if there is a consensus for FA's rewrite, I would support it. &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this version which incorporates my "shortened version" and FC's and ASOH's ideas:"In September, 2007, Vitter earmarked $100,000 in federal money for a Christian group, the Louisiana Family Forum, known to advocate the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. According to Vitter, the earmark was 'to develop a plan to promote better science education.' Even though the Louisiana Family Forum is largely forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status, the group is reported alleged to have allegedly ' close ties ' with Vitter according to The Times-Picayune, although the group has criticized Vitter for his support of Rudy Giuliani."

"On October 17, 2007, the liberal organization People For the American Way, along with several other groups asked the Senate to remove the earmark. Vitter later withdrew it." Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a couple of small changes, but I like it overall. Nice work.  Folic_Acid 04:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, much more readable. Are you for hire as a copy editor? Much of the credit for the changes is yours. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that much better! The clarity is greatly improved! I still have a concern about "known to advocate the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools" because it is an assumption not supported by facts. The original Bill Walsh article quotes LFF exec dir Gene Mills as saying:


 * "Many of our educators feel inadequate to address the controversies," said Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum.
 * Mills said that his group didn't request the money in the 2008 appropriations bill, and that Vitter's proposal "was a bit of a surprise."
 * Mills said his group is not attempting to push the teaching of evolution out of the schools, but wants to supplement it." Cite - Times Picayune, Sunday, September 23, 2007.


 * It seems that it is a disagreement of POV between the Times Pic and LFF. TP suggests LFF wants to "teach creationism."  LFF says it "wants to teach the controversy."  The Times-Pic does not submit evidence that LFF has ever asked a school to teach creationism. Can this difference of opinion be qualified?


 * What about this: ...Vitter earmarked $100,000 in federal money for a Christian group, the Louisiana Family Forum, known to advocate "teaching the controversy" over evolution in public schools.  Liberal groups across America were immediately concerned that LFF would actually promote teaching biblical creation in the classroom.


 * Anyway, this is getting better! Araphel 05:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to work on this tomorrow as my brain is starting to melt. I'm confident we can hammer out a consensus version. This is a more pleasant mode of working out the differences. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Araphel - when you say "teaching the controversy," are you referring to this, or is it something else? I don't really know what that phrase means.  Folic_Acid 12:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * FA - Yes, but that synopsis is definitely written without a NPOV. Choice of facts used by the editor clearly demonstrates animus towards the "Teach the Controversy" campaign.  This one, which is linked at Teach the Controversyis better at NPOV and explains the point of Teaching the Controversy, imho.  Araphel 17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to LFF that indicates that that is their focus -- "Teach the Controversy". I'm trying not to be pedantic here, but if we are going to incorporate that characterization, I would like to have the citation so that the interested reader can both confirm that and to get further information as regards to the LFF position. Can you comment on the T-P statement: "[The] group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties. ... The group's stated mission is to 'persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking.' Until recently, its Web site contained a 'battle plan to combat evolution,' which called the theory a 'dangerous' concept that 'has no place in the classroom.' The document was removed after a reporter's inquiry." which would indicate a more antagonistic focus towards the teaching of evolution and is the source of the original section. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In Walsh's final piece on the Earmark, he updated the article to reflect Mills' point of view:


 * The Louisiana Family Forum has been at the forefront of challenging Darwinian evolution. One paper on its Web site is titled "The Evolution Backlash: Debunking Darwin" and another is "Survival of the Fakest."


 * The group also has challenged biology textbooks used in public schools in Louisiana and on its Web site posts a 17-page "evolution addendum" in which Charles Voss Jr. raises questions about scientific theories including the formation of fossils, the emergence of living organisms through chemical reactions and evolution by means of mutations. Cite: Times-Picayune, Oct. 18, 2007 http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1192776477212740.xml&coll=1

All of that is accurate information. Here's a link to the "Teaching the Controversy" platform cite: http://www.lafamilyforum.org/explore.cfm/forumnotes/originsscience Araphel 20:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, great, that is really helpful. I'm working from FA's last version and suggest these changes:"In September, 2007, Vitter earmarked $100,000 in federal money for a Christian group, the Louisiana Family Forum, known to for challenging advocate the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools by means of 'teaching the controversy' which promotes intelligent design while discrediting evolution. According to Vitter, the earmark was 'to develop a plan to promote better science education' Even Though the Louisiana Family Forum is largely forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status, The Times-Picayune alleges the group is alleged to have had close ties with Vitter according to The Times-Picayune . although the group has However, they have criticized Vitter for his support of Rudy Giuliani."


 * "On October 17, 2007, the liberal organization People For the American Way, along with several other groups asked the senate to remove the earmark. Vitter later withdrew it."


 * I'd like to address your other suggested change: "Liberal groups across America were immediately concerned that LFF would actually promote teaching biblical creation in the classroom." I'd like to leave that out as I would prefer to leave the second paragraph as is. Although I'm loathe to debate the propriety of teaching I.D. or whatever is the current strategy (primarily because it would be off-topic and inappropriate here), I think that it is problematic to imply that this issue divides neatly along liberal/conservative lines. Although I would presume that a majority of liberals would be against it, I don't believe that this is mirrored by an equal number of conservatives for it. Although People for the American Way is a liberal organization, many of the 30-some groups aren't easily classified as "liberals". I don't even want to make this a science/religion nor a religious/secular divide. Nor even a fundamentalist (as in fundamentalist Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, or conservative Islam where evolution is more disdained), modernist division. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I really like that rewrite. My concern is that the layman (like me) isn't going to know what "teaching the controversy" actually means, so I like the way you've put it, Therefore.  I also agree with Therefore in that we ought not to make this more than it actually is. Folic_Acid 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Thanks for the assistance!  Glad we could all work together on it.  Araphel 02:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I believe the section is improved and more balanced than the original. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore | talk 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Don't Remove Tag
The tag was for the entire article - not just the section you dispute. Anyone who reads the entire discussion page will see that many other people have disputed the neutrality and accuracy of this article. I have decided to remove myself for a couple days from this in order to let others take a look and chime in. In the meantime, please leave the tag. Anothersliceofhistory 05:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you actually read the page, you will find that not "many" people but one who is no longer on Wikipedia. If you read carefully, and read the policies of Wikipedia, you will find that "hit and run" tagging is not allowed. The onus is on you to explain (with specifificty) the problems you have with the entire page and make constructive recommendations for changing. Until such time as you specifically point out exactly what your concern is, I'm reverting your change. Be prepared to discuss in detail what changes you are recommending. &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are very confused -- I don't refute the section, you do. Well, maybe I shouldn't be the one who is confused. &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I recognize, ASOH, you are not one for reading the policies, so I'll quote it for you here from WP:NPOVD:"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. 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." &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * TF's concern was that the article had too few of Vitter's political positions. Subsequently, that list has been expanded signficantly. In other words, someone productively added them. &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Can the David Vitter section discussing the earmark for the Louisiana Family Forum state that LFF "combats evolution" and that ties existed between the two?
Two editors, User:Anothersliceofhistory and User:Araphel (for which there is, as of November 8, an open case for being suspected sockpuppets) and who are also editors on the Louisiana Family Forum page, have proposed changing the section David Vitter; here is their diff:. Above, I have initiated several sections that address these changes:


 * Talk:David Vitter


 * Talk:David Vitter


 * Talk:David Vitter


 * Talk:David Vitter


 * Talk:David Vitter


 * Talk:David Vitter


 * Talk:David Vitter

User:Anothersliceofhistory has requested that other editors give their feedback on these matters.

The point of contention is with the two sources used for the section, one a front page news item, from The Times-Picayune (the major Louisiana newspaper): and.

User:Anothersliceofhistory states that the news articles are libelous (Talk:David Vitter), inaccurate, full of "fluff", written with a biased viewpoint about an event he deems "insignificant". They would like to use the blog at LFF and a personal interview with an LFF officer for references. From the above consensus discussion sections, the proposed new section includes statements from verifiable LFF citations to balance the contentions in The Times-Picayune article. See Talk:David Vitter. User:Anothersliceofhistory believes The Times-Picayune is "extremely biased and is part of a larger agenda against Louisiana conservative causes".

User:Anothersliceofhistory feels that User:Therefore is quoting too many rules and is "nickpicking", is "stuck in defending a non-neutral POV", "refuses to sit down with integrity and attempt to actually try to achieve the one bulwark policy, NPOV", and has "an unspoken agenda".

User:Anothersliceofhistory believes that Wikipedia is "a wiki and not an encyclopedia".

User:Araphel feels that The Times-Picayune articles does not "comport with the facts".

User:Araphel feels that User:Therefore has a "complete disregard for neutrality and penchant for 'nonsense'", "is a jackass", has nothing to do all day but "screw around with conservative group's articles" and "should look for gainful non-government employment".cite


 * Yes, Wikipedia has a lot of rules. Any editor who doesn't like them is free to (a) propose that they be changed (start at the talk/discussion page of the rule), or (b) stop editing. The third alternative, of course, is to be blocked.


 * Use of a blog at LFF and a personal interview with an LFF officer, as sources/citations, are unacceptable, per our guideline on reliable sources and our policy on "original research", not to mention our policy on verifiability. These are not negotiable within the context of editing a single article - if you don't like them, or don't agree with them, then either change them, leave, or (if you continue to violate them) be prepared to be blocked from further editing.


 * If in fact The Times-Picayune is "extremely biased and is part of a larger agenda against Louisiana conservative causes", then the correct procedure is to (a) edit that article, meeting Wikipedia's criteria for changes to articles, so that the evidence for this assertion is clearly laid out, and then (b) return here to this article and make changes based on what has been accepted by other editors as true about the newspaper. (And yes, I'm extremely doubtful that RS|reliable sources can be found to support the assertion, but feel free to try.)


 * The last cited comments, about another editor, are a violation of our policy on civility; I also note that Wikipedia has a rule against personal attacks. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 15:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused. Is this a discussion that has been spread out on user talk pages? I don't see all of what is summarized above here. -Pete 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, not on talk pages. Everything is on this talk page except for User:Araphel's comments which are here which I cited above. &#8756; Therefore | talk 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll keep reading then. Thanks for clarifying. I will probably wait to comment until ASOH or Araphel has a chance to comment on the summation of the discussion. -Pete 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fwiw, ASOH's response to the suggested rewrite was, "I have decided to remove myself for a couple days from this in order to let others take a look and chime in." which is above. Hence the RFC. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it. Actually, I was thinking about suggesting that both of you take a breather. It may sound strange to you, but I actually don't see an enormous difference between your versions. Sure, I can see that the POV expressed in each is very different, but I don't think that either version is so awful as to be unacceptable on Wikipedia. So, a break and perhaps a new commitment to working this out might be the best thing.
 * I will read more, but I will be reluctant to make specific content recommendations. I am aware of Vitter's troubles, but have not followed them closely, and know nothing about any less-controversial aspects of his terms in the Senate. -Pete 19:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You make a valid point and I erred in not including in the above summary that ASOH has suggested this shortened version of the section:"'In September, 2007, Vitter earmarked $100,000 in federal money for Louisiana Family Forum for the stated purpose 'to develop a plan to promote better science education. After opposition from liberal groups, Vitter withdrew the earmark request'" I agree that this isn't terrible far from my suggested shortened version at Talk:David Vitter. However, (arguably), the shortened version leaves out certain critical elements that are both relevant and properly sourced, namely, that the LFF is a Christian group, whence the concerns about the separation of church and state, and that its "plan to promote better science education" which is how the bill characterizes the grant, is for a group that either is against the teaching of evolution in the classroom (the Times-Picayune assertion which provides quotes from their web site in support, e.g., "Until recently, its Web site contained a 'battle plan to combat evolution,' which called the theory a 'dangerous' concept that 'has no place in the classroom.' The document was removed after a reporter's inquiry.") or wants intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution (the statement from the Executive Director). My suggested rewrite includes both of these characterizations. Leaving out any such characterization does a disservice to the section. The Times-Picayune makes the assertion that their are close ties between the group and Vitter. I'm unclear how deleting this statement helps the section either. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also suggested to User:Araphel that it might be a conflict of interest for him to edit here on this and similar subjects. I can share my reasoning about that, if necessary. Folic_Acid 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with anything you say, Therefore. Just suggesting that the differences among the version are not so egregious that a several-day break will cause any enormous damage, no matter which version is kept in the article. As much as ASOH's behavior may have been frustrating or anti-collaborative, I appreciate his decision to take a step back. I'm trying to reserve judgment on everything beyond that, until I can read up a little more.


 * Folic, if you feel that there is a conflict of interest that's significant enough to bring up, I expect you'll do so of your own accord – no? -Pete 21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, suffice it to say that I believe there's sufficient evidence to show that User:Araphel is actually an employee of the LFF, and as such, probably should not be involved in these discussions, as per WP:COI. I'm hesitant to lay it all out here, since it'd be revealing an editor's real name/identity - something I'm loath to do.  Still, I felt it necessary to at least mention the COI issue, since it colors the discussion here.  Make sense?  Folic_Acid 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to offer a few comments here. The first is that it would greatly help if people signed their comments, especially in a contentious discussion like this one. The next is that while I'm no fan of people citing policy in discussions, Therefore is doing this in a productive & appropriate way: he is explaining the conventions of Wikipedia here, which are flexible & can be adjusted depending on the situation. However, instead of explaining why these adjustemnts should be made, ASOH has coming very close in places to attacking Therefore & his motivations, & not his reasons. An ad hominem argument not only violates the conventions of Wikipedia, but it is a logical fallacy. As for WP:NPOV, it does not mean that the article should be written in a neutral voice, but that all points of view are given appropriate weight; if the sources only show Vitter in a bad light, & there is no reliable source or significant opinion that puts him in a good one -- or vice versa -- then the resulting article meets the intent of this policy.


 * Lastly, I am surprised by the claim that the new Orelans Times-Picayune is not a reliable source. It has won three Pulizer prizes and at least one Polk Award -- all testaments to quality reporting; it's hard to see this claim as anything but wrong, & I assume it won't be repeated. -- llywrch 19:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added my own suggestion for a rewrite above. I'd also like to associate myself with llywrch's comments above, which echo my own thoughts.  For what it's worth, I actually know Bill Walsh of the Times-Picayune (he's one of the Washington DC reporters for the T-P and has reported on this subject), and though he does have a more liberal bent, he is an honorable guy and a good reporter.  The T-P itself is the major newspaper of New Orleans, so it's hard to consider it anything other than a credible source.  Folic_Acid 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad guys - I shouldn't have gotten involved. Therefore wins and is allowed to protect this article in any manner he wants.  I innocently got on Wikipedia hoping to correct one mistake in reporting about a relationship between LFF and Vitter.  I don't desire to protect Vitter - I think he has made many mistakes.  My goal was simply to assist in reporting with more accuracy the section about LFF.  LFF does have a point of view and is an advocacy group so they shouldn't have to defend what they are about - but since this page is about Vitter I guess its ok to inaccurately report on them because a verifiable news source has a beef with Vitter and collateral damage to any conservative cause is seen as bonus points when this type of story comes up.  I know that all big organizations - especially organizations as diverse and spread out as Wikipedia - by necessity must have policies.  I don't have a problem with it....however its like many things in life - hiding behind a rule to prevent the truth from being revealed is a cowardly approach at winning the battle of free speech.  I have no doubt that if I stuck around here long enough we could come to some type of consensus, but I don't have the time.  Between the sockpuppet thing and reading 1,000s of policies (yes Therefore, despite your accusations/attacks, I read every one of the policies), I would have to devote entire days to Wikipedia and thats not something I am ready to do.  For the record, (if anyone believes me) Araphel and I are two different people who both live in Baton Rouge and have the same internet provided.  I did a little research (and I mean barely any) and found out who he is.  But should two people have to reveal their real world identity to prove that they are not the same person?    As I have seen from TF and others - as soon as a real world identity is revealed accusations of conflict of interest arise.  Let me say I'm sorry for getting short with Therefore, after an entire day of unproductive policies being thrown in my face, not getting any studying done close to finals, and a very innocent and simple desire of wanting to clear up some inaccurate reporting about an innocent group focused on family values - I simply had have enough.  Therefore has clearly learn the art of veiled advocacy combined with crafty policy wrangling.  That shouldn't be read as another attack as I believe he served his cause well and lived to play another day.  I'm going to go ahead and remove my tag and my discussion on this page can be deleted or archived as anyone sees fit.  Good luck to everyone and I respectfully request that I be left alone and veiled comments not be left on my talk page. Anothersliceofhistory 22:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments, ASOH, can sympathize with your frustrations and naturally take you at your word concerning the sockpuppet accusation -- I will withdraw it. However, I think you underestimate the value you brought to this section. I believe that the shortened version offered above brings more balance to the article in that it reflects additional viewpoints than the original (and current) version which improves the article. This process of working for consensus works when differing viewpoints are incorporated.


 * I was at times intemperate on this talk page and, for which, I apologize. I think you are wise in prioritizing your studies but given your obvious effort to learn the policies of Wikipedia, you should consider contributing, as I mentioned above, you have good ideas that would only serve to improve Wikipedia. &#8756; Therefore | talk 22:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Araphel: And, so was I (intemperate). Like ASOH, my goal for editing the LFF section of the Vitter article was to correct POV statements regarding LFF[]. After Therefore reverted and deleted my changes several times without so much as a reason, and then accused me of being a sockpuppet (and for the record I had no idea what that was), I admit that he "pushed my buttons" and I responded in anger (as cited above). I apologize. It astounds me that Thereforewould consider editorializing within a news article to be a NPOV. I made changes to the following:

"Even though the Louisiana Family Forum is forbidden from political activity due to its non-profit status..." - Fact: Non-profits are not forbidden from political activity. So, this is a false statement and shouldn't be included in the article.

"known for supporting the removal of the teaching of evolution in public schools..." Says who??? This is libelous.

"Two members were hired by Vitter's office during his 2004 senatorial campaign..." Factually Inaccurate. The two members did NOT work for LFF before or during the 2004 senatorial campaign. This should be removed.

Because the above statements made up the bulk of the section, and all of these are either libelous or factually inaccurate, I removed the section. For this, I was accused of...I forget the word...oh, yes, vandalism.

It would seem to me, and perhaps I just have too much common sense for my own good, that the best source of information about a subject is that subject itself, not what others have assumed and published about it.

Haven't any of you ever read Animal Farm? The way Thereforeis suggesting that rules be used on Wikipedia is similar to how the pigs in Animal Farm stated that "All are equal, but some are more equal than others." Therefore and Folic_Acid have written several comments regarding verifiability. That's fine. Verifiable means "found to be true." My concern here is that I believe Therefore is suggesting that, like Communist Russia, "verified lies" are "more equal" than factual information. Am I wrong? If editors are interested in NPOV, then make sure it is neutral! The "average man" test that the United States Supreme Court uses comes to mind. Is that too good for Wikipedia? Araphel 03:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend going to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and begin a discussion to reverse the first statement of the article, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That is the appropriate forum for this discussion. When you successfully change that, I will not cite it anymore. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I did give a reason for the initial revert in the edit summary. You find that on the article's history page. But I understand that wouldn't be the first place you would look if you weren't aware of edit summaries. Once I reverted the deletion of the section, I outlined in detail my concerns at Talk:David Vitter. That said, as requested, if you could provide the citations for disproving the statement involving the employees, as you indicate exist at a wiki, then I'd be happy to reevaluate the statement. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here you go:
 * Citation: "Dan Richey is an independent political consultant contracted to serve as LFF Action's Grassroots Coordinator. He joined LFF Action in the spring of 2005." Source: |url=http://www.lafamilyforum.org/explore.cfm/aboutlff/meetthestaff|
 * Citation: "Beryl Amedee, the new Chair of the Louisiana Family Forum Education Resource Council, has called a meeting of the group for Wednesday, March 21, 2007" |url=http://www.lafamilyforum.us/FFarchives/v9i11.htm| Araphel 04:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree not to make mention of this matter in the article. Please go to Talk:David Vitter and look at the last paragraph which is my suggested rewrite that excludes discussion of the employees and characterizes the mission of LFF as supporting the teaching of creationism along side evolution (contrary to T-P assertion). It does retain the T-P assertion that there were "close ties" between LFF and Vitter (attributed to T-P) but balances this with the criticism by LFF of Vitter. The statement "Even though the Louisiana Family Forum is forbidden from political activity" has been changed to "Even though the Louisiana Family Forum is largely forbidden from political activity". This is directly from the T-P article but without the qualifying "largely". If you could please provide a soucre that indicates specific to LFF that they are allowed to be active politically, then we can balance that statement without having to exclude it. I suspect some of the problem is with definitions -- I'm guessing that the news article is using "political activity" in a technical, statutory sense versus, say, a prohibition against taking a political position. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot to point out that the rewrite is changed to read "T-P alleges close ties" vs. "T-P reported close ties", per FA's suggestion. &#8756; Therefore | talk 04:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue with the whole "political activity" thing is that if we're going to discuss it, we ought to be on the same page about what we're referring to when we discuss "political activity." According to the IRS, 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in some activity that might be considered "political," but it's severely restricted and curtailed. To whit:

"http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html"

"Political Campaign Activity"

''Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.''

"Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. "

"In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention."

So, we need to define our term "political activity." Since getting into the weeds of 501(c)(3) vs. 501(c)(4) activities and the IRS restrictions thereupon are probably topics for an entire article itself, I'd suggest sticking with the "largely prohibited from engaging in political activity" phrase, since that doesn't give the impression that the organization is completely excluded, but that it is excluded for the most part. We're not going to capture every small nuance of the situation, but I think this gives as accurate a representation of the situation as can be expected in a paragraph by a reasonable person. Folic_Acid 05:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That was extremely helpful and fascinating. I agree that the qualifier "largely" should be used along with "alleged". I now have a better understanding why an organization such as LFF would be sensitive to the assertion. &#8756; Therefore | talk 05:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This goes up a aways: Times-Picayune is a WP:RS. Wikipedia does not search for "truth", but WP:RS. If it comes from a RS it should be included and WP:ATT. Removing something relevant from a RS is tantamount to whitewashing. C56C 19:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

D.C. Madam controversy
In reviewing the section, “D.C. Madam controversy”, the last paragraph, "...In May 1999, Vitter replaced Congressman Bob Livingston after Livingston resigned due to an adultery scandal.  Vitter said about Livingston's decision to resign, "It's obviously a tremendous loss for the state .... I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess," referring to the Monica Lewinsky scandal of President Bill Clinton. In 2000, his wife, Wendy Vitter, commenting on the same scandal, said, "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he [Vitter] does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me," referring to the incident of Lorena Bobbitt severing the penis of her husband and to Clinton's wife, Hillary Clinton. ." just does not seem to fit or contribute in either the flow of the section or basic content, unless it is trying to show a double standard? In either case I believe it should deleted. Regarding the RFC controversy, nice work to all parties concerned. Shoessss | Chat  15:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved this paragraph further up and gave it context as background that the sources provided. &#8756; Therefore | talk 18:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

D.C. Madam controvesry in lede
First time editor User:Mitch60 deleted mention of the controversy in the lede. I reverted. See this discussion where this was discussed previously. Most relevant is this from WP:LEDE:"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]" Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 18:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate as the stand-alone second paragraph? Before where he was born or raised? Its almost like the author was giddy to mention it. I don't know much about the guy but am going to see him speak Thursday. The first thing I find out about him, other than his being a Senator is that he likely slept with a hooker. If anything it would go better right after the part about his moralistic viewpoint, no? Isn't it overly condemning to make a point to mention it before you say where he was born or like him being a Rhodes scholar and s**t? I mean at least be slightly chronological.DSturges (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. The mention had been at the end of the lede -- an anon editor moved it up on January 16th. I've reverted that (along with the same editor's other vandalism). Thanks for pointing that out. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 05:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Many articles note scandals as a part of a politician's career. Note how Bill Clinton has the Lewinsky Scandal under his presidential term section. Likewise, Richard Nixon has Watergate as a subsection in his term. Mary Landrieu has the Voyager Reading program under her Senate Career section, and Elliot Spitzer has his prostitution scandal as a subsection of his Governorship. I wonder....what is the reasoning behind having it as a stand-alone section, unlike many other scandals? I'll move it to his Senate section so as to keep with wikipedia standards... OtherAJ (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Refusal of federal funds by Quakers et. al.
I've removed this sentence from Vitter's "Political actions and postions" for when he was a member of the House:"Since the passage of the Vitter Amendment, many high schools run by Quakers and other peace tradition churches have refused to accept federal funding in order to avoid this requirement."for two reasons:


 * I could find no reliable sources that support this statement -- actually, I couldn't find any source.


 * This statement is questionable in light of this provision of the amendment:"(c) EXCEPTION- The requirements of this section do not apply to a private secondary school that maintains a religious objection to service in the Armed Forces if the objection is verifiable through the corporate or other organizational documents or materials of that school.PDF"

&#8756; Therefore | talk 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the scandal should not be in the first paragraph. I am removing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.56.207 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of reference from Military recruitment section
NOLA70124 deleted this reference for this section with the explanation, "deleted a link to a paid service". There are three reasons I would like to return this source:
 * It isn't a paid link -- you (as of today) have to sign up for free access.
 * This is a published, reliable source. Wikipedia doesn't require that all published sources have internet access. In this case, the link is provided as a convenience but the reader is able to go to the library, as is the case for most of Wikipedia's sources, and find the article.
 * This article provides more in-depth coverage of this section than the AP article and, therefore, adds important value.

Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 17:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Law breaking
User:Elephantman2 deleted this sentence from the David Vitter section:"Even though Vitter has admitted to having broken the law" with the explanation: "omitted an inacurracy. Vitter never admitted to breaking a law. He acknowledged a 'serious sin' but not a law violation."

User:Dr who1975 reverted, saying "Soliciticing a prostitute is a crime, read the citedt articles".

I support Elephantman2's edit. To say "Vitter admitted to having broken the law" is contrary to Vitter's statements which assiduously (arguably wisely) avoided details -- such a declarative statement is inaccurate.

Neither is it relevant to the sentence whereas a simple "While" is sufficient. Deleting this sentence does no harm. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 15:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead
The lead section of this article is seriously lagging behind the depth and breadth of the rest of the article. It should be up to four paragraphs, and offer a thorough overview of Vitter's life/career. I'd do it myself, but I think leads are best written by people more familiar with the subject matter than I am. -Pete (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. &#8756; Therefore | talk 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Parking lot incident
I changed Stephen pomes‎'s:"So reluctant to discuss the nature of his relationship with Palfrey, that Vitter made a conscious effort to avoid the press. After a town hall meeting in Gonzales, Louisiana on April 7, 2008, Vitter made a brief statement to reporters about the Palfrey matter, but he refused to answer any questions. Next, Vitter left quickly. So eager to leave, Vitter's driver accidentally backed the car into a 'no parking' sign in the parking lot for the Gonzales City Hall." and replaced it with:"Vitter refused to comment on the matter." This is supported by the source:"Reporters wanted to question Vitter further about the possibility that he will be called as a witness in the trial of the 'D.C. Madam.'" The parking lot incident is neither encyclopdic nor can it be inferred that this was indicative he was "so reluctant" -- the source doesn't support this conclusion. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Automotive Industry Bailout
Regarding the citation for the "He soon apologized for the comment": I could not find the article at the Times-Picayune website or any Vitter apology on the "ass-backwards" comment through any google search. Please, someone help me find the referenced article. Is it a legitimate reference? Jabam (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabam (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I added in the on-line reference and, yes, it is a legitimate paraphrasing. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link in the referencesJabam (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Point of Clarification on Nomination Blocking
Has Vitter stated whether he was rejecting the Hillary Clinton nomination based on candidate qualifications or ethics concerns? Unabashed Fornicator (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Airport Incident
The airport incident is gossip reported by one witness, and disputed by Vitter. Regardless, it hardly seems notable enough for its own section, and doesn't meet source guidelines. I'm going to remove the information. --WoodDraw (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally endorse this removal. Good work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added this, and agree that it it could be gossip. I am hoping to find another source, and if I do, will bring it up here. Thanks. America69 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick. On CNN, the article also seems to suggest that this could be "blown up". I am now backing off until we find more info.America69 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To be exact, Vitter said it was overblown. Unless something else comes out of this, say, additional coverage from reliable sources or other critical statements from substantial (read: published) critics or politicians, it isn't encyclopedic. If additional coverage occurs, I think it would arguable belong under the 2010 election section vs. under its own section. At this point, it is more a political issue -- e.g., will this episode and/or the criticism hurt his image with the electorate? Now, it is but a blip but we should keep an eye on Times-Picayune coverage. That said, one shouldn't fool with the TSA even if you are a Senator. ;) &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 00:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Particularly if the TSA follows through with an investigation. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Therefore, I strongely agree with your comments on not to mess with the TSA.=)America69 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The TSA is probing Vitter - link. I agree it was simply a rumor before, but an investigation makes it newsworthy and encyclopedic. I am reinserting the info that has been removed while adding the investigation. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. All the direct quotes are hearsay, and the presence of an investigation does not make the events true.  If the incident is going to remain in, it needs to be reworded.  But, I still don't think this is encyclopedic, unless it gets more attention and has some effect on his career.  It may deserve small mention somewhere, but definitely does not need its own section. --WoodDraw (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Understandable. But I believe the fact that an investigation will take place makes it more than just a "he said, she said" kind of thing, and with all the heat Vitter is already experiencing, anything can be a straw that breaks the camels back (like, perhaps, Michael Steele's comments on abortion being a final straw with conservatives: it may not be that noteworthy on its own, but when considering the other problems, it compounds on the person).  Maybe it could use a rewrite though, or be moved somewhere else.  I'd be open to discussion.  I think the results of an investigation would make this incidents' importance (or lack thereof) clear.  --Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article (which I had previously linked to) isn't an official investigation -- the spokesman said they will be "reviewing the alleged incident" which at this point is meaningless. Until this rises to an investigation, or lacking, as mentioned above, additional coverage/criticism, I believe there is no consensus for adding this material. You need to seek consensus here before unilaterally adding this. The Roll Call article isn't a sufficient source to prove notability. I'm going to revert but encourage we monitor additional coverage and/or you need to argue a stronger case for inclusion in order to achieve consensus per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, they are "reviewing" the incident now... But does that mean that if it turns into an investigation, it becomes wiki worthy? I'm still inclined to say this is relevant (or will be relevant in the near future) as Vitter's potential primary opponents and the DSCC can make this relevant in the coming election.  For now I'll keep the text in my sandbox, ready to reinsert when there is consensus.--Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is additional coverage:
 * The Associated Press
 * KTBS
 * Times-Picayune
 * The Town Talk
 * However, none of these are adding anything except quoting the Roll Call article and that the matter is being reviewed. When and if this story gains legs, then it is clearly a candidate for inclusion. But not yet. Let's be patient. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me expand upon my position: This story, if substantiated, may in fact reflect on Vitter's temperament and will then be made an election issue. If there is an investigation and particularly if he is officially sanctioned, then it belongs here in his bio. On the other hand, if nothing official happens and some partisan issue is made of this during the election, then it is more appropriate for the United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2010 in keeping with Wikipedia's summary style. For instance, a silly brouhaha was made of Obama's alleged association with Ayers but that is covered on the election page vs. his bio, which is appropriate. If those associations were substantiated (they were not), then it would belong in his bio. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understood your position before you expanded on it :) Hopefully others will as well.  I agree with you, and the Obama-Ayers comparison is apt, for now.  This is more appropriate for the election article than the main Vitter article, though in time it might be appropriate for both.--Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Video of Vitter being asked about his opposition to the Franken amendment
To be found here, maybe it is worth to be added. -- 131.188.24.20 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Youtube can rarely be used as a reference. If a reliable source makes reference to this incident, then it may be appropriate to include. In other words, we need a reliable source to determine if this is newsworthy and then we can determine if it is Wikipedia-worthy. The article already gives Vitter's counter arguments, i.e. the DOD and White House are against the amendment although he neglects to mention that they support a broader bill. I am not sure what this adds. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Total moron?
I think this should be noted somewhere. http://www.starkreports.com/2009/11/18/senator-vitter-doesnt-know-if-loving-was-correctly-decided/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.184.22.241 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not reliable sources. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 02:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's more likely he said that because he didn't want to piss off large parts of his base. Remember, this is the same state that gave nearly 40% of its vote to David Duke for governor, and in which the Council of Conservative Citizens (an anti-Loving organization) still has a strong following. Maybe Vitter feels like he can't win without those voters, but he doesn't want to be accused of being a racist either, so he gives vague answers when asked about Loving. I certainly wouldn't call him a "total moron"; seems more like a shrewd, calculating politician to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You could be right (though I'm extremely skeptical -- it isn't my read of Stark's video), but there is no reliable source to support this. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 02:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Waldrops' coordination with the Democratic Party
User:Calle29 changed the text:"The woman acknowledged that she coordinated the confrontation with local Democrats." to read:"The woman acknowledged that she attended a meeting with local Democrats the previous night but said the incident was not politically motivated." I would argue the original text "coordinated with local Democrats" is verified by the sources: I would say this is the very definition of coordination. Accordingly, I changed the text to read:"The woman acknowledged that she coordinated the confrontation with local Democrats but said the incident was not politically motivated." but invite Calle29 to argue their position here. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The confrontation was filmed by a videographer, who is affiliated with Democrats"
 * "In a telephone news conference organized Tuesday by the Louisiana Democratic Party, Waldrop said...."
 * "Waldrop acknowledged she attended a planning meeting for the event held by Democrats the night before Vitter’s meeting on Saturday."
 * "She also handed out fliers with Jones’ story on it with Democratic organizers outside Westdale before Vitter’s meeting."
 * "[H]er rape crisis counselor informed her that the Democrats were looking for people to confront Vitter on the issue. She answered the call...."

Jerzeykydd edits
removed the majority of the article's lead saying "Lead doesnt need to be that long". This has been discussed previously at Talk:David Vitter. To quote from WP:LEAD:"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." The current lead does just that and fits within the guidelines expected. Please discuss which part of WP:LEAD you are depending upon to state that the current lead is too long?

Jerzekydd also wants to reshuffle much of the political positions and accumulate them in a mish-mash of "social positions". This makes the article much less readable.

Jerzekydd also wants to remove sections that he considers irrelevant. I don't find these sections as irrelevant. I invite him to argue why he considers these sections as irrelevant. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I worked very hard to make this article look better. I am very angry that ALL of my edits were reverted. Now let's discuss and compromise each issue one by one.


 * The lead: too many different paragraphs. It supposed to be a summery of the article. Why does the balanced budget amendment belong there?
 * Early political career: The first paragraph under his early years section is very confusing. It should seperate his career as an attorney from his political career.
 * Political positions: Way too many subsections. I tried to reorganize it by social/fiscal/foreign policies. Also, it has a lot of unnecessary information. For example, so what if he thinks the GOP lost its way? We can't include every single quote and every single stance he makes on a position included into wikipedia.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are angry. It is usually best to discuss changes of this magnitude before making them. The lead follows WP:LEAD guidelines. You moved everything except that he is a Senator and had a scandal. That is contrary to the guidelines.


 * That all said, I will look at your changes and reorganize the article into the sections that you have suggested. Your reorganization suggestions have merit but I'd like to make it more readable. Give me a little time and see what you think. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reorganized the political positions and actions pretty much under your categorization. I agree it is much more readable. However, I don't agree with removing the sub-categories as it becomes much less readable and less helpful to the reader who wants to look up a particular issue -- i.e., the TOC is useful. Give me a little more time to review your other changes. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You were absolutely right that the early life and career needed to be changed -- again, it reads better now. I removed the quote about the Republican party -- agreed it isn't relevant to an encyclopedic article. However, I kept the Tea Party entry as they are a growing political force in the country and I think his stance is relevant.


 * I left the lead as is. A little background: If you look at the top of this talk page, you will see that this article was cited in the National Review as an example of Wikipedia's "liberal bias" because the lead was so scant, basically looking like your version. An administrator pointed out that the lead was deficient at Talk:David Vitter and he was right -- it should be a minimum of 4 paragraphs and should summarize the basic facts of the articles so that a reader can get the gist of the article without reading it. It should include: Who he is (senator), where he came from (education and birthplace), his political positions, and the signficant events/controversies in his life.


 * Sorry about the mass reversal -- this article reflects years of work so I do understand your frustration and it was at first difficult to see the scope of what you were doing and I was taken aback by the deletion of the lead text and section titles. That said, I have implemented most of your suggestions and the article is much better for it. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 21:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your understand and cooperation. The article does look better now. The lead still looks like a mess. I didn't eliminated anything in the lead, I just consolidated into four paragraphs.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am confused, then, if I look at the diff it appears that you eliminated the majority of the lead that involved his poltical positions, Hurricane Katrina, and his birth and education. And there is only one paragraph. I can show you hundreds of articles with leads even meatier than this but do include these highlights (Eliot Spitzer, Ted Kennedy just for two). Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was confused. You just did the consolidation. Got it! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 21:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DC Madam and Franken Amendment – Article NPOV
Do we really need such a long section on the DC Madam? I don’t think we do and believe it violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. I will trim it to two paragraphs and remove the fluff. As for the Franken Amendment, a jury found Jones’ charges to be warrantless, in civil court to boot. I think this whole section can be scrapped. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)