Jump to content

Talk:David Vitter

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

Why is prostitution scandal buried?

[edit]

Vitter's prostitution scandal is buried in the sixth paragraph. By contrast the Wikipedia article on Eliot Spitzer includes this info in the first paragraph. Why the Wikipedia double-standard? (Oh, that's right, I almost forgot: Wikipedia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.41 (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to laugh, especially as conservatives are so annoyed by the perceived leftist slant of Wikipedia that they started their own right-wing version. Instead, I'll point out that this sort of intervention is just the sort that is least likely to lead to improvement of the article. Simply stopping the comment after "Why?" would have been far more effective. In any event, Spitzer's scandal forced him to resign; Vitter is likely to be re-elected. The reason for that underlying difference could be explained to you, but that is beyond the scope of your question. It is absolutely essential that a note of Spitzer's affair be noted in the lead of his article, but including Vitter's a question that could reasonably answered in the affirmative or the negative. -Rrius (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fitting if the prostitution scandal(s), and very strong evidence of infidelity, were cited in the section on Vitter's strong opposition to same-sex marriage, including his wanting to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.232.76.112 (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

seperate article - Political positions of David Vitter

[edit]

This takes up over half the article. I think if Norm Coleman can get his own for his political positions, so can Vitter.--Levineps (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a very good observation. His positions are a bit of a load on the article it's self. There's so much information for his positions that it could easily warrant a new page. We would have to create a smaller, summarized description of his views and then link as a main article to the rest. Like Mike Huckabee#Political Positions. I'll be interested to see if we could do that. OtherAJ (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't concur. I don't consider Norm Coleman's page a good example of a politician's article that we should emulate here; the Political positions of Norm Coleman is basically a duplication of the positions of the parent page. Vitter's article space (currently) lacks the substance of the Huckabee's article's biographical detail or the depth of his political positions. If you create a child article of Vitter's political positions, then the problem arises (again) of having too much corresponding weight given to his involvement with prostitution. So do we create then a child article for that also? Then you end up with a very narrowly written article. The lede does the summarizing; let the article flesh it out.
There are plenty of other articles (better written than the examples listed above) -- a smattering of examples: Kirsten Gillibrand, Ron Wyden, Jim Inhofe -- that do not separate out the positions. I don't recommend it for Vitter. The fact that his political positions are a "bit of a load" is somewhat expected (or should be) in a politician's article. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
>> Gillibrand's article has five sections for political positions, Wyden's has eight, and Inhofe has six. In comparison, Vitter has eighteen different sections in one article. The overall aim of this article is to give a portrait of the man himself. His political positions could come up but not in this sort of elaboration. From my experience on wikipedia, if a politician's position's sections become too bulky on the overall biography of the article, then you create a new article where the aim of the article is solely to elaborate a politician's political positions. David Vitter's article isn't congruent with the way that most politician's articles are laid out. For example, Joe_Biden#Political_positions. The aim of that article is to detail the man himself, in elaboration. A brief overview of his positions are given but for someone who wants more elaboration, they go to the article where the sole aim of the article is to detail his positions. The only other Politician's page that is like Vitter's is Nancy Pelosi, which I would think needs a separate article as well. For more evidence of what I'm talking about, see: Barack_Obama#Political_positions, Hillary_Clinton#Political_positions, Dianne_Feinstein#Political_positions_and_votes. Notice how all of them have brief overviews, maybe a few positions but leave the bulk of the positions for the other article. OtherAJ (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll have a battle of wikilinks. ;)
You can't compare Clinton's, Biden's and Obama's articles which are meaty to a junior Senator from Louisiana who is best known (nationally) for the prostitution scandal. Feinstein's main article devotes 1,686 words to her political positions. The child article (which is badly written) devotes 1,208 words. This is a very poor example of what you are shooting for. What you have is two separate articles devoted to the same subject. Such sloppiness tends to occur when forking out articles.
You haven't addressed the other concerns I've raised: the undue weight issue and the fact that Vitter's biographical detail is fairly slight (vs. Feinstein, Clinton, Biden and Obama). Pols with less meaty bios (like the ones I cited plus I could find many more) tend to keep the political positions in the main article. I recommend that you work on expanding Vitter's biographical sections and possibly if that becomes as substantive as the other articles you cite, then it may be time to consider a summary style article. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
>> Fair enough. Since we cannot reach consensus, we will leave as is until any further debate pops up. OtherAJ (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is now over five years later, and the political positions portion of the page has become 26 sections (including the "other political positions" section, which is just adding insult to injury) and in total, my estimation is this content is in excess of 2/3rds of the total article length. Seeing as how he is now a 2-term senator, it seems appropriate to shift much of this to a #political positions page ala the examples named above. As far as whether it is good practice for Wiki to elucidate every single one of a politician's beliefs and statements in their own "political positions of" article (and how long they should be in office before they qualify for such a lengthy article), that is probably a discussion for another page. It all seems well-sourced and fairly NPOV, so I don't see the sense in getting rid of it. So, I think we should leave a short summation (perhaps a couple paragraphs) of his major positions and legislative accomplishments on this page, and branch out a new article for the in-depth material. For the record, I came here trying to read more about why they called him "Diaper Dave," and was a bit disappointed to see it glanced over. As someone else stated, that is actually his national claim to fame. Maybe in a while, we can find a better way to editorialize that aspect of his life. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition and Housing

[edit]

This section should have secondary sources to indicate the content's significance. Vitter has introduced many amendments during his career. If these are significant, there should be secondary sources referencing them.CFredkin (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Vitter. 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 10:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Vitter. 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 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on David Vitter. 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 09:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Vitter. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Vitter. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on David Vitter. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on David Vitter. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Vitter&oldid=1256727895"