Talk:Steve Scalise

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. [1]. 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)

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)

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)

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.[2] 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." [3] [4] [5] [6]. 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.”

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.

• Mo Elleithee said. "Does he not believe that speaking to an anti-semitic hate group legitimizes them ...?"

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.

• A spokesman said, "In every case, he was building support for his policies, not the other way around." [7]

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)

References

Leftist Gunman Shoots Republican Congressman in Media-Inspired Terror Attack

Attacker deliberately targeted Republicans GOP Congressman Shot; Attacker Sought to Kill as Many Republicans “as Possible” Attack was focused on more than one person.... 72.228.136.47 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References

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: [8] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 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)

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 [9],[10] --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)

Please refrain from making unconstructive negatively slanted edits to Wikipedia. Your 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) 00:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)