Talk:Lou Barletta

Prod Objection
Even if he loses the election, Barletta is notable based on his vocal support of tougher illegal immigration enforcement at a local level. I therefore contest the prod.--HoboJones (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did some cleanup this morning. Sorry for no edit summary (someone showed up at the door and was afraid of losing my work so i just hit submit).  Anyway, hopefully the references from the NY TImes, Washington Post and Associated Press are helpful.  A lot of people may not like his immigration policies, but the coverage I would think makes him notable.  TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) ] 15:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Hazleton, PA the first city to pass a law barring employers from hiring illegals, as well as landlords from renting or leasing to them?24.46.83.58 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nickname
"Shady Lou"? Unsourced. Getting rid of this.24.220.167.100 (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lou Barletta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208193742/http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=28&OfficeID=11 to http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=28&OfficeID=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lou Barletta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719172037/http://www.timesleader.com/news/Federal-appeals-court-affirmsreverses-parts-of-Hazleton-immigration-ordinance.html to http://www.timesleader.com/news/Federal-appeals-court-affirmsreverses-parts-of-Hazleton-immigration-ordinance.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203015641/http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=15&ElectionID=28&OfficeID=11&DistrictID=11 to http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=15&ElectionID=28&OfficeID=11&DistrictID=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

August 3 2018 CNN appearance
Transcript should be a possible cite because of positions exspouced to Trump regarding Russian election interference Wikipietime (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Anti-immigration ordinances in lede
The lede should note that the Barletta anti-immigration ordinances that he earned notoriety for were (i) notable in part due to the high-profile legal cases that they spurred, and (ii) are notable for no longer being in place and for contributing to putting Hazleton in financial distress. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As I stated in my revert, this is a Wikipedia page about Lou Barletta, not about the Town of Hazleton or its legal cases or legal fees. This information can (and likely should) be in the body of the article, but it is not lede-worthy or even close. Including it in the lede, in my opinion, would make the lede unbalanced and create POV concerns. SunCrow (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have just edited the lede in an attempt to create a compromise solution. I removed the legal fee information (which reads like a partisan political shot) but added language about the ordinance having been found unconstitutional. SunCrow (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not some trivia about the town of Hazleton. It's about the actions that Barletta took as mayor of Hazleton... the actions that brought national attention to him and his sole claim to some sort of fame. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Mentioning the Town's immigration ordinance in the lede makes sense because it was the subject of a high-profile court battle. And I agree that the Town's legal fees are not "trivia" and can be mentioned in the body of the article. However, I maintain that the Town's legal fees are not significant enough to include in the lede, and that including that information in the lede makes it read like a partisan political attack. (To be frank, the tone of your response only adds to that impression.) I have tagged the article accordingly. (Do you really believe the immigration situation is the "sole claim to some sort of fame" for a three-term mayor and a four-term member of Congress?) SunCrow (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No, it's perfectly reasonable to briefly account for what the anti-immigration ordinance did to the city. And yes, the immigration ordinance is what earned Barletta national media attention. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV
In glancing through this article (which I have never edited before), I noticed an entire paragraph in the "immigration" section on Barletta's interviews and speeches to what CNN called "fringe organizations and individuals with views far outside the mainstream of American politics." While the paragraph seemed a bit lengthy to me, I didn't have a problem with the information being included. However, when I read the CNN article that the paragraph cited to, I realized that the CNN article contained a detailed response from Barletta's team to questions about his interviews and speeches to these "fringe organizations and individuals." Curiously, the Wikipedia article contained no mention of those detailed responses. That, I have a problem with. I think every other Wikipedia editor should have a problem with it, too. It is so blatantly unbalanced that it's hard to assume good faith on the part of the editor that did this. If someone is going to add a paragraph of not-very-flattering information about a living politician, I see that as fair game as long as it is accurate, notable, and reliably sourced; however, if we're going to include that information, we have to be fair enough to include the subject's explanation or defense as well. It's just cowardly not to. Whether Barletta's team's explanation is believable is a question that can be left to the readers. I'm not sure how long this paragraph has been here, but it's disconcerting that no other editors spotted the problem.

I have included a new paragraph that corrects the blatant imbalance and restores NPOV. SunCrow (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

2012 election section
I have tagged this section as potential original research. There are three facts in the section that are cited to sources, but the rest of the section contains uncited analysis. If that analysis is to remain in the encyclopedia, it should be appropriately cited. SunCrow (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Gubernatorial Bid
The paragraph describing his life between Senate run and Gubernatorial bid doesn't really belong under Gubernatorial bid. I would think it belongs in personal life since that's what he did in his personal life between politics. Happy to hear other opinions. --Engineer-005 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)