Talk:Joseph Cao/Archive 1

Questionable category
I removed the category "landfills" from the page. I don't see why it would be on there unless it is vandalism, but if someone has a legitimate reason to put it back, feel free, but please explain here. --D.c.camero (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cao certainly isn't a landfill. What happened is that he led community residents of New Orleans East in successfully opposing a landfill they didn't want.  He got the attention of public officials, including Mayor Ray Nagin, who ordered the project stopped.  It was all in the news.  Rammer (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Election Box
Need help with the election results box. Can't get it to show up. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to be okay now. Looks nice too.  Rammer (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina
How is Hurricane Katrina irrelevant? He started entering politics after Hurricane Katrina, fighting against the landfill alongside with the Vietnamese American community and later ran for the state legislature. DHN (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Katrina destroyed his house and his law practice. He became a "community organizer" of sorts, leading to the opposition to the landfill.  Correspondingly, the incumbent congressman did not benefit from local opinion of inadequate government response to the hurricane, in the aftermath of which he had a National Guard unit escort him to his house.  Nothing in and around New Orleans was unaffected by Katrina, but you are right in that perhaps the earlier section can be simply subsumed with a broader phase of Cao's biography in the community. Rammer (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In an earlier version of the article there had been a few sentences about Cao and Katrina that seems to have gotten lost in the recent additions. Something should be ut back. BTW, we have a stub article on his neighborhood, at Venetian Isles, New Orleans -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is he winning the election?
Has he won the election? If so, someone should change this to Representative-elect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid (talk • contribs) 04:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cao won. The various scribes are revising the article even as I write.  Rammer (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All the news services called it for Cao last night, and Cao proclaimed victory, but for the record it is not at writing technically official. Louisiana Secretary of State official results have Cao at 49.55% (less than the 50% + 1 vote needed for the State to call it immediately) and per news reports Jefferson still hasn't officially conceded. There are also some provisional ballots not yet counted, I believe the state elections officials have to December 9th. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm AP reports Jefferson did concede, contrary to the NYT. I can't find anything one way or the other from the Times-Picayune. Whereas Another AP story says "In a speech that was gracious but stopped short of concession, Jefferson ..." -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Political positions?
What kind of platform did he run on, besides running as a Republican? Did he raise any issues in his campaign? Do we have information on what kind of campaign promises he made? ⟳ ausa کui × 06:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * His platform is detailed here. DHN (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Article rename
I've reverted the undiscussed article move by User:CarlKenner to Anh Cao because most print and online sources refer to him as "Joseph Cao" and he goes by that name, and we follow the most common name convention. Furthermore, "Joseph" might not merely a nickname, but is actually his saint's name, a common practice among Vietnamese Catholics. DHN (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, your claim is very easy to test thanks to the wonders of Google. As you can see Anh Cao and Anh "Joseph" Cao, are both more common than Joseph Cao. For the "news" (print) search, I used the default settings which searches the last month. The quotation marks are used to exclude pages which used the words seperately. The -"Anh Joseph Cao" is needed otherwise Google includes all the Anh "Joseph" Cao results in the search for Joseph Cao even though those articles never call him Joseph Cao by itself.
 * "Joseph Cao" -"Anh Joseph Cao"  returns 18,800 web; 117 news
 * On the other hand:
 * "Anh Joseph Cao" returns 39,200 web; 721 news
 * "Anh Cao" returns 243,000 web (but not all are him); 141 news (all are him)
 * "Cao Quang Ánh" returns 290 web; 0 news (Google doesn't support Vietnamese language news sites, but most of the web results are news)
 * "Cao Quang Anh" returns 781 web (including the 290 above); 0 news
 * By the way, this is Wikipedia. You don't get to demand people ask your permission before changing articles. The article belongs to everyone, not just you. Reverting people's contributions is a form of vandalism.
 * And I have to say, I don't agree at all with the most common name policy, especially for people who aren't a household name. People have a correct name, and we should be using it, even if others don't.
 * Oh, and I know about Vietnamese Catholic names. They don't replace people's actual name, they are just a kind of nickname used in religious contexts.
 * "Cao Quang Anh" returns 781 web (including the 290 above); 0 news
 * By the way, this is Wikipedia. You don't get to demand people ask your permission before changing articles. The article belongs to everyone, not just you. Reverting people's contributions is a form of vandalism.
 * And I have to say, I don't agree at all with the most common name policy, especially for people who aren't a household name. People have a correct name, and we should be using it, even if others don't.
 * Oh, and I know about Vietnamese Catholic names. They don't replace people's actual name, they are just a kind of nickname used in religious contexts.
 * And I have to say, I don't agree at all with the most common name policy, especially for people who aren't a household name. People have a correct name, and we should be using it, even if others don't.
 * Oh, and I know about Vietnamese Catholic names. They don't replace people's actual name, they are just a kind of nickname used in religious contexts.

Carl Kenner (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, he's most commonly introduced as Anh "Joseph" Cao, not merely "Anh Cao". Like William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton and James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, the portion in quotation marks is what he's commonly known as.  This can be seen in the New York Times article, where they refer to him as "Anh Cao", but acknowledge that he's commonly known as "Joseph Cao". If you disagree with the most common name policy, you should try to get it changed. DHN (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, he is almost always referred to as "Cao" and not "Anh", even in Vietnamese-language media, so adding the Vietnamese name template is unwarranted. DHN (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I live in the Louisiana 2nd Congressional district. "Joseph Cao" is what all the signs around town say. It is what he is most commonly known as. At present my vote would be for keeping the article at "Joseph Cao". Whatever the consensus, however, I stronly urge that any proposed move should be proposed and discussed first rather than done unilaterally. I just cleaned up a double redirect from muliple moves. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I support using Anh Cao as the page name. I was surprised when I stumbled upon Joseph Cao when looking for Anh. Anh Cao is the name the media has used. Remember, page names are supposed to be as common as possible because that is how the users of Wikipedia can find what they want.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How did Cao's name appear on the ballot? Additionally, consider that "Bobby" is the nickname for another Louisiana politician, Piyush Jindal, the Governor, and yet "Bobby Jindal" is the title of the Wikipedia article.  I've struggled all my life with trying to use my middle name (a similar issue) and have often found that using all three names is the safest way to go.  The arguments on how Cao should be labeled will forever be inconclusive.  Does anyone know how he prefers to be known in Wikipedia?  Jindal apparently prefers to be just "Bobby Jindal" and maybe Cao should be known by his preference, whatever it is.  Rammer (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, his campaign website shows that he's consistently referred to as "Joseph Cao" or "Joseph". His full name is mentioned only once, in similar vein to the way his full name is mentioned in this article in the lead. DHN (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He appears as Anh "Joseph" Cao on the ballot,, I support keeping the article named as it is. Hekerui (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not dub him "David" Cao? He's a little guy who toppled a giant.  Rammer (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

His name
Most Vietnamese Catholics are given a saint's name when they're baptized. Although his legal name is Anh Cao (in Vietnamese: Cao Quang Ánh), I believe that the "Joseph" part of his name isn't a nickname he gave himself in an effort to appear more Western, but in fact his saint's name. DHN (talk)


 * I renamed the page (to "Anh Cao") in line with his actual name, rather than his saint's name or nickname. When he gives his full name (to English speakers), he calls himself Anh Cao or Anh "Joseph" Cao. All the media I have seen calls him that too.
 * BUT... I strongly believe we should go further, and rename the page to his ACTUAL name, which is Cao Quang Ánh. Vietnamese people have Vietnamese names, and we need to accept that. And the diacritics are extremely important. The way his name is given now (Anh "Joseph" Quang Cao) in the first paragraph means "Mr. "Joseph" Propagandize", which is a humorous and insulting way to refer to a politician :-D. "Anh" means Mr, and is used before all young men's names, but "Ánh" means a beam of light ("Quang Ánh" means a bright beam of light), and is an actual name. In Vietnam he would be called Anh Ánh by his friends. "Quảng cáo" means "to propangadize, advertize, publicize" according to my dictionary, which is how Vietnamese people would guess the tones for "quang cao". His actual surname "Cao" means "tall", and the "Quang" is actually a prefix to his first name. So tones and word order make all the difference between "Tall Bright Beam of Light" and "Mr Propagandize".
 * Also, why is the pronunciation of his name given as "Gao"? Vietnamese distinguishes between "cao" and "gao", just like English does. Carl Kenner (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and don't go deleting people's changes. This is Wikipedia, we are supposed to change articles without permission. You yourself said his name was "Anh Cao" which is why I changed it to that. Carl Kenner (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He's an American politician, not a Vietnamese politician, and he is known as "Joseph Cao" in the American context. Your claim that "Anh Quang Cao" would sound humorous and insulting in Vietnamese is insulting in itself in that you think that Vietnamese can't distinguish between the name "Quang Cao" and "quảng cáo".  I know that the pronunciation "Cao" as "gao" is ridiculous, but that's what he's been telling people to call him. I reverted your renaming because it will most likely raise objections (like mine), and it would be best if you discuss it first. Even in Vietnamese-language news sources, he's now almost universally called "Joseph Cao", and referred to using the Western method (i.e. as "Cao" instead of "Joseph" or "Ánh").  DHN (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Per a recent NPR radio piece about him, "Joseph" is indeed his Baptismal name, not a "nickname". -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you remember where it was and when it was broadcast? DHN (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * New print source with added info: Times-Picayune article: "In a bit of personal housekeeping, Cao said he wants to continue to be referred to in official proceedings and news coverage as Anh "Joseph" Cao, quote marks and all. His name is pronounced "Ein Gow, " but he is untroubled by mispronunciations. Most folks in his life call him Joseph, he said. Cao said he took the name Joseph from the Bible; it is his baptismal name." -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Most democratic district?
This article states that the 2nd district is most democratic in nation (D28) but the William Jefferson article gives the same number, but says it is the 3rd most democratic in the South. Any answers to the discrepancy? I'm not remotely interested in politics but just wanted to bring light to the situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtbash (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, i thought the article read "Cao's win rendered the 2nd District, the most Democratic district in the nation, to be represented by a Republican". pesky commas. Curtbash (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Might want to check this claim
"Before Cao, the last Republican to represent a majority African-American congressional district was black Republican Oscar Stanton De Priest, whose congressional career representing Illinois' 1st congressional district ended in 1935."

I'm suspecting that Webb Franklin represented a majority African-American district from 1983 to 1987 in Mississippi. But someone would need to check the info on the 2nd District of Mississippi for that period of time.

--RobbieFal (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yikes! I forgot about Webb Franklin, who used to go around to African-American churches and tell them how he wanted to teach them how to catch a fish rather than to give them the fish. But Mississippi's 2nd congressional district was closer, back then, to racial balance than is Louisiana's 2nd congressional district.  Nonetheless, I'm pulling my observation on the 73-year hiatus until its veracity is unquestionable.  Rammer (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
I've seen sources disagree on the number of years his father was imprisoned (some say 6, some say 7) and who he moved to the US with (earlier sources say that he went with his mother but later, more in-depth sources mentioned him moving to the US with an older sister and a younger brother while his mother stayed behind to take care of the other children). I think the more in-depth sources are more credible since they have more direct contact with him. DHN (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Recommend you align everything to concur with the more-credible sources. Rammer (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Biographical Source on Cao
From Catholic.org.

Cao's birthdate (3/13/1967) was mentioned in the AP candidate bios (idk if they're online, they're on Lexis-Nexus) and searching for Anh Cao on the Louisiana voter registration database with that DOB matches up.

--RobbieFal (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Cao's date of birth needs to be verified and, as appropriate, corrected.  The source you convey is also useful, and there actually are more sources on this newsmaking individual than we have been able to post.  My personal preference is to use lots of references, and the current policy of Wikipedia is to leave nothing unsourced.  Unfortunately we work in tandem with streamliners whose preference is to cut things out.  I intend an observation there, not a criticism of anyone.  Things usually work out to most folks' general satisfaction.  Rammer (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the whole history with Cao and the Jesuits sounds muddled as it currently stands on the page. Soon enough someone will have to figure out how to mention the important stuff in a coherent and factual way. But then again, considering that nobody really knew of Cao until tonight, we can give some slack in not figuring out the narrative of his life story yet. --RobbieFal (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue has now, presumably, been fixed. Rammer (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Date format
In article text there are only two acceptable date formats, international (2 January 2009) and American (January 2, 2009). ISO date format is not acceptable, particularly when ISO format is 2009-01-02. There is no accepted format that is 2009 January 2. For further information, please see MOS:DATE. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 18:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are numerous articles where the first major contributor opted for Julian dates. See, for example, the article on Bruno Hauptman.  Why the concern to switch the date format on the Cao article which I have been shepherding all along?  Don't most of us have enough to do already?  Rammer (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your contributions to this article is appreciated but every article on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone (except those that have a form of page protection, of course) and one of the common edits to be made is minor formatting fixes to get an article in compliance with the various guidelines. In this case, the minor format change is from a date format that doesn't comply with Wikipedia's date guideline, to a date format that does comply with that MOS. The change from the first major contributor prohibition is only applied when either the International or American date format is acceptable, i.e. science articles. This is not an issue for this article as an American politician is expected to have the American date format. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you may want to update your example... Hauptmann's article is using American date format and has since its creation. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DATE: "Edit warring over optional styles (such as 14 February and February 14) is unacceptable." -- You're right, edit warring over optional styles is indeed unacceptable, so please stop. The policy page in question is very clear about referring to "the style used by the first major contributor." Rammer, you are indeed one of the first major contributors to this page, but you only decided to change it to the British format after most of the dates in the article had adhered to the American style since at least December 7. I'm going to make one revert, but that's it (I'm not about to have this listed at WP:LAME). However, if you are going to re-revert, please seriously consider what you are edit warring over before you do. Khoikhoi 05:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring is indeed unacceptable, and I was not the one who started the war. During the last 3 months I have devoted many hours to this article. Then abruptly a probably well meaning and intelligent person decided to go through it and change the date format, in some cases getting 2008 and 2009 confused. I'm surely a lousy person and have a lot to learn, but, even amid the absence of a kind word in the criticism of my contributions to the article, I went back through and straightened out that confusion. I am a very busy person and lack the time to engage in repetitions of a pyrrhic skirmish. Anyone who has the time to be interested in it is welcome to read the "Edit summary" reasons, which may or may not have been read before. Julian dates, including with the month spelled in letters for clarity, are spreading worldwide although more slowly in the United States, and even there they are provided for by Microsoft and Dell and required by American Psychological Association (APA) attribution style, the most widely used in scholarly journals. Being heretofore unaware that something like a date format could arouse feelings equivalent to religious intensity, and having more significant matters to deal with—such as family and job—in a world which faces challenges like pollution and genocide, I wish to experience no more time tied up in this late-arriving controversy about date formats on Joseph Cao. Rammer (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rammer, if there are/were any years that are incorrect, it is because the years were mixed up in the original text. Here's the diffs of my edits: . As you can see all of the years were moved from in front of the Month Day combination to the end exactly as they were originally entered. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I meant in no way by my comment to discourage you from editing this page. Your contributions to this article have proven invaluable, and I hope that none of the editors on this page will get bogged down on something as trivial as this. I actually do not have a preference either way, but in this case we should probably follow Wikipedia policy based on the "who used the date format" first rule. There have been arbitration cases over this so it is an extremely contentious matter. This will probably be my last edit to this article regardless. Khoikhoi 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Protect page?
Might want to consider protecting page as its bound to become a target of angry republicans after tonight's vote 99.241.95.241 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, quick. The last few minutes have seen added lots of crazy 76.169.91.14 (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Protected for a day; should be long enough for this to die off or at least reduce to manageable levels. Veinor (talk to me) 04:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone: See talk page?
The article currently bears the following notation:

But there's nothing on the talk page about the tone per se of the article.

Perhaps one of the following gestures is in order:

- Convey on the talk page, to which the notation directs the reader, the article's concrete needs, with examples from the article - Rewrite the article with the specific changes sought by the "inappropriate tone" notation - Delete the "inappropriate tone" notation

Rammer (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur, and am removing the tag. Tvoz / talk 05:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Google text hacked
When you Google Joseph Cao, the text that comes up in the search says, "Joseph Cao has no family. He was born of Satan and lost a soul the day he voted against republicans. Cao's father, My Quang Cao (born 1931), ..."

Can someone fix this immediately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyamishgirl (talk • contribs) 04:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It will go away once google crawls the page again. I kinda like it there. You aren't getting anything done unless you piss someone off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.46.252 (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Now it reads "Anh "Joseph" Cao seeks heaping helping of pork; earmark requests top $1 billion Times-" That's hardly neutral. How about leading with something neutral like his current job title? Like "is a New Orleans lawyer and the current U.S. Representative from Louisiana's 2nd congressional district." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyamishgirl (talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, how does the lead get determined by google? From what I've noticed it is usually the date of birth and occupation that shows up, not a citation. Apothecia (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed it :). Seemed to be embedded in the infobox as a fake link. Apothecia (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable
This article's tone is totally unacceptable as per Wikipedia's standards of encyclopedic neutrality. I had no idea that Wikipedia's standards could be so blatantly violated without such an insignificant level of reproach from administrators. There are many people whose views I disagree with, but I would never use this kind of biased, and sometimes outright bigoted language against them, i.e. saying he is of Satanic origin. What is that about? I expect more from Wikipedia than this kind of immaturity. --ACRSM 04:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's momentary vandalism. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 04:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In FEMA section, instead of "aversive" I suggest "adversarial" is intended —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.248.49 (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He voted 'Yes' on a healthcare bill that the Republicans oppose, and a lot of a Republicans are angry about this. It'll probably die off soon, but it might be worth having this page protected if it happens again. ManicParroT (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On healthcare, as of November 10 at 17:08 the article had this: "By the time he [Cao] voted, the bill had just received the necessary 218 votes needed for passage." Now that statement has been changed to say that Cao voted "shortly after the bill received the necessary 218 votes needed for passage." The earlier statement is factual and neutral. The current statement implies a volition on Cao’s part to wait until the fate of the bill was known and then to vote anticlimactically. Did Cao explicitly admit such a motive for holding his vote in abeyance? Was whoever changed the statement actually in Cao’s mind, reading his thoughts? I may be wrong, but I am definitely curious. Rammer (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to fiddle with the wording. I don't understand the difference between what was there and is there. This source will answer your question. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)