Talk:Steve Scalise/Archive 1

RFC
Scalise admitted speaking via teleconference to the EURO group, a David Duke affiliated white supremacist group.

-- Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Should the CenLamar blog (the original breaking source)  be used as a source for our coverage?  (eg, is it compliant with WP:BLP in particular WP:SPSBLP which says "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.")
 * Should reliably sourced comments from both Democrats and Republicans defending Scalise against the allegations of racism be included in our coverage. (either quoted, or summarized) (See previous version here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Scalise&diff=640249901&oldid=640249016)

Survey

 * Do not use blog, include comments WP:SPSBLP is a policy and the blog is a clear violation. the comments are reliably sourced and including defamatory comment without allowing any defense is not WP:NPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Summoned here by bot. Easy call. No per above. Coretheapple (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There were two questions, could you clarify which one(s) you are answering? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I was referring to the blog comments. However, I see no problem with the sources or content in this version. Coretheapple (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - None of the content I added relied on CenLamar.com. I added the blog so that readers could locate it for further research, which is one of the purposes of citations. Note that quite a few reliable news sources have have cited the blog themselves. I would be amenable to moving it out of references and including it as an external link. As to the the question Should reliably sourced comments from both Democrats and Republicans defending Scalise against the allegations of racism be included in our coverage? There does need to be room for countervailing opinions per WP:NPOV, but not everyone's opinion is worth mentioning. We should be selective, and not cherry pick quotes. The article in it's current state as of 17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC) seems about right to me with regard to third party opinions.- MrX 17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blogs are never used as BLP sources under any circumstances. No need in this case. I see it is on page one of the New York Times today. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it was not intended to be a source. It would have probably been better to format it as a (non-citation) footnote. - MrX 18:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally understand and support what Mr is trying to achieve here. I'm almost in his camp. I don't mind a textual reference to CenLamar that would allow readers to go find it themselves. I still don't think I support including an off-site link. BlueSalix (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Really? Nope Use of blogs is strongly deprecated except under very specific circumstances. Which this does not meet.  WP:NPOV does, moreover, require balancing opinions.  Not even a close call here. Collect (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a WP:RS, but refer to the Opinion contained therein. Strictly speaking, as a WIKIPEDIA source, the blog fails on every level. Problem is, it really isn't being used as a WIKIPEDIA source, but as the source for the controversy. Multiple real news outlets are reporting not new or original information, but that the blog said X. Reference to a non-WP:RS by WP:RS media doesn't make the information more reliable. WP:RS rules do illustrate problems with how the narrative is being presented, though. For instance, the blog should not be used to reference fact, as it is now. The controversy is a WP:RS Opinion, in this case the allegation/accusation/conclusion by the blogger(WP uses the word opinion, in this case the other words work better) that Scalise spoke at a conference. The facts needed are not that conclusion, but the anonymous commenters' comments on Stormfront (referenced to a WP:RS, since repetition of facts by a WP:RS implies that they fact checked), FROM WHICH this blogger concluded that Scalise had spoken to a hate group. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Blogs are not reliable WP sources, especially when dealing with living persons. I would not use it, there should be other sources, and even if none exist I wouldnt use it. AlbinoFerret  14:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone disputes that the blog isn't a WP:RS. Problem is, (I think there is a country song about this) if it weren't for bad sources, we'd have no sources at all. Clearly, the allegations, even though there are thin gruel, have, due to the social media firestorm, been noted by the MSM. MSM sources really haven't added much that is factual, which would have made our lives easier by making reference to the blog unnecessary. Except for the link, the rest of the junk on the blog is pure purple prose, but the only "better" way to show what this controversy is about is to link to the original. It is possible, since it is short ; "the meeting was productive locally as State Representative, Steve Scalise, discussed ways to oversee gross mismanagement of tax revenue or “slush funds” that have little or no accountability. Representative Scalise brought into sharp focus the dire circumstances pervasive in many important, under-funded needs of the community at the expense of graft within the Housing and Urban Development Fund,", and that is the total of all evidence that Scalise may have spoken to EURO, but THIS citation is just as problematic in some ways, and more problematic in others.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not use blog, include comments The blog is a primary source, so per WP:PRIMARY, other sources should be used. Newsworthy comments from prominent politicians should be included. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No blog a blog cannont be the source for a WP page. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not use blog; include comments provided the comments selected are, themselves, notable I would much rather see a summary like "Scalsie received support from some Republicans and Democrats, including X, Y, and Z" with appropriate cites rather than a laundry list of quotes which will only become a magnet to include every 1-line statement of support made any by everyone from a U.S. congressman to the local dog catcher. BlueSalix (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sources
I'm seeking a cogent expatiation explanation of why removed these sources from the article. - MrX 19:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should understand that "seeking a cogent expatiation"(sic) is not precisely a civil form of discourse. The fact is that this article falls under WP:BLP and therefore contentious claims must be strongly sourced.  Instead we have a "friend of a friend"  type connection to the KKK which is a "contentious claim" and which is weakly sourced -- I can find a person who would say Lee Oswald was a friend of a friend of LBJ - but the concept of "third party knowledge"  is a long way from being strong. (my edit summary was third party claim of "friendship" is weak - too weak for a BLP or any article in fact -- suppose a "third party" said Lee Oswald was "friendly" with LBJ's friend? strong enough for you?)  which seems quite "cogent."  The fact that MrX is re-inserting what I consider a BLP violation here is troubling, but not unexpected when politics is involved on any Wikipedia BLP of a political figure.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably best to leave personalities out of this, but feel free to take it up on my user talk page. Inserting citations to reliable sources that almost verbatim support the content in the article is in no way a WP:BLP violation. Nor does a straw man argument doesn't make it so.- MrX 20:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another source has been removed in this edit by Collect, who seems be under the impression that we are not allowed include primary sources in an article. Also troubling is the removal of white supremacist from in front of the group (EURO) that Scalise spoke at. This is troubling, because our sources use exactly this wording extensively. [{WP:POV]] would seem to require that describe this group as our sources describe it, without hiding the fact that they are a white supremacist organization.- MrX 03:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RSand WP:PRIMARY and also note that adding adjectives "to make the person appear evil" requires direct and strong sourcing directly related to the person who is the subject of the BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm very familiar with those policies. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable as long as editors don't try to analyze them. To quote the policy:
 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
 * " Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
 * From WP:BLPPRIMARY:
 * "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source,..."
 * So I ask you, which of these policy explanations are you relying on for the removal of a report about a politician, from the Federal Election Commission?


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "to make the person appear evil". If by chance you mean "white supremacist group", that is the terminology used by a great majority of our sources when they refer to Scalise's speech. If you disagree with that, you can certainly raise the issue at WP:BLP/N or WP:OR/N. To omit it would be a violation of WP:NPOV, and as you know, white washing articles is usually frowned upon.- MrX 21:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still hoping to get an explanation of why these sources were removed and why "white supremacist" was removed. The edit summary for removing sources was "third party claim of "friendship" is weak - too weak for a BLP or any article in fact -- suppose a "third party" said Lee Oswald was "friendly" with LBJ's friend? strong enough for you?" didn't make sense to me.
 * According to the Washington Post "Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke said late Monday that his longtime political adviser, Kenny Knight, was “friendly” with House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) in 2002, and cited that relationship as the reason Scalise accepted an invitation that year to speak at a gathering of white supremacists.
 * According to the BBC, "On Sunday a Louisiana blogger reported that in 2002 Steve Scalise, then a state legislator, gave a speech to a white supremacist group holding a "workshop on civil rights" in Louisiana."
 * These are both impeccable sources that make plain statements that the organization Scalise spoke at is a white supremacist organization. Further clarification by would be greatly appreciated.- MrX 15:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read what I post instead of making speeches to the gallery.  Your last sentence in particular is an  example par excellance of snark.   I would note that the BBC ascribes the phrase to a blogger, and not in its own voice, etc.   Yet you insist on using the bloggers words as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice.   And the bit about a third party speaking of a friend of a friend type stuff is not worthy of an encyclopedia article either.   As I gave an example "A friend of Lee Harvey Oswald said a friend of Lee's was also a friend of LBJ" which would be rightly disallowed as being what is generally termed "hearsay evidence" at best.    Happy New Year - and will someone tell MrX that pinging on a page which the other person has Watchlisted, and making snarky comments about that person is not the best use of any Wikipedia talk page? Collect (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I honestly intended no snark. I pinged you because you didn't respond to my last comments, so I wanted sure if you were aware that I made them. Are you aware that the EURO is widely-referred to as a white supremacist group in the media? Our own article European-American Unity and Rights Organization refers to it as a white nationalist group "Led by former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke" (should say founded). Also, you still haven't explained why you removed good sources.- MrX 20:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously attempting to say a Wikipedia article is a reliable source for another Wikipedia article? Really?  The rule is that we must use reliable secondary sources for all claims, and need strong sourcing for any contentious claims in a BLP (which this article is).    Opinion articles are generally not considered as proper sourcing for contentious claims or for any claims of fact.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I never added a Wikipedia article as a source, so I'm puzzled by that comment. I was pointing out an example of how another article described the organization. The Washington Post article is a strong source, and it's not an opinion source: "Robert Costa is a national political reporter at The Washington Post" The BBC article has very little of the reporter's opinion, and is almost entirely factual reporting: "Anthony Zurcher is a senior writer with the BBC and editor of Echo Chambers, where he gathers and analyses the best in US and world opinion."- MrX 21:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy length undue
The controversy section is now approximately 1/3 of this article. (measured by increase from 20k size to 28k size since inclusion). This is clearly WP:UNDUE. An event he spoke at one time where we have no knowledge of what he actually said, where the core sourcing is stormfront.org and a blog, should not be 1/3 of this guy's multiple decade career blp. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are 1663 words in the article (excluding the infobox). There are 376 398 words in the controversy section. That's 22.6% 23.9% of the article. It's possible that the non-controversy portion of the article is too short, and anyone is welcome to expand it. I believe that the controversy section is about the right length, but I wouldn't be opposed to any of the following changes:
 * "After news of the EURO speaking engagement came out, The Huffington Post reported that Scalise had accepted $1,000 from David Duke's adviser, Kenny Knight. The money was given to Scalise in 2008." → "Scalise had also accepted $1,000 from David Duke's adviser, Kenny Knight in 2008."


 * "On December 29, Niels Lesniewski of Roll Call reprinted an article that had been run in 1999, after Congressman Bob Livingston had resigned from Congress. Duke and Scalise were considering running for his seat and they and others were interviewed for the piece. When asked about a potential bid for Congress by Duke, Scalise had told the newspaper that he held many of the same "conservative" views as Duke, but was a more electable candidate, saying that Duke's "novelty" had worn off. Two days later, Louisiana political reporter Stephanie Grace recounted that during her first meeting with Scalise two decades ago, he had told her that he was "like David Duke without the baggage"." → "In 1999, Scalise had told a newspaper that he held many of the same "conservative" views as David Duke, but was a more electable candidate."."


 * "Louisiana politicians such as Republicans Roger F. Villere, Jr. and Bobby Jindal, and Democrat Cedric Richmond defended Scalise's character.[36] Speaker of the House John Boehner voiced his continued confidence in Scalise as Majority Whip." → "Several Louisiana politicians, Democrat Cedric Richmond, and House Speaker John Boehner defended Scalise's character."


 * "Several Democratic members of Congress, as well as Mo Elleithee, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, criticized Scalise, and challenged his statement that he was not aware of the group's affiliation with racism and anti-Semitism.[38] Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center called upon Scalise to step down from his leadership position as Majority Whip." → ""Several Democratic members of Congress criticized Scalise, and challenged his statement that he was not aware of the group's affiliation with racism and anti-Semitism. The Southern Poverty Law Center called upon Scalise to step down from his leadership position as Majority Whip."


 * How does that sound?- MrX 14:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This is mostly moot, due the the consensus develop(ing) below and which deals with my objection in this section, but I wanted to briefly respond to your statement above "It's possible that the non-controversy portion of the article is too short, and anyone is welcome to expand it. I believe that the controversy section is about the right length"

That type of argument is explicitly disallowed by BLP Biographies_of_living_persons "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's well and good, as long as we remember that balance (WP:WEIGHT) is determined by the amount of coverage in sources (excluding mere opinion). Several people have mentioned that the section is undue, but failed to offer any evidence to support that assertion. That evidence would normally be in the form of analyzing how many reliable sources cover the topic, and at what depth.- MrX 20:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mm, but weight is generally based on secondary sources and sustained coverage, vs primary breaking news. see  WP:BALASPS This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."  also WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:RECENTISM ". In the modern news cycle almost every minor controversy gets massively covered because everyone can syndicate or publish the content very rapidly. If there is one academic quality biography out there, and 20 news sites that all publish the same story on the same day, we should not balance our article 20 to 1.  Gaijin42 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

EURO controversy
This entire section needs to be reworked, the timeline jumps around so much, I can't see how anyone (the average Reader in particular) would understand the point of the material or whats being said. It seems POV laden and WP:UNDUE. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In 2014, political blogger Lamar White, Jr. researched forum posts on white supremacist website Stormfront and discovered that in 2002 Scalise had spoken at a conference organized by a white supremacist group. White, a law student, posted his findings on his blog, CenLamar.com. Soon after media took note, Scalise said that, while serving in the state legislature in 2002, he had spoken at European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Scalise said that he did not know of the "racist nature of the group" when he spoke at the conference in 2002.

In 2008, Scalise had received $1,000 from David Duke's adviser, Kenny Knight.

Kenny Knight and his former girlfriend, Barbara Noble, said that Scalise did not speak at the EURO conference, but at a meeting of the Jefferson Heights Civic Association. The association met in the same location as the EURO conference, several hours before the conference began. According to Knight, a representative of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office and a member of the Red Cross also spoke to attendees, who were mainly residents from Knight and Scalise's neighborhood. Knight says he invited Scalise because, “I wanted to reach out to him and give him an audience so he could talk to people from his district about legislation he was proposing." The EURO press release advertising the 2002 conference did not list Scalise as a speaker.

On December 29, Niels Lesniewski of Roll Call reprinted an article that had been run in 1999, after Congressman Bob Livingston had resigned from Congress. Duke and Scalise were considering running for his seat and they and others were interviewed for the piece. When asked about a potential bid for Congress by Duke, Scalise had told the newspaper that he held many of the same conservative views as Duke, but was a more electable candidate, saying that Duke's novelty had worn off. Two days later, Louisiana political reporter Stephanie Grace recounted that during her first meeting with Scalise two decades ago, he had told her that he was "like David Duke without the [racist, antisemitic, KKK] baggage".

Reaction
Louisiana politicians such as Republicans Roger F. Villere, Jr. and Bobby Jindal, and Democrat Cedric Richmond defended Scalise's character. Speaker of the House John Boehner voiced his continued confidence in Scalise as Majority Whip. According to John Hayward at Human Events the story of Scalise's speaking engagement in 2002 was "either dubiously sourced, a mistake, or an outright hoax".

Several Democratic members of Congress, as well as Mo Elleithee, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, criticized Scalise, and challenged his statement that he was not aware of the group's affiliation with racism and anti-Semitism. Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center called upon Scalise to step down from his leadership position as Majority Whip.

Discussion

 * Could you please explain what specifically you consider to be POV about this content, and why you believe it to be WP:UNDUE?- MrX 20:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Start with the editorial interpolation of "racist, antisemitic, KKK" into a quote about a living person.  (note that the Wikipedia MOS bars such interpolations where the words are not found in the original quote).   Note also that the source is an editorial opinion, and can not be used for statements of fact.  By making the interpolation, we completely violate the expectationof readers that words attributed to Scalise are actually his words.    Continue with iterating "white supremacist" in a single sentence.   Add seasoning.  UINDUE and actual abuse of sources and quotes to start with.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was hoping to find out what specific issues Scalhotrod has with the content.- MrX 21:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * touches on some good points. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the [racist, antisemetic kkk] parenthetical because the shared "conservative" views (with scare quotes originally included in the wikitext) without the baggage read to me as if the "conservative" views were implied to be the racist views. Therefore the fact that the source specifically identified that the missing baggage in question as those racist views was very important. Im fine with the new version that puts that clarification as a second sentence. There is a problem with using quotes for that statement at all, in that the original source did not use quotes, therefore we are upgrading that author's paraphrase/retelling into a direct quote by scalise. We  should make it clear that it is her words/memory/interpretation, not Scalise's Gaijin42 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My overall issue with the section has to do with what its actually trying to convey. Trying to follow the timeline of events is difficult enough which clouds the point of the material. All that I personally get from it, as it currently reads, is that Scalise got dupped into appearing at an event that would be stupid for any politician to be caught dead at. The rest is just political BS rhetoric and posturing, politicians argue and disagree - so what... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's outside our mandate as editors to speculate as to the Congressman's motives for his actions or as to what might be stupid political strategy for him.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this section is to summarize the controversy. While it doesn't need to be detailed, it does need to cover the major points. I've made some suggestions for trimming above. Would you like to propose some wording here, or comment on the suggestions that I've already made? We have to remember that presenting this material with a neutral POV means following our sources, regardless of whether that material is complimentary or critical of the subject.- MrX 04:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No article, BLP or otherwise, needs a "controversy" section. It's contrary to WP policy and WP:UNDUE that content like this has its own section. If a source is overly complimentary or critical, then its reliability is suspect. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's debatable whether this article should have a controversy section, but there is no doubt that this is a controversy. Where would you propose moving the content to? We can discuss any of the article's sources if you would like to make a case that any of them are unreliable. WP:BIASED and WP:USEBYOTHERS are instructive. For example, nola.com (Times-Picayune) has been widely cited by other sources.- MrX 13:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is about a living, non-retired politician, any debate is worthless because the integrity and intention of edits that are anything but simple statement of facts are questionable. Just calling it a "controversy" is POV. State the facts neutrally, without spin, and accurately and let the Reader decide for themselves how to consider the events. Its not up to you, me, or any WP Editor to pass judgement. It's really that simple... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, state the facts, and remove non-notable opinions. Let's see your version. (And I think you should restore your removal of the summary of this controversy from the lead, per WP:LEAD)- MrX 23:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not like the way the story is presented. What about something like "Scalise attracted controversy after a claim was posted on a political blog that he had spoken at a conference organized by a white supremacist group"?  Then we can outline what claims and counter-claims were made and how the Republican Party congressional caucus reacted.  We should outline the facts, not tell a story.
 * The sentence about Knight providing money should be removed unless it can be shown that it attracted controversy. Was Scalise aware of the donation and if not is it significant that Knight contributed?
 * TFD (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think some form of the first paragraph is essential, and I can't see removing relevant facts from it without creating a POV issue. The fourth paragraph is important, although somewhat less so. It could stand some trimming. I am not in favor of only giving the the Republican Party congressional caucus reactions. Boehner's support merits mentioning, as well as the first sentence in the second paragraph under 'Reaction', so that were are presenting both viewpoints in balance. There's not need to list Jindal, et al. I'm fine with leaving the donation out altogether, unless something more comes of it in the future.

Arbitrary break
In 2014, political blogger Lamar White, Jr., posted on his blog, CenLamar.com, that in 2002, Scalise had spoken at a conference organized by a white supremacist group. After mainstream media took note, Scalise admitted that, while serving in the state legislature in 2002, he had spoken at European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Scalise said that he did not know of the "racist nature of the group" when he spoke at the conference in 2002.

Speaker of the House John Boehner voiced his continued confidence in Scalise as Majority Whip. Several Democratic members of Congress, as well as Mo Elleithee, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, criticized Scalise, and challenged his statement that he was not aware of the group's affiliation with racism and anti-Semitism.


 * I could live with something like this, provided that we restore some brief mention of the controversy to the lead, per WP:LEAD.- MrX 03:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs inline citations added before we can even discuss it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not it doesn't. They're already in the article. Could we see your proposed version?- MrX 03:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't have the integrity to post the full version with citations of what you are proposing, then stop wasting our time. Content like this needs every single claim sourced, at least one per sentence to support contentious material like this. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I decline, and I don't accept your premise. Feel free to share your version, with citations, if you wish.- MrX 03:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The new version is much more appropriate in weight, but I feel it is important to mention the R & D LA politicians that defended him. They are the ones who would know the most about him, and otherwise it looks just like partisan support/criticism. (the current version could be super-summarized as democrats attacked, republicans defended) Gaijin42 (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that we need to mention that Republicans from Louisiana support a Republican from Louisiana, any more than we would need to mention that Democrats seized the opportunity to pounce on a controversy involving a Republican. I will note that Scalhotrod's bold edit didn't quite hit the nail on the head with respect to being neutral, and 'Media attention' is not an apt section title. We should reach some level of consensus here before making such a major change to this section.- MrX 13:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So no objection to leaving the support of the LA Democrat then? In regards to "Any more than we would need to mention that Democrats seized the opportunity" - So no need for this bit then? "Several Democratic members of Congress, as well as Mo Elleithee, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, criticized Scalise, and challenged his statement that he was not aware of the group's affiliation with racism and anti-Semitism" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, support from third parties except Boehner and Elleithee should be removed. I would be amenable to removing "Several Democratic members of Congress," from my draft above, which would leave one comment from one notable person, from each side.- MrX 15:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Another version
Here's what I attempted to edit it down to which includes moving it (a single paragraph) to the appropriate section of his career, Steve_Scalise. Given this source and what it states about the issue and the controversial and contentious nature of the content, this is all of the attention that I feel this subject deserves before it becomes WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, the last place it deserves a mention is in the Lead. That would clearly make the content Undue IMO. I have no "dog in this fight" and have no further interest in this article. My thanks to everyone that conscientiously contributed to this discussion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

In 2014, a third-year law student and political blogger, Lamar White, Jr., researched forum posts on the white supremacist website Stormfront and discovered that in 2002 Scalise had spoken at a conference organized by the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group founded by David Duke. White posted his findings on his blog and soon after the media took note. Scalise said that he had spoken at the conference in 2002 and stated that he did not know of the "racist nature of the group". According to John Hayward at Human Events the story of Scalise's speaking engagement in 2002 was "either dubiously sourced, a mistake, or an outright hoax" and noted that the media attention lasted roughly one day. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (R) and congessman Cedric Richmond (D) defended Scalise's character. Speaker of the House John Boehner voiced his continued confidence in Scalise as Majority Whip. Several Democrat members of Congress, as well as Mo Elleithee, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, criticized Scalise, and challenged his statement that he was not aware of the group's affiliation with racism and anti-Semitism.
 * Media attention


 * Thank you for taking the time to propose new wording. I can live with it, or something close to it, provided that the section title is a straightforward summary of the content. Something like European-American Unity and Rights Organization speech would probably work. I think it should be mentioned in the lead, but would be interested in what others think.- MrX 22:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can also live with this wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Assuming there is no objection that appears in the next few hours, I will replace the current section with this proposed section later today per WP:SILENCE, since we have approval from representatives of both sides of this debate.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, no to the lead (undue weight). Arzel (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have swapped out the text for this version. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted that change. Please allow time for discussion here.  There's no consensus and linking to the "silence" essay is no substitute for hashing out the issues here on talk.   SPECIFICO  talk  04:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comon. We waited two days, and you don't say anything, then revert the moment it happens. Play nice. Do you have any actual objection to this version or are you just stonewalling? Gaijin42 (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Specifico, do you have an actual objection to this version? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Media took note - doesn't quite do it. Should probably mention that this immediately blew up on Social Media FIRST, at which point, the mainstream media picked it up. Social Media sharing and/or campaigns, and their sudden explosion is what drove this story.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, "Scalise said that he had spoken at the conference in 2002 and stated that he did not know of the "racist nature of the group" " is bad, and misrepresents. Scalise says he neither recalls speaking to such a group, but that if the blog is correct and he did, he didn't know he was speaking to EURO. As stated it implies he did know he spoke to EURO but didn't know it was a racist organization. Understand that there is some sloppy reporting which also makes this mistake (and political spin experts that claim he said he didn't know David Duke was racist), but as a rule WP doesn't give preference to bad references.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He said that in an interview. But in his prepared statement he says he spoke, without qualification.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record since there is now a dispute to this content again, While I support the consensus body version above (mostly currently in the article) I believe it to currently be WP:UNDUE in the lede. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem: Scalise did NOT confirm/admit that he spoke to EURO
All sources refer either to his press person's release, or to Scalise's interview in the Times-Picayune. In both he states flatly that he does not recall (ie does NOT confirm) speaking to EURO. He only confirms that some facts/data, namely anonymous comments on stormfront, contained in White's blog, are accurate, and that he may have been at the hotel in question. He has only said that, based on White's information, that it is "possible", "probable" or "likely" that he may have been present. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect


 * - MrX 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are correct that there is a lot of sloppy quoting, and careless shortcuts. That does not change the fact that Scalise did not recall speaking to EURO, that in the actual sources, he only MAY have spoken to EURO, and only then, because the sparse facts on the activist blog seem to indicate it. You've illustrated the problem with sourcing with one of your refs - the Picayune (which directly had the "likely" and "may", authentic reportage, with all the qualifiers) not reporting itself, but reporting that the Post reported that Scalise confirmed, when, in reality, the Post was just inaccurately relating the content of the original Picayune interview. It's called telephone, a children's game. Here's the Picayune interview Here's all the evidence he attended EURO, the anonymous blog post by "Alsace Hebert"  Again, you can find sloppy media reports that say it's definite, or more precise and accurate ones that don't. I am alwsys in favor of using the source closest to the subject, and avoid reports of reports of reports.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is definitely some circular referencing going on in the sourcing. The problem with this analysis is the statement released by his office that does directly admit it. I haven't been able to find the WP:PRIMARY source for the statement yet, but it is reported on in many reliable sources with direct quotes not found in the interview. "One of the many groups that I spoke to regarding this critical legislation was a group whose views I wholeheartedly condemn." That statement does not contain any "I do not recall" or "may have" qualifications. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We have Knight and his then girlfriend stating that Scalise spoke to Knights alleged "Jefferson Heights Civic Association".. We have Duke himself saying “Scalise would communicate a lot with my campaign manager, Kenny Knight,” Duke said Monday. “That is why he was invited and why he would come. Kenny knew Scalise, Scalise knew Kenny. They were friendly.” And we have serious doubts cast upon the existence of a "Jefferson Heights Civic Association". There's also WP:UNDUE in using a conservative organ to claim it was a hoax. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it undue to use conservative sources be perfectly fine to use liberal sources? Arzel (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we just remove the Human Events content. It doesn't represent good journalism, and their story seems to be odds with our more reliable sources.- MrX 17:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Arzel: It's undue because it represents a fringe point of view. Unless other sources make the same assertion, or better yet, cite Human Events, it's merely an outlier.- MrX 17:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Slate is ultimately the source for those claims (as directly attributed in the HE article), I think we could likely swap the Slate source for the HE source with no real text change to the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Human Events is a minor political organ. I'd never even heard of it until I saw it being used here. We could use National Review as that has weight. But what we shouldn't do is use any one source to suggest this is a hoax - that's definitely undue. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The difference is that Slate presents the information as a possibility, and they balance that with an opposing point of view. Specifically,
 * In contrast, Human Events ignored the opposing viewpoint, added some conspiracy theory and came up with
 * Given everything else that has been written about this controversy, it doesn't seem appropriate to include this theory, unless someone can find other sources that echo it.- MrX 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given everything else that has been written about this controversy, it doesn't seem appropriate to include this theory, unless someone can find other sources that echo it.- MrX 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given everything else that has been written about this controversy, it doesn't seem appropriate to include this theory, unless someone can find other sources that echo it.- MrX 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few do. In addition to the slate and HE articles, we have Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Also Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Times/Picaune http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/12/david_duke_adviser_kenny_knigh.html
 * Newsweek/Dailybeast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/30/white-pride-leader-sticks-up-for-scalise.html
 * Politifact http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/06/what-we-know-about-steve-scalise-attending-white-p/
 * CNN http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/02/opinion/brazile-scalise-controversy/
 * Mediaite http://www.mediaite.com/online/scalise-may-have-never-actually-attended-a-white-supremacist-convention/
 * Not mentioning the civic org, but making the claim that he spoke prior to EURO http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/30/duke-adviser-kenny-knight-scalise-didnt-know-about-white-nationalists-at-2002-event/
 * And a counter-argument about the idea from the Advocate (showing the noteworthyness of the argument at leasT) http://theadvocate.com/news/11269512-123/claim-that-us-rep-steve
 * User:Gaijin42, how are you disagreeing? I'm not sure what you mean by "Quite a few do" - do what? They aren't suggesting this is a hoax. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite a few are reporting the claims by Knight, responding to MrX's statement "[we shouldn't] include this theory unless other sources echo it". Quite a few do (echo it). This is not a claim merely discussed by HE or other low quality sources. It is being discussed and debates by tier one sources. (CNN, etc)  Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree. Have you seen European-American Unity and Rights Organization which also discusses it? Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Gilda Reed
Interesting development. Robert Reed, son of Gilda Reed, who was Scalise's opponent in 2008 said he was the one who tipped off Lamar White about the story. He says she was aware of the incident in 2008, but did not use it. Supposedly told the Democratic party about the incident after the election, but they didn't do anything. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/01/us-usa-congress-scalise-idUSKBN0KA1BM20150101 Gaijin42 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think the space allotted to the whole controversy, which is appropriate, is long enough to include this nugget, though it is clearly relevant. The blogger clearly isn't very notable, and was asked to FIND connections between Duke and Scalise by a political operative. The Stormfront comments are the Stormfront comments. HOWEVER, since White clearly doesn't meet the criteria for WP:RS for either opinion or fact, referencing to him requires a description of who/what he is. "Law student" is irrelevant, "blogger", while correct, doesn't do it - he is an activist, and works part-time in opposition research for several progressive campaigns. His role, being asked to do research by a local political operative, then posting said results, is as an activist and campaign worker.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * White is an activist and a writer. Salon thought him worthy of some ink.- MrX 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but both you and I are also "writers", as our writing here proves. If we were describing what we do here, we'd say "editor" or "contributor" not "X... and writer". To the extent that he is "writer" is already fully covered in "activist" and in the body of the article in the sense that this was posted on his blog (blog posting IS the sense in which he is a writer in general also).--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salon is a reliable source and White is quite notable. The good news is, all we need to do is follow sources when describing him, and the largest number of sources (by a factor of almost 10), say he's a blogger, with writer coming in as a strong second, beating activist by a factor of four.- MrX 20:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Salon is not a reliable source for contentious claims of fact, but is a reliable source for opinions cited as opinion. Two different things involved.  BTW, the "raw Google numbers" are always inapt - you need to look at actual independent sites found.  Collect (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please link to a consensus for salon not being a reliable source for contentious claims of fact? Google numbers are actually representative of key words and key phrases appearing on websites, in this case, news sources. Absent evidence that White is described as an activist in more reliable sources than he described as a blogger or writer, then we will have to go with the evidence that I already provided. Bare assertions are simply not helpful.- MrX 12:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that there was some level of consensus achieved for the version proposed by Scalhotrod two section above. Also, describing White as an activist based on a minority of sources, questionable ones at that, is a WP:BLP violation. If necessary, we could raise it at BLP/N to get more input.- MrX 12:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean apart from repeated WP:RS/N and WP:BLP/N and Talk:Salon_(website)/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia discussions? I would think these were quite sufficient to show why Salon opinion columns are not great for contentious claims in a WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, but eight year old discussions are not indicative of a consensus, not should source reliability be discussed on a sub-page for the topic. That's what WP:RS/N is for.- MrX 17:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I noted for those who read my post above SALON REPEATEDLY FAILS AT WP:RS/N AND WP:BLP/N AS WELL  Not just the one discussion which has not been supplanted AFAICT.   Cheers.  I trust I shouted loud enough since I had already stated this all just a couple of lines earlier on this talk page.   Opinions are citable as opinions - but contentious claims about living persons require strong sourcing.  Collect (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A quibble with Collect - Salon, being primarily a lifestyle and opinion weblog, HAS WP:RS opinion on it, but not everything on Salon IS WP:RS for opinion; you have to look at what it is. Salon has some very good writers, though for Salon, they are supposed to be "edgy". They also have a lot of junk to generate clicks. The referenced entry is the latter - it is a cross-posting of a non-notable post from a non-notable website where the author's subject is.... himself. WP:SELFSOURCE also applies, as does WP:RS.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * White is notable, according to Google hits (an invalid WP reference), in the same way "commenter Alsace Hebert" is notable. Sorry. "Commenter AND writer Alsace Hebert". The Google search turns up not that HE is a notable blogger, but that there is a story (note the use of singular) about a singular blog post - it is nothing more than a way, whether "blog post", "on the blog" or "liberal blogger" (all of which are on your search), of saying - this is on the internet and ain't journalism.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Quotes
Quotations need to be verifiably sourced. Otherwise, they are subject to removal--especially when there are WP:BLP issues involved. -- Avi (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor Children
I removed the full names and birthdates of the minor children. Those dates and names are not reported in the source listed anyway. Arzel (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Salon reporting subject did not speak at EURO event
Apparently a neighborhood event at same hotel. Sheriff dept and Red Cross spoke as well. . Capitalismojo (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quote from Salon: "Rep. Steve Scalise may have just ineptly admitted to speaking at a white supremacist event that eyewitnesses say he never attended. Two event attendees say it’s factually inaccurate to characterize Scalise’s comments as directed at the supremacist gathering ".   Capitalismojo (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that yesterday. (Slate, BTW). It may be worth mentioning in the article, with attribution, if other sources pick it up.- MrX 16:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was picked up, it was used as a source for the now removed Human Events bit that was called "debunked" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Scalise&diff=640477316&oldid=640467207 I have restored it. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions
A reminder that this article is twice under the purview of ArbCom sanctions, via the BLP DS, and the American Politics case. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does that mean it was okay for you to violate 3RR here?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Kenny Knight
I removed the rest of the Kenny Knight off-topic content following Gaijin42's lead. There's not need to overload this bio with extraneous content, especially when some of Knight's statements don't hold up to scrutiny, according to sources (which are secondary and primary).- MrX 15:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Slate, a VERY liberal source printed Kenny's statements which are direclty about the controversy. If we are going to keep in information "found" by a blogger originally posted on a stormfront forum, certainly direct statements about the specific issue from those involved are important. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Times-Picayune article is directly about the controversy, and this particular content has nothing to do with a blog. The political bias of sources is really not relevant. What is relevant is the factual content and representing it neutrally. We can't include lengthy material about Knight's lack of involvement with EURO and exclude a reliable source that plainly (with evidence) refutes it. That would be a blatant WP:NPOV.- MrX 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The lengthy content is not about knights involvement, but Scalise's. I agree that content directly about knight should not be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Media attention lasted roughly only one day?
As I wrote above, I'm dubious about using Human Events as a source for a strong statement suggesting this is a hoax. And media attention has clearly lasted more than one day. Interesting also that the claim about him speaking about the Stelly tax plan has been challenged. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is still quite a lot of media attention more than two weeks later. Several sources are reporting that Scalise voted against a resolution apologizing for slavery (by the sate), because he wasn't personally involved in the slave trade."   . Attempts to add a couple of sentences about this have been reverted around six times already.- MrX 00:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I take it you assume Rachel Maddow is a news reporter or the like?  I hate to tell you - she isn't. Collect (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you didn't have an opportunity to read the source before commenting, otherwise you might have noticed that Steve Benen wrote the article. Political commentators are quite capable of reporting simple facts from legislative records.- MrX 01:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wowee -- snark. Blogs for the Rachel Maddow show are ... editorial in nature.   Amazingly enough, I would have thought you already knew that.  It is not a "fact news article" when it includes such "facts" as "If I can go ahead and answer that question 19 years later, note that in English, “sorry” is arguably a word with some nuance. For example, if you know someone who’s lost a loved one and you tell that person you’re “sorry,” you’re not confessing to murder – rather, you’re expressing sympathy for someone who’s grieving."  In fact, that rather looks to me like a bit of editorial bloviating.
 * The Hill basically excoriated Scalise for "Scalise later backed a watered-down version that expressed “regret” for slavery." (In fact "The bill passed out of committee on a unanimous vote once it was amended to express "regret" instead.) Which seems to me a bit of nit-picking compared to the resolution which said Louisiana, as a state, was responsible for the "establishment" of slavery (um-- France and Spain were the guilty party at that time).
 * The Bloomberg article is essential a precis of The Hill and is not an independent reliable source here.
 * And please avoid snark - it ill suits actual discussion of sources. Collect (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015 ==

New House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana, came under fire last month for having voted twice against a state version of the holiday while serving in the local legislature. (The votes were unearthed as part of a larger story about a previously unreported speech Scalise delivered at a 2002 conference sponsored by a white-supremacist group.)

Scalise is not the only lawmaker still in office — nor the only prominent politician — to have opposed the holiday. When the House voted 338-90 in August 1983 to establish Martin Luther King Jr. Day, several members who would go on to become U.S. senators also voted “no.”
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

White supremacy
Scalise may have addressed a white supremacist group. He might even have done so, knowingly. Or he may have failed to check it out enough. There's an argument that you must avoid contact with the KKK or else this means you are a racist. In Scalise's defense, some said that addressing your opponents does not mean you SUPPORT them; you could be trying to SWAY them over to your side.
 * Mo Elleithee said. "Does he not believe that speaking to an anti-semitic hate group legitimizes them ...?"
 * A spokesman said, "In every case, he was building support for his policies, not the other way around."

I'd like to see both sides of the KKK-support controversy shown. Let's summarize the reasoning behind the claims that Scalise addressed a racist group and therefore is racist to some degree. Let's also outline the argument that Scalise isn't racist. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Gun attack seems more like another manifestation of Trump Derangement Syndrome   Why turn this into an attempt to excuse the attack based on some KKK hysteria??? 72.228.136.47 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So he gets shot in the hip, and now we are trying to rationalize the shooting? El ₵id, El ₵ampeador ‡  {Talk}  17:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no rational in my mind. I suggest the attack is part of something else - the ongoing reaction to Trump Presidency, the main stream media coverage and recent 'artistic' works... 72.228.136.47 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

condition
Is he in stable or critical condition? Stable implies his life is not threatened; critical implies the opposite. Is his life threatened by his wounds or not? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The hospital is saying critical (earlier I thought I heard "stable but critical" but I couldn't find a source for it). But you need to understand how hospitals use the word "critical". It does not mean "about to die" as some people think. It means in need of intensive care nursing, very careful monitoring (for example vital signs monitoring), supportive measures (such as oxygen), etc. People post-surgery are often described as "critical" until they are moved from the ICU to a more normal hospital room. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Source, which is being updated regularly: Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In other words he has non-life threatening injuries. Thanks. Got it. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It isn't looking good but I hope for the best. Article related I feel that his internal injuries should be mentioned as it appears this wasn't just a shot in the hip. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The hospital has said he's in critical condition, but he was hospitalized with non-life threatening injuries, so he'll probably survive, let's all hope. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that the information that was added here was added in good faith, but I believe strongly that the lead of the article is not the right place for information on the article subject's medical status or health on any given day, per WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, and the guideline on recentism. One way or another, his medical status is going to change from what it is now, so the information will inevitably have to be removed or changed drastically. Information like that in the edit linked to above is appropriate to another part of the article, but needs to stay out of the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center
That Southern Poverty Law Center called for Scalise to step down in 2014 is reliably sourced and has been in this bio for years. I don't understand the rationale for deletion, or for changing text which says SPLC called for him to step down to saying they merely criticized him, which isn't as accurate. It does not seem undue weight to include this, as this got significant press coverage at the time. The existing sourcing was strong (Washington Post) but I just added additional references from The Hill (newspaper) and The Times-Picayune, --DynaGirl (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is their reaction especially relevant? Lots of groups criticized or asked him to step down. Just because something is well-sourced doesn't mean it needs to be included. As I explained in my edit summaries, it's giving undue weight to what amounts to political grandstanding by a liberal group. It's not like they were actually requesting him to step down. Mentioning it is fine, but getting an entire sentence and equal weight as all Democratic members of Congress and the DNC doesn't seem right. Does he have a connection to the SPLC? Or is it just a criticism that people decided to include a sentence on? I don't think I was unclear in taking it out. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  16:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Why is their reaction especially relevant?This piling on the Republicans with remote facts is deplorable.  It's obvious of the slanted POV attempting to be represented throughout wikipedia. Maybe It's time for a re-evaluation of Wikipedia's purpose.  72.228.136.47 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was confused by the sudden interest in the Southern Poverty Law Center content which seems neutral and has been in the article unchallenged for years, but google search shows following the congressional baseball shooting, SPLC has actually become part of the story, due to published reports that shooter liked the SPLC facebook page and conservative media commenting on this and commenting on SPLC's reaction toward Scalise in 2014. While I don't think this new content should be added to the bio (if it belongs anywhere it belongs on shooting page). I think the brief, well sourced, longstanding sentence that in 2014, SPLC called for him to resign as majority whip should remain in article.--DynaGirl (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This article recently became the center of a rather large news story, which caused a massive increase in traffic, which explains the 'sudden' interest in a 'neutral' source. I also didn't have a WP account years ago. It's not 'brief' in comparison to the other reactions in the article. It's not a HUGE deal if it stays in, even though it gives undue weight to a barely notable opinion on the topic, but I don't like whatever sort of insinuations you may or may not be making. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  19:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is completely irrelevant if there is "confusion" over renewed interest or not. The topic is given undue weight.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't undue weight in 2014 and hasn't been undue weight for the past 3 years. Seems this is neutral and brief longstanding content. I recall this received significant reliable source coverage back in 2014. SPLC is a well known and prominent civil rights group. Seems any renewed interest in 2107 would only serve to increase due weight. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Something being on WP for multiple years does not mean it should remain. And something receiving news coverage does not mean it should be mentioned in an article. You can't mention every 'prominent' group's opinion on every issue. I think you are misunderstanding WP policies. I did not feel strongly about this issue, but as you continue to push it I have to take issue with your reasoning. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  19:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is irrelevant if you believe that in 2014 it received "significant reliable source coverage". Your recollection of something that happened three years ago is not a standard that Wikipedia uses to decide if something remains in an article. SPLC is a private, nonprofit law firm that specializes in civil rights litigation but that does not make it or one of its attorneys, Mark Potok, an expert on whether Scalise knew about the nature of EURO and Duke. The article already has a criticism of of Scalise which refers to several members of Congress and DNC spokesman. That's enough.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The quantity of coverage does in fact lend sign to its significance, the SPLC is considered a vital commentor on the hate group and white supremacy world, and a statement from them shows that it was not just direct political rivals raising the question. One sentence is hardly a lot of weight. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe this comment is attempting to respond to my comment. It missed its mark. I did not say that the quality of coverage is irrelevant. You missed the point.  What I did say is that DynaGirl claiming that she can remember what the coverage was like four year ago is, at best, specious and that what her recollection is not a definitive standard. What she remembers is not the standard and your response, off the mark as it is, does not make her collection the definitive definition of what the coverage was like four years ago and nor do we have to follow what her recollection was.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I understood your snark. Given that some significant sources had already been pointed to, I thought it worth getting past it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SPLC is notoriously liberal, though. So it is kind of a political rival. And it is a lot when it a short section. Imo. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  01:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As is often stated, Please refrain from making unconstructive negatively slanted edits to Wikipedia. Your proposed edits appear to constitute NPOV and possible vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 72.228.136.47 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to me? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  20:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * NO, I agree w/ YOU. I am referring to the  --DynaGirl proposal.  72.228.136.47 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then your comments are still misapplied. The edits in no way meet our definition of WP:VANDALISM, and NPOV is actually something we want to achieve, not to avoid. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * negatively slanted edits to Wikipedia. The proposed edits appear to constitute a possible violation of NPOV. Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle for politicalism.  If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.  72.228.136.47 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

"Attemped assassination"
Someone recently changed the section title "2017 shooting" to "Attempted assassination". I have changed it back. There was extensive discussion at the article 2017 Congressional baseball shooting about whether to call this an assassination attempt. See Talk:2017 Congressional baseball shooting/Archive 1 and Talk:2017 Congressional baseball shooting. The conclusion was that this should not be called an assassination attempt because there is no evidence that Scalise was individually targeted. Open for discussion here, of course. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * While this was no attempted assassination of Scalise, it certainly was an assassination attempt period. "2017 shooting" - if that was the title - certainly is much too weak and much too vague a term. Shootings were not that uncommon even in 2017. "Congressional baseball shooting" seems to be the common term.
 * However, it seems strange to put this pretty life-altering even under "other events", way after his political positions. I suggest moving it further up.
 * The same is true for his action during and after the 2020 elections - they are not political positions but actions.
 * The section "Minority Whip" also should be placed in the chronologically correct position.
 * Str1977 (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: the fact that Scalise lied about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi following the January 6 United States Capitol attack, claiming that she didn't call for the National Guard to protect the U.S. Capitol, when in fact he was in the room, just feet from Pelosi, when she called for such reinforcements on January 6, 2021. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 election section
Is this really deserving of its own section? I feel like it'd make more sense under the US House of Rep.s tab. 96.253.70.159 (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed Wife's Name
I have just taken his wife's name out of the article, per opinions of other editors on a BLPN (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#George_Santos:_Name_of_His_Ex-Wife ) that names of spouses need to add significant value. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * But you didn't actually do it ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)