Talk:Bobby Jindal/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Piyush[edit]

I've removed this from the lead. A Google news search gave me 4 hits with Piyush Bobby Jindal, 1,530 results without. Given that he's a possible VP candidate, it's especially important to keep this article NPOV. He is just plain Bobby Jindal (no quotes) at the official Louisana office of the governor home page. The article mentions Piyush, that's enough. We should use the normal form of his name. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is normal for Wikipedia articles to include the subjects full legal name in the lead even when they are commonly known by another name as documented in the style guideline Wikipedia:FULLNAME. E.g. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Mahatma Gandhi, etc. He doesn't go by Piyush, but it was his birth name and remains his legal name and should be mentioned as such in the lead. As for the politics of it, as far as I can tell the article has always included his full name even when people complained that it was a POV hagiography. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a guideline and allows exceptions. And you are wrong, I believe, about 'legal name'. My legal name is what is on my US passport, IRS documents, etc., and it is not the same as the one that is on my birth certificate (I had a first name, a middle name and a suffix, I dropped my first name and suffix). Dougweller (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I flagged this issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bobby Jindal to get some more opinions. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply) I am not sure why you are saying that I am wrong about his legal name. Do you think that his Drivers License says Bobby? I don't think that that is the case, but in any event the guideline says that both the legal and birth names (if different from the common name) should be included in the first sentence, as Bill Clinton does. Sure we can ignore the guideline but I don't see any reason to. To my mind it is exactly the same as "Jimmy" vs "James Earl" Carter. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be Piyush "Bobby" Jindal in the lede. Article title should be "Bobby Jindal". That's the convention. All references in the article, except the lede should be "Bobby Jindal". The article presents that Piyush is his current legal name so I don't see why that shouldn't be in the lede. --DHeyward (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the source does say that Piyush is on his driver's licence, although I'm not convinced it's the best source. But he calls himself Bobby, not Piyush, the state governor's website says Bobby as well. At the moment we seem to have two editors (including Collect who only commented in his edit summary) saying lead should not say Piyush, 2 saying it should. I think the quotation marks are uncalled for in any case. And, can we agree that whether or not it says Piyush in the lead, in other articles, eg the Louisiana one where he is named as Governor, it just says Bobby Jindal? It would be naive to think that editors won't try to add 'Piyush' during an election campaign. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that all other articles and references outside the lede should be Bobby Jindal. It doesn't take much google-fu to figure out who refers to him as Piyush routinely in some sort of xenophobic tribute. The article name should also resist moves. --DHeyward (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FULLNAME, the article should lead with Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, and all other refs should be Bobby or Jindal. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treat the name the same as Edmund Gerald “Pat” Brown, Sr. (father of Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr.). TFD (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official portrait of Governor Jindal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Official portrait of Governor Jindal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Official portrait of Governor Jindal.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Camelot Index"?[edit]

Seems at most to be about Louisiana as a state, and not directly and primarily relevant to Jindal in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there is only brief mention of the subject of the article, it can be added in a neutral POV manor to the Louisiana article, but it need not be in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. There are plenty of other references to other measures of the state of Louisiana in the article such as Standard and Poor's rating (mentioned twice) and Louisiana's Medicaid program status, neither of which have sources that even mention Jindal as far as I can see. Then I add a reference to a rating of Louisiana with 2 sources that directly reference it's impact on Jindal (one even features a picture of him, so it's not like he's barely mentioned), and it is "not directly and primarily relevant to Jindal". Plenty of other politician's pages (but especially Governors and Presidents) talk about how the state is doing because that is usually tied to how good of a job the leader is perceived to be doing. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference source that was used for the addition, yes I have read it, does not state what the impact of the actions of the subject of this article had that may or may not have caused the rating to be as reported in the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not a strong argument on Wikipedia. The fact is that the cite is about the state and not about Jindal, and not about any effect of Jindal's policies. A "picture of Jindal" does not make a cite be relevant either. Sorry - it still does not belong on this BLP. Collect (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

Hi. The current infobox image (File:Bobby Jindal by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg) is pretty awful. Mr. Jindal looks as though he's been caught midway through experiencing a painful procedure. There's a much better photo available here: <http://www.gov.state.la.us/assets/images/governorjindal1.jpg>. This image is used here: <http://www.gov.state.la.us/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&navID=38&cpID=1&catID=0>. The footer says "©2012 Office of the Governor", but perhaps it'd be possible to get this photo released? Or perhaps the footer is simply wrong and works by employees of the state of Louisiana are available under a free license? If someone could investigate this, that would be great! --MZMcBride (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status of work by U.S. state governments may be different from federal law, and the laws on copyrights in Louisiana can probably be found in the Louisiana Revised Statues here. It's pretty tedious searching through that, so I think it'd be better if someone either contacts the government website/Gov. Jindal, or requests an OTRS ticket for the photo. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is really not a nice photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait[edit]

The portrait added with this edit is a tad unflattering. Any reason we can't revert to the previous version?CFredkin (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would an RfC help?[edit]

Choices appear to be

Bobby Jindal (born June 10, 1971 with the name Piyush Jindal).

or

Piyush Jindal, better known as Bobby Jindal

Ought there be an RfC or is there a consensus at this point? Collect (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or the status quo, in line with WP:FULLNAME, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, of course. Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the use of quotation marks/scare quotes. If Bobby is good enough for the state government, why do we use these? Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It's a nickname, and he had "quotes" around it on the official Louisiana ballot, which was Collect's go-to source for how we were supposed to do things. Also, Jimmy Carter provide the template - on his official website, he also does not use quotes [1], nor are there quotes on the USGOVT website about him - [2]. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only rational basis would be to stress the issue - but do we need to do that? Collect (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are more things in heaven and earth, Collectio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked "Jimmy" is a common nickname for "James" while I found no relationship indicating that "Bobby" is a common nickname for "Piyush." The NYT routinely called him "Piyush" until about 2007, and has generally used "Bobby" (without quotes) since. " A rose by any other name ...". Collect (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I understand - you think that we should use quotes when the nickname is a common nickname, but we should do something else when it's not a common nickname? Do you see this done elsewhere, or is this more making it up as you go along? Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to be in the situation described in FULLNAME#PSUEDONAMES "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:

  • Louis Bert Lindley, Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens ...

...care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Do not write, for example "John Edwards (born Johnny Reid Edwards, June 10, 1953)"

The common use name should not be implied to be a legal name if it is not. -- The Red Pen of Doom

we should neither be editing "to stir up nativist instincts" but neither should we be actively stepping out of our standard practices to help a politician avoid idiodic currents. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the style is less important than the information. I am okay with either of them as they both have the information. If Bobby Jindal (born June 10, 1971 with the name Piyush Jindal) is preferred by the subject for whatever reason, I'd lean towards their preference especially if the other form were being used to disparage the subject. If there is a scare quote campaign or some other xenophobic thing going on, WP should avoid it and use whatever form is necessary to avoid the appearance of collaboration, regardless of MOS. I'm not aware of any but I can see where it might start. --DHeyward (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two years later, in the article title you see in big letters: Bobby Jindal. The lede then provides the full name (as it should) as follows: Piyush "Bobby" Jindal (born June 10, 1971)[1] is an American politician who is the 55th and current Governor of Louisiana and the Vice Chairman of the Republican Governors Association.[2] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC) PS: This is all good and should last until and beyond the 2016 presidential election.[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

Hi. The current infobox image (File:Bobby Jindal by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg) is pretty awful. Mr. Jindal looks as though he's been caught midway through experiencing a painful procedure. There's a much better photo available here: <http://www.gov.state.la.us/assets/images/governorjindal1.jpg>. This image is used here: <http://www.gov.state.la.us/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&navID=38&cpID=1&catID=0>. The footer says "©2012 Office of the Governor", but perhaps it'd be possible to get this photo released? Or perhaps the footer is simply wrong and works by employees of the state of Louisiana are available under a free license? If someone could investigate this, that would be great! --MZMcBride (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status of work by U.S. state governments may be different from federal law, and the laws on copyrights in Louisiana can probably be found in the Louisiana Revised Statues here. It's pretty tedious searching through that, so I think it'd be better if someone either contacts the government website/Gov. Jindal, or requests an OTRS ticket for the photo. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is really not a nice photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait[edit]

The portrait added with this edit is a tad unflattering. Any reason we can't revert to the previous version?CFredkin (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would an RfC help?[edit]

Choices appear to be

Bobby Jindal (born June 10, 1971 with the name Piyush Jindal).

or

Piyush Jindal, better known as Bobby Jindal

Ought there be an RfC or is there a consensus at this point? Collect (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or the status quo, in line with WP:FULLNAME, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, of course. Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the use of quotation marks/scare quotes. If Bobby is good enough for the state government, why do we use these? Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It's a nickname, and he had "quotes" around it on the official Louisiana ballot, which was Collect's go-to source for how we were supposed to do things. Also, Jimmy Carter provide the template - on his official website, he also does not use quotes [3], nor are there quotes on the USGOVT website about him - [4]. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only rational basis would be to stress the issue - but do we need to do that? Collect (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are more things in heaven and earth, Collectio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked "Jimmy" is a common nickname for "James" while I found no relationship indicating that "Bobby" is a common nickname for "Piyush." The NYT routinely called him "Piyush" until about 2007, and has generally used "Bobby" (without quotes) since. " A rose by any other name ...". Collect (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I understand - you think that we should use quotes when the nickname is a common nickname, but we should do something else when it's not a common nickname? Do you see this done elsewhere, or is this more making it up as you go along? Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to be in the situation described in FULLNAME#PSUEDONAMES "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:

  • Louis Bert Lindley, Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens ...

...care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Do not write, for example "John Edwards (born Johnny Reid Edwards, June 10, 1953)"

The common use name should not be implied to be a legal name if it is not. -- The Red Pen of Doom

we should neither be editing "to stir up nativist instincts" but neither should we be actively stepping out of our standard practices to help a politician avoid idiodic currents. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the style is less important than the information. I am okay with either of them as they both have the information. If Bobby Jindal (born June 10, 1971 with the name Piyush Jindal) is preferred by the subject for whatever reason, I'd lean towards their preference especially if the other form were being used to disparage the subject. If there is a scare quote campaign or some other xenophobic thing going on, WP should avoid it and use whatever form is necessary to avoid the appearance of collaboration, regardless of MOS. I'm not aware of any but I can see where it might start. --DHeyward (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two years later, in the article title you see in big letters: Bobby Jindal. The lede then provides the full name (as it should) as follows: Piyush "Bobby" Jindal (born June 10, 1971)[1] is an American politician who is the 55th and current Governor of Louisiana and the Vice Chairman of the Republican Governors Association.[2] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC) PS: This is all good and should last until and beyond the 2016 presidential election.[reply]

Education[edit]

This article needs to address the fact that Bobby was a huge proponent and even on the governors board of Common Core, and did not have the least problem passing it. Once it started to come under fire by far right commentators, he gladly reversed his position.

May 2014 Times-Picayune:

After years of backing Common Core, Jindal has come out against the academic standards, which have come under fire from conservative groups this year. The governor, specifically, wanted the Legislature to bow out of the use of a Common Core standardized test

By David Catanese May 30, 2014 | 11:01 a.m. EDT + More

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to be clear: He really dislikes Common Core, the educational initiative that seeks to unify certain classroom standards across the country.

At least, he does now.

During his speech Thursday night to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Jindal couldn't have been more explicit.

"I'm against the Common Core, and I don't want Louisiana to be in the Common Core," he said.

"We've taken a lot of criticism in this state from folks that have criticized me for being against it," he went on.

[READ: The Unshackling of Bobby Jindal]

The room boomed with applause, according to reporters there.

But Jindal's full-throated denouncement of the policy is likely motivated by his past support for it.

He's seen how the conservative base of the party has turned virulently against it over the past year and is making sure they know he's now with them.

That wasn't always the case.

The original policy – adopted by over 40 states – was developed through a collaboration of governors and education leaders that included Jindal, who was described by The Times-Picayune as "a strong supporter of the standards."

"Over the past four years, we’ve already taken steps to meet [our education] goals, including … adopting the Common Core State Standards," Jindal said in early 2012, according to a timeline posted by The Huffington Post.

Jindal expressed reservations about Common Core last fall, as opposition from conservative state lawmakers and tea party members began to mushroom.

[ALSO: Bobby Jindal and the 'Path' Less Taken]

He's sharpened his rhetoric against the policy in recent months as he's traveled the country in preparation for a potential presidential bid.

The RLC speech marked his most emphatic – and publicized criticism – of Common Core, likely due to the throng of national reporters in the audience.

But as evidenced by commentator Michelle Malkin, the right won't soon forget who saddled up to Common Core at the start. 

   @jmartNYT Jindal was for it before he was against it. The recantation is complete. #StopCommonCore
   — Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) May 30, 2014


That means if Jindal runs for president in 2016, he'll need a pithy, well-rehearsed answer for why he was for it before he was against it. Msjayhawk (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Last I checked, BLPs are not campaign pamphlets. The wording above would not meet the policy requirements for Wikipedia, and appear to substantially reflect opinions, which can only be cited as such. Collect (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we at least reflect the views of a BLP as of this moment, in addition to what he believed two years ago? Hcobb (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to us to only use what reliable sources state, and not up to us to make any decisions otherwise. Collect (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does the New Orleans Times-Picayune fall short of being a RS on the positions of the governor of their state? Hcobb (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be editorial in nature, and not a simple reportorial statement of facts. We could possibly state the opinions of a newspaper column as opinions, but we would then need to figure out precisely the weight to give to such opinions in a BLP. Clearly, though, presenting it as a series of arguments is the one thing we can not do. Collect (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So how about "Commentators theorized that Jindal's sudden reversal against Common Core in 2014 and his executive orders to stop implementation in the face of continuing support by the state legislature, board of education, and business community for the standards was due to pressure from 'tea party activists'." and toss in this ref also: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/bobby-jindal-louisiana-common-core-108022.html Hcobb (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you might be able to use is "In 20xx, Jindal supported Common Core in principle, but in2014 he has opposed the implementation of that program" or the like. Ascribing "ta party" causality is opinion, and clearly opinion. Do you wish to say "The Times-Picayune theorized the change was due to Tea Party pressure" or the like? The source as given appears not to meet the Wikipedia hurdle for much else. The lagniappe of "continued support by everyone else" is pure argumentation and campaign rhetoric AFAICT. The more we stick with facts, the better in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources on Jindal's XXX on education standards:

How widely must something be reported before we take their word for it? Hcobb (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you believe calling his position a "jihad" conforms to the absolute policy of WP:NPOV in what manner? Collect (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the term has been used far too much in this context. http://www.educationviews.org/teachers-union-jihad-aganist-gov-bobby-jindal/ Hcobb (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please let this article not become an attack page, or become a coatrack of negative content about the subject; lets remember WP:BLP and WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Bucket Challenge[edit]

Although cited to a reliable source, does the fact that the subject of this article has accepted the viral ACSA Ice Bucket challenge relevant? Does it fall under WP:RECENTISM, and as the sole source is one within the state of Louisiana does this fail WP:GEOSCOPE?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Edmonson[edit]

Why has there been an entire paragraph dedicated/added focused on the issue around Mike Edmonson? Does the events around this single state employee (and one state trooper) deserve this much WP:WEIGHT in this article? IMHO, I think this is better off in the article about the individual, and not in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No-go Jindal[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Jindal&action=historysubmit&diff=643260869&oldid=643260606

It's the most I've seen him speak out on Europe. Not worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He "imagined to be there"? Are there multiple reliable sources to verify the content, to show that it is significant? "imagined"? Seriously, like there are not reliable sources about (even if an editor doesn't believe it, alleged) No-go zones in Europe (Google Books, Breitbart, Google News)?
The way it was written does not meet WP:NEU or WP:BLP, so best it is removed. But if neutrally worded well sourced content is proposed, perhaps there is something to work with.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite actual reliable sources rather than linking to Google search results consisting of books by creationist bloggers and 'Obama is a Muslim' conspiracy nuts, along with books discussing Kurdistan, Algeria and conservation areas for Whales. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Executive order[edit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/20/bobby-jindal-promises-executive-order-allowing-discrimination-against-same-sex-couples/

Is Jindal's opposition to the use of executive orders notable? Hcobb (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a political move, and hypocritical. Whether his criticism of President Obama's use of executive order is notable, I don't know.- MrX 13:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Highlighting a single gubernatorial executive order, when not giving a neutral representation of other executive orders would be undue weight. Regardless of our personal opinions of the subject, they should not play any roll in how we edit the article, and should not be reflected on the talk page. Therefore, per WP:NOTFORUM, I have changed the title of the section to a neutral term about the possible content being discussed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jindal has a lot about executive orders.

Hcobb (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main Image[edit]

The main image is repeated. Plus would an image of Jindal at the 2015 CPAC be a better image? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the duplicate. Maybe? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I feel like the main image should be a recent photo. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant content in the lead[edit]

I object to the repeated addition of redundant content in the lead. Either we should follow a chronological flow or a significance flow, not both. It's poor writing.- MrX 01:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's poor writing for the lead paragraph to give a broader overview, and then supply more detail in the rest of the lead? See how it's done in the Hillary Clinton lead. Her candidacy is briefly mentioned in the lead paragraph, and then later details of the announcement date are given at the end of the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jindal is known for being a governor. His pre-primary candidacy is not especially significant. As I mentioned before, I think the lead should follow a chronological order (like the article). The opening paragraph should be very short and succinct. The Hillary Clinton article has a lead that I think is a little too long, but it really has little bearing on this article. Clinton and Jindal have had very different careers.
As a compromise, I could live with mentioning Jindal's presidential candidacy in the first paragraph, provided that we don't repeat it two paragraphs later. I think that's a very reasonable position.- MrX 01:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the guidelines say it should be done. See Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for example. The guideline wants a greater level of generality in the lead paragraph than in the rest of the lead:

This is Wikipedia 101.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as a compromise, I would consent to mentioning the candidacy in the first paragraph provided that we don't repeat it elsewhere in the lead. I offer as examples John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Rudy Giuliani, and several of the other bios that you have edited of people who have been candidates in previous elections.- MrX 02:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, none of those people is currently running for president. I don't like your proposed "compromise" for reasons that are now being evaluated at a noticeboard, here. SO let's see what the feedback is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You really should have took it to the MOS talk page. BLP/N is for policy related concerns.- MrX 02:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS talk page is for changing and improving the MOS. I am not seeking to do that. If I did try to do that in furtherance of a dispute at this BLP, then I would likely be banned from Wikipedia. WP:BLP specifically requires neutrality, and nothing could be less neutral than dispensing with our biography guidelines for some living persons but not for others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph[edit]

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"acting governor"?[edit]

At the August 6 kids-table debate, Jindal was introduced by Bill Hemmer: "Two-time governor of the state of Louisiana, acting governor Bobby Jindal." Was "acting" just Hemmer mis-speaking for "current" or "sitting"? TJRC (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cato Institute as a source[edit]

I object to MrX's reversion of this edit because the Cato Institute's trade policy position is in line with the near universal opinion among economists. The Cato Institute is nonpartisan, and recently had a lengthly legal battle with the Koch brothers over the organization's independence from the Koch brothers political activity. I would assert, that despite the Cato Institute's ideology, since their trade policy view is in line with the mainstream view among economists, it constitutes a reliable source and a significant viewpoint, and therefore, does not violate our neutral POV policy. - Jajhill (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link to our Economics article does not seem to support your assertion. Can you show overwhelming (independent) sources that establish that Cato is widely regarded as authoritative? So that we don't have to have this discussion on every page, you way want to join the meta discussion that I started at WP:RSN#Cato Institute as a reliable source for BLPs. - MrX 18:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main Image[edit]

The main image is repeated. Plus would an image of Jindal at the 2015 CPAC be a better image? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the duplicate. Maybe? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I feel like the main image should be a recent photo. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using the Hilary Clinton article as a guide, we should use his official congressional photo. Though not an official wiki policy, the photos most commonly used for the infobox would be official government ones. This one currently used portrays a particularly angry look and unflattering to say the least. MavsFan28 (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary's guide is slightly different. She is not a present officeholder, and using the official portrait from the last office held is preferred. However, this comes from when Jindal was a U.S. Representative, 3 years before becoming Governor, and now 10 years ago. There are decent quality photos of Jindal in 2015 that reflect his present appearance, given ten years of time and aging. Hillary is not an officeholder, her last office was Sec. of State, and her portrait reflects that. Same goes with Presidents, etc. However in this case he is an officeholder whose official portrait for the present office is not free-use under present legal precedent. Thus, we ought to use the best quality recent photo to reflect how he appears in the office he presently holds. By using the standard you are alluding to, we would use Vladimir Putin's KGB portrait as his present infobox picture.   Spartan7W §   06:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I see Hilary as the rule and Putin as the exception. Putin's article has an image at least comparable to an official portrait. Jindal does not really have a good recent image in his gallery. There are high quality pictures, but all are either not close-up or seem very unflattering. While I'm sure he's aged, I don't think his look has really changed and it wouldn't serve great purpose to just keep finding a newer image every so often rather than one that depicts him more neutral/positive rather than one that he appears super stressed or angry. MavsFan28 (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putin is not the exception. The U.S. House portrait is not prudent on this article. That is a photo which is 10 years old, from a previous office. Since that photo was taken he has been reelected to the House, twice elected and is completing his final year as Governor. He has changed his hair, which has grayed, he has aged considerably, and the difference between 34 and 44 is noticeable. For a current officeholder whose official portrait is unavailable we ought to use the best photographs we can find. Putin's last official portrait is the FSB portrait, your logic would make this this infobox image. However it is not, nor should it be. The image there right now is not a portrait-quality image, but is contemporary and sufficient. Thats what should be done here.   Spartan7W §   15:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You acknowledged I said Putin was an exception, then tried to prove my point invalid by using...Putin? Again, I understand why the KGB photo would not work. The photo being used for Putin does work for many reasons I have already stated. On this article, Jindal's doesn't work as well. We have to try to keep these articles professional-looking and encyclopedic, and this photo portrays him in a stressed out/ angry light. While current and even high-quality, it is not sufficient. MavsFan28 (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A 10 year old portrait of Jindal does not belong in the infobox. Its not that complicated. It was from a different office, different decade, different hairstyle, quite younger looking than he does now.   Spartan7W §   01:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your premise is flawed, but as I stated above, the bigger issue here is that its a horrible choice of image. If there was an alternative that would be a different case, but in line with keeping wiki as a professional-looking encyclopedia, an image of him looking constipated isn't going to suffice. MavsFan28 (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My premise isn't flawed. A current officeholder's official portrait is unavailable. The last official portrait available is from a previous office, is 10 years old, the subject has aged noticeably, has changed their appearance (hair) since. That we would use a contemporary candid image as opposed to an old, outdated image is not a faulty premise.   Spartan7W §   05:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MavsFan28: This solves the problem. Public Records Act provides that all photographs produced by the state are public records. I have uploaded the official portrait under this definition.   Spartan7W §   19:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan is misinterpreting the statute. The image will be deleted.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, didn't think state photos would ever be public record. Cool, that is obviously a much better photo. Cheers MavsFan28 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the drawing board on this one; looks like the official gubernatorial image was taken down. Again, the image being used now is terrible, though high-quality. With the exception of grey hairs that he appears to sometimes dye, his look hasn't changed much. Without any official governor portrait available, we should use one of the congressional ones. File:Piyush Jindal.jpg was taken during the 111th congress, which would be mere months before he was elected governor. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bobby Jindal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated info[edit]

He's not the current governor. 99.245.11.41 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Bobby Jindal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bobby Jindal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for infobox religion?[edit]

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

  • Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[5] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[6] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[7] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[8] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[9]
  • Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[10] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[11] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[12] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[13] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
  • Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
  • Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
  • Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[14] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing religion from infobox[edit]

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content
  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
  • Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enviromental record and recent flooding in Louisiana[edit]

According to this article published in Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/losing-ground-southeast-louisiana-is-disappearing-quickly/), in S. E. Louisiana wetlands are washing away at a rate of a football field every hour, 16 square miles per year, largely due to the activities of the oil and gas industry. Environmentalists hold oil and gas companies responsible for the destruction, and a number of lawsuits have been filed in this regard. (https://www.facingsouth.org/2014/02/green-army-gathers-in-louisiana-worries-oil-and-ga.html). Bobby Jindal, proactively supported the oil and gas industry during his tenure as governor. The recent sudden storm surges from the flooding have been tied to the destruction of the marshlands, which if present, would act much like a massive sponge and absorb the rainfall, thus preventing the destructive, sudden rise in water levels following the rains. As you can see in this map, this area where the bayou destruction is happening is exactly this area where the flooding occurred(http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2016/08/louisiana_flood_map.html). Jindal has played a very active role in this--see: https://thinkprogress.org/gov-bobby-jindal-quashes-lawsuit-against-97-oil-and-gas-companies-for-years-of-destroying-wetlands-3fe043101ba7.

How about a section on this for the Gov.? Will add it in 30 days (Sept. 28, 2016) unless I hear otherwise. Efischer80 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piyush to Bobby[edit]

Can someone clarify in his bio at what point he acquired this name? Ranze (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Bobby Jindal. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bobby Jindal. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Jindal/Archive_3&oldid=1027148611"