Talk:Mary Landrieu/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mary Landrieu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Rose McConnell Long was the first female senator

The article is wrong. According to the entry for Senator Rose McConnell Long, she won a special election AFTER being appointed. Senator Long served the remainder of that term and did not run again. That makes Long, not Landrieu, the first woman elected Senator for the state.

Just because it was a special election does not mean it doesn't count.

I am going to correct that now.--69.37.38.207 (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That "Threatening the President" section is just a bit too melodramatic. Mike H (Talking is hot) 22:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Overall Senate appeal" should be deleted.--rtaycher1987 11:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sicilian???? Can someone please provide some information about the senator's purported Sicilian ancestry! 24.34.179.235

She may have some Sicilian ancestry, be she also have definitely some French ancestry too. Landrieu is a French name.--Revas 17:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"... renewing the ban on semi-automatic firearms." I suppose this refers to the 1994 assault weapons ban in that year's crime bill. I just think the current text of this article makes it sound like all semi-autos were banned or something. Would "certain semi-automatic firearms" be better language, or should we cite language from that law? I'll link this in any case. Boris B 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Aww C'mon, the Rush Limbaugh crush is well-known and great trivia!

Anderson Cooper interview

I've removed the section on her Anderson Cooper interview. That section implied that the interview[1] (dated Sep 1, 2005) caused her to change her position and start criticizing President Bush's handling of Katrina. I found news stories from Aug 26, 2005 [2][3] where she criticized him. I believe we do need some sort of commentary on what she thought of Bush's handling, but the paragraph that was there before demonstrably untrue.--Nonpareility 17:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Smear

The article includes the misleading line that the terror bill applies to US citizens. It only applies to immigrants. Thus, the statement is misleading. Either change the wording or leave it out entirely. Trilemma 14:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Title of Article

I think Mary L. Landrieu would be a more appropriote name for this article, as that is what she used, as well as her Congressional staffused . I interned in her Captial Hill office for a short period of time, and was assigned to organize her files. All personal files were titled "MLL" for Mary L. Landrieu, as was her official stationary.

Zidel333 05:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

PATRIOT

Isn't her stand on the USA PATRIOT Act significative?

The bill passed in the House of Representatives on October 24, 2001, and in the Senate (Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) cast the lone dissenting vote, and Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) was the sole non-voting member) on October 25, 2001.

--

Also, she voted for the amendment to the Patriot Act. I have added this information under a "Controvery" section as she broke ranks with her party and created quite an uproar. --Mabu2 19:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

I removed the recently added section below from the article to here. The only source given is a right-wing website with an article that reads more like an editorial than reporting. For all I know this may be accurate, but to go in the article it needs better sourcing. -- Infrogmation 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fabricated information on official U.S. Senate website

In May 2007, Landrieu was caught fabricating information on her official U.S. Senate website by the conservative publication Human Events.^[1]

Have you heard about the Gulf Coast Recovery Bill? Probably not -- because it doesn't exist. Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.)'s official web site last week announced: "President Vetoes Gulf Coast Recovery Bill," effectively leading citizens to believe such a bill ever existed. <

Landrieu's press secretary responded that the posting on her website was not deceptive.

Current Event POV (office entry/wiretap allegation)

Does this really belong in the page? I don't think it had any historical significance beyond the fact that "no u.s. Senator in this state has had an attempt to wiretap their phones by a fringe activist group". Wikipedia is not a minute to minute news site, and if topics like this were of lasting significance Sarah Palin's page would have listed that her e-mails were illegally obtained by the son of a member of congress and published. This isn't a quid pro quo attack between a conservative and liberal page, but the latter story is infinitely more relevant to historical precedant, but ultimately a small factor, a passing blurb on both the careers/lives of these individuals and current events on the country overall. This topic *may* have a place on James o'keefe's page, but really has no lasting relevance here, save to be reverted once the issue is dropped from the news. 166.137.138.73 (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Protect America Act

The Protect America Act has nothing to do with, as Mabu2 claims, "authorizing torture and suspension of rights of American citizens". It allows intelligence agencies to begin electronic surveillance of suspects that meet a very specific set of guidelines while requiring said agencies to inform the FISA Court within 72 hours. This is a far cry from torture and suspension of rights. I highly doubt legislation authorizing torture and suspencion of constitutional rights would pass the Senate 60-28 and the House 227-183. This is pure partisan rhetoric, beyond anything that the mainstream Democrats are saying. It's clearly a POV violation, so I'm removing it. SpudHawg948 (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Senator Landrieu's Time as Treasurer

I think it would be a nice addition to the article if we could get a section dedication to her time as a treasurer. Thanks. OtherAJ (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

New Official Landrieu Photo

I'm not sure if you guys could do anything with this but Landrieu has a new Official Photo on the header of her site. I think it would be great to get a new picture of her on Wikipedia. The current one is very old and she looks quite different.

http://landrieu.senate.gov/2009/index.cfm

Thanks, OtherAJ (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Found and added it. Hekerui (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Louisianastateseal.png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Louisianastateseal.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Common Ground Coalition

I would propose deleting the reference to the Common Ground Coalition in this article, as the current source appears to be broken and I've been unable to find reliable sources elsewhere for it. Any objections?CFredkin (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

French pronunciation

Although its English pronunciation may be Lan-drew, it should be noted that the original French pronunciation of the Cajun surname Landrieu is Lã-dree-er. 76.67.156.30 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's called a coatrack, when you try to shoehorn information you find interesting into an article based on a tangential connection. This is a biography of a person whose name is pronounced landrew; a different person's name may be pronounced a different way, but unless it actually relates to this person, it's trivial and doesn't belong here. —Designate (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Most Conservative Democrat?

There are multiple claims of Landrieu being "one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate" in the article. The claim is supposedly based on an outdated American Conservative Union rating from 2007 and an inaccurate quote of a National Journal rating. In my opinion there are 2 options here: 1) Remove the claim and the references to outdated, inaccurate ACU/NJ ratings. 2) Update the rating references and remove the claim (which is no longer supported by the ratings).

Any input from the community here?CFredkin (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The updated rating references would be: The American Conservative Union rated Senator Landrieu as 16% conservative in 2012.

I believe any claims regarding her being "one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate" would be based on wp:synthesis and are dubious at best.CFredkin (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

1. The American Conservative Union rating isn't "outdated" or "inaccurate". This article isn't just a summary of what she's been up to in the past year, it's a summary of her entire time in the Senate.

2. The National Journal rating is not an "inaccurate quote". If you read the reference, you would realise that.

3. The claim that she is a "conservative Democrat" is based on evidence in the references provided, not "synthesis". Tiller54 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How can you possibly justify not updating the American Conservative Union info from 2007 to 2012?

National Journal reference in article currently states: "In 2012, the National Journal rated her as the most conservative Senate Democrat." However the source provided actually says: "For 2012 votes, the public policy magazine National Journal ranked Pryor as the 49th-most conservative member of the Senate, with Hagan as the 52nd-most conservative and Landrieu as the 47th." I'm pretty sure that only 3 Senate Democrats are referenced.

Once you make these 2 edits, the claim that Landrieu is "one of the most conservative Democratics in the Senate" (which is synthesis) is not supported by the facts.CFredkin (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my reply to you on the edit warring noticeboard, ratings do not "expire" or go out of date. I won't repeat myself further. Tiller54 (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Great. I'll leave the reference to the 2007 ACU rating and add the rating for 2012. Thanks. CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. I see you've added more sources to the claim of "one of the most conservative Democrats". They all seem to support a perspective that Landrieu is "a conservative Democrat". I would propose changing the claim from "one of the most conservative Democrats" to "conservative Democrat". What do you think?CFredkin (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The overall tone of this article is not one of neutrality:

1) The lede consists only of claims that would be considered favorable to the candidate. Such claims are not consistent with the ledes in bios of other political figures.

2) It contains an outdated reference to an American Conservative Union rating from 2007. All efforts to update or add more recent rating information (which would be less supportive of claims of conservatism) have been rejected.

3) It includes the following claim: "In 2012, the National Journal rated her as the most conservative Senate Democrat." However the source provided actually says: "For 2012 votes, the public policy magazine National Journal ranked Pryor as the 49th-most conservative member of the Senate, with Hagan as the 52nd-most conservative and Landrieu as the 47th."

4) It includes a claim that she voted for a tax cut passed in 2001. However there is no mention of this in the source provided.CFredkin (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

1) The introduction is neutral and is in fact consistent with introductions for other Senators (for example, Elizabeth Warren, which is rated GA). Vague claims that it's somehow "biased" are without foundation. If Landrieu had been involved in a major scandal, as her colleague David Vitter has, that would be mentioned in the introduction. But she hasn't, so there's nothing to include. What exactly do you think should be included? "Some Republicans criticised her for x vote"? Because that doesn't belong in an introduction.

2) References do not "expire", as I've said multiple times. This article is not just about how she voted in 2012 but about her entire Senate tenure. In one single year, her voting record might have been less conservative than in previous years, but without context and in comparison to the 15 other years she has accumulated a voting record for, it's pretty meaningless.

3) In other words, she's more conservative than two other conservative Democrats.

4) You could have looked for one instead of asking why there isn't one? For example, go to Bush tax cuts and then Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (the 2001 tax cut), go to the bottom and click the external link "Roll call vote 170, via Senate.gov". There, you will see "Landrieu (D-LA), Yea". Tiller54 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling her "one of the most conservative Democrats" might be true, but the statement about the National Journal rating her the most conservative is factually inaccurate. You can go on their site and order by most conservative and there are other Democrats rated more conservative in 2012 (Joe Manchin is the most conservative). I'm going to remove that line since it is not true. And yes, ratings don't expire, but you can't pick and choose them either unless they are especially notable. The 2007 ACU rating may be notable if they ranked her ahead of Republicans, but I think it's fair to add the most recent rating as well. - Maximusveritas (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

1) I agree that the lede for Elizabeth Warren intro seems pretty neutral. By comparison, the Mary Landrieu lede contains modifiers like "unprecedented", pandering statements that refer to her ability to fund the Coast Guard, Dept of Homeland Security and FEMA, and a vague reference to the "health insurance reform bills of 2010" whithout mentioning her support for the PPAC Act which was the law that resulted from those bills.

2) Based on the comment from Maximusveritas, I'll try to add the most recent ACU rating again.

3) & 4) above have now been addressed.CFredkin (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I found a lifetime rating, which I think is better than the rating you gave, which was for just 1 year. I agree about the last paragraph of the lead section having some problems. The anti-lynching legislation wasn't exactly "unprecedented" from what the source says. It may be better to say "at times opposing her party's positions" rather than "often opposing" which is debatable. And I think "spokeswoman for federal emergency relief" sounds way too official for something that wasn't. I may take a crack at changing some of that if there are no objections. - Maximusveritas (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No objection here.CFredkin (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Tax Votes

The following statement in the Positions section is sourced to an undated caption for a photo: 'Landrieu supports eliminating the estate tax permanently'. I would like to replace it with the following actual vote history with secondary sources: Landrieu voted to raise the estate tax exemption to $5 million in 2008[6] |title=Fixing Estate Tax at 2009 Level Appears to Have Senate Support |publisher=ElderLawAnswers |accessdate=2013-10-18, but voted against repeal of the estate tax in 2006.[7] | title=Estate Tax Reduction, Passed by House, Faces Test in Senate | work=Bloomberg | date=23 June 2006 | accessdate=18 October 2013 Any objections?CFredkin (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, the following statement in the Positions section is only sourced to the Senate vote db, with no information regarding significance: '...and voted for the tax cut passed in 2001.' I'm planning to remove it unless a secondary source is provided to provide context and significance....CFredkin (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those sources state what you are attempting to add into the article. So yes, there are objections. Dave Dial (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

From the first source: Senators also rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) that would have repealed the estate tax completely in 2010, and voted 74-25 against an amendment by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NB), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) that would have increased the exemption to $5 million...

From the second source: The timber tax break, worth more than $900 million to forest-product companies such as Federal Way, Washington-based Weyerhaeuser Corp. that own their timberlands, is designed to attract at least three Senate Democrats from timber-producing states, including Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. All voted against full estate tax repeal earlier this month.

I'm trying to be reasonable by adding the vote to raise the exemption, but if you'd prefer we can leave that out. But as far as I can tell, she's never voted to repeal the estate tax.CFredkin (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I reverted myself. Thanks for the clarifications. Dave Dial (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much.CFredkin (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ratings

Several interest group ratings were added to the Positions section today. This section is becoming a coat hanger for ratings. We have a link to the Vote Smart site in the External Links section for this purpose. I believe we should remove all rating references in this section. Otherwise, there are a number of ratings I'd like to add myself. Any objections?CFredkin (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are we allowing ratings on how conservative she is but none on how she is pro-choice and pro education? Alex Hortman (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenure vs. Positions

It seems like there's no clarity on what is in the Tenure section vs. the Positions section. As I see it, specific legislation and actions she has taken while a Senator belong in the Tenure section, while the Positions section is more for her position on issues that have not been addressed during her time in the Senate. If this is the case, much of what is in the Positions section should be moved to the Tenure section. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It happens in a lot of articles. When discussing someone's positions, their votes are often mentioned and the two sections get jumbled up and content ends up getting randomly put in either one of the sections rather than the one it really belongs in. Tiller54 (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make those changes tomorrow, as well as the others I mentioned above. Tiller54 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've moved most of the "positions" section into "tenure". It needs a little more work, I'll pick it up again when I've got time. Tiller54 (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Third paragraph of lede reads like a campaign advertisement

Weasel wording and tone issues galore. What is the rationale behind selecting the specific accomplishments mentioned in the lead? Why are they more important than her other votes? Why does most of the lead consist of major Democratic initiatives Landrieu either modified or opposed? Why is there a mention of an insignificant lynching resolution? I'm almost 100% confident it was written by either a committed Landrieu supporter or member of her campaign staff - I advocate removing all of it and listing her committee leadership positions instead, or simply replacing with one "Landrieu is one of the more conservative Democrats" sentence. --Trayvon1 (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It summarises her political position as one of the most conservative Senate Democrats and the specific accomplishments mentioned are her most notable ones, hence their inclusion. If you'd scroll up, you'd see the discussion that led to the language used. Tiller54 (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Where is the proof she came to "national prominence" after Katrina? Why is a mere resolution about lynching being mentioned when it had zero policy impact? Why is her opposition to the public option in ACA mentioned when she was one among dozens to oppose it? It seems to me that the 1st and 3rd accomplishments are worded to display political independence / positive advocacy for Louisiana, while the second is mentioned as an appeal to black voters (which happens to be a big part of her campaign strategy). The above discussion seems to concern different, previous lede wording, though much of the same criticism applies. I'd like a neutral arbiter to come in here and judge, because you certainly don't seem to be one.--Trayvon1 (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. I'll take your silence as assent. Trayvon1 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You may not. I didn't see you had replied, but I doubt it would have made a difference if I had replied because you've already decided that I'm not editing from a neutral point of view, which is a violation of WP:AGF.

As to your questions, if you'd read the article, you'd see why those points are included in the article. The lynching resolution was not "insignificant", it led the Senate to issue an unprecedented apology, which is certainly noteworthy. She held hearings on Katrina and was a critic of the federal government's response. Her opposition to a public option is notable because it led to it being dropped and her state receiving a large Medicaid payment. People do not come to Wikipedia to make up their minds about who to vote for and if you think otherwise, you're mistaken. These points are not mentioned to "display political independence / positive advocacy for Louisiana" or "appeal to black voters", they're mentioned because they are the most notable events of her Senate career. Tiller54 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The way the lynching resolution is worded in the lead and body does not make it clear how it is unprecedented and particularly noteworthy for it to be mentioned in the lead. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it could do with a re-write to emphasise how unprecedented it was, I think. There are a couple of other things like that as well - her being referred to as "the Senator", an election being mentioned in the "tenure" section, the infobox for her tenure in the LA House being improperly formatted etc. Tiller54 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of the article that follows. Katrina and her role in the ACA are the two items most talked about in the article, so it makes sense they should be mentioned in the lead. The source in the Katrina section talks about how she became a national spokesman for Katrina victims, which I thought went even further than "national prominence", but I could be wrong. I agree with you on the lynching resolution. Please remember to be civil in discussions here. - Maximusveritas (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very obvious that the tone of the lede's final paragraph is designed to demonstrate that she is a conservative, independent-minded Democrat who "puts Louisiana first." What's very interesting is that despite the presence in rest of the article of controversies and negative incidents, none of them are mentioned in the lede whose apparent intention is to summarize and not cherry-pick. The lynching resolution accomplished nothing policy-wise, and its significance isn't even close to that of Katrina and ACA. It needs to go. I am fine with the inclusion of Katrina. The fact remains on ACA that she was one of many to oppose the public option - e.g. she was not the decisive vote - and mentioning that she got money for Louisiana's Medicaid system does not strike me as especially nationally significant. In fact, the article has just one small paragraph devoted to it. That portion also needs to go. Trayvon1 (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. It's a summary of her Senate tenure and as such mentions the most notable aspects of her tenure, of which her opposition to the Affordable Care act and her getting the Senate to issue an unprecedented apology are just two. You are clearly not edition from a neutral point of view, as illustrated by your constant assertions that the article is written by Landrieu's staff/only exists to make her look good. Tiller54 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in talking about either of our POV's. You're not doing anything but repeating statements without any substance behind them. I know that she opposed ACA and that the Senate apologized for lynching for the first time - you've said that already. You still have not responded to my comments as to their relevance and presentation on the lede. It seems there are 2 people who think the lynching resolution - which, again, has had no lasting national impact, and certainly not to the scale of Katrina or ACA - shouldn't be in the lede, versus you. The mention of Louisiana Medicaid strikes me as entirely unnecessary. Ben Nelson also was a key player in ACA negotiations, and he secured a large concession for Nebraska in the process. Neither fact is in the lede of his article. Trayvon1 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a POV here, I'm only interested in improving the article, which means that the introduction mention notable aspects of her Senate tenure. You on the other hand seem only interested in advancing your position, constantly claiming that the article is "designed" to make people support Landrieu. Tiller54 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Again - I've made actual arguments, to which you're simply not responding. It's getting tiresome. Forget POV - I've made points about the substance of the lede to which you haven't responded. You seem outnumbered on the lynching point at least and potentially on healthcare. Let's stick to the substantive discussion. Trayvon1 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you've just made the same conservative talking points over and over again - "this was written by Landrieu's campaign staff", "it's meant to portray her as independent", "it's designed to make people support her". They're included because they're the most notable aspects of her Senate tenure. What would you suggest they be replaced with? What do you think is more notable than her important role in the crafting of the ACA? Than her getting the Senate to apologise for lynching? Than her becoming a national spokeswoman in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? Tiller54 (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's no consistent style precedent for including the specific accomplishments of a Senator - particularly a Senator with little national recognition - in the lede. Other moderate Democrats, some of whom are up for re-election - Ben Nelson, Kay Hagan, Evan Bayh, Joe Manchin - have ledes bare of their specific legislative accomplishments. As I've said, Landrieu's role in crafting ACA was no different than the role of a number of other Senators, and her success in getting funding for Louisiana Medicaid is not especially noteworthy. This must be the fifth time I've said this - the lynching resolution had no lasting national legacy, and another person aside from myself explicitly disagrees with you here. The Katrina bit can stay, though again, I'd like to see hard evidence for her status as a "national spokeswoman". Trayvon1 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes and articles on Senators including John McCain, Tom Coburn, Dianne Feinstein, Saxby Chambliss, Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions, Mark Begich, Rand Paul, Richard Burr, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mike Enzi and Rob Portman have introductions that mention specific positions they hold and/or legislation they are notable for. In fact, the better the article, the more specific the lead is. McCain's article is a featured article and is very detailed on his legislation and positions. Pointing to articles with poorly-written leads and claiming that this one should be more like them is ridiculous. Landrieu's role in the forming of the Affordable Care Act was different, as she held out until she got concessions. How many other Democratic Senators got the same? You may not like it but her role was significant. And, "no lasting national legacy"? An unprecedented apology by the Senate certainly meets that definition. Tiller54 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The only articles of those you listed that approach your desired level of specificity in legislative / procedural accomplishments are John Mccain, Jeff Sessions, and perhaps Rand Paul. Most of your cited articles note general policy positions or their ideological stance - none of them goes so far as to note specific concessions made in bill negotiations. McCain has accomplished much more than Landrieu, so it makes sense his lede has more detail. Holding out for concessions isn't even close to unique with regard to ACA - if you're at all familiar with the process for that bill, almost every player in negotiations got some concession or another. Further, her specific concession was worth $300 million in a bill with total expenditures of more than $1 trillion. I've read plenty of articles profiling ACA's passage, and none of them identifies Landrieu as one of the key principals. I don't think you have any idea what legacy means, because the lynching resolution has received almost no media coverage since its passage. It affected nothing in public policy. The Senate passed a resolution apologizing for slavery in 2009, more "significant" than lynching by any standard - and yet that resolution isn't mentioned anywhere in the article for Tom Harkin, its leading co-sponsor. It's almost laughable to put this resolution in the same paragraph as Katrina and ACA. Trayvon1 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Your silence after more than a month makes me comfortable in no longer taking you seriously. From now on, please do not interfere with the edits on the Mary Landrieu page. Trayvon1 (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see your reply. Unlike you, I'm not just here to edit a single article. The edits you made - removing all of the content about her tenure, removing her committee chairmanship and claiming that she is a "moderate" rather than a "conservative" Democrat, despite the source listed not saying that - are just further evidence that your obsession with this page and your desire only to push your POV. If you have nothing to contribute other than that, and no argument to make other than "X's article is underwritten, therefore this one should be to", don't bother. Tiller54 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a fairly large section on health care as a whole. Maybe you don't need all the details, but I think it should be mentioned as she was one of only 2 or 3 who were mentioned as negotiating to secure their vote. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ben Nelson also was a key player in ACA negotiations, and he secured a large concession for Nebraska in the process. Neither fact is in the lede of his article. I still can't imagine any justification for including the Louisiana Medicaid concession. Trayvon1 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't? Well, it certainly should, the largest individual section of his article is devoted to his position on health care. I'll add it in now. Tiller54 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't use the Ben Nelson page as a pawn over this article. Make your case on the talk page over there instead of using it to advance your position here. Trayvon1 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "Ben Nelson's introduction is incomplete, so this one should be too" really isn't a valid argument. Might I suggest that you spend some time contributing constructively to other articles, rather than just demanding things be removed? Almost 1/3 of your total edits have been on this single page. Tiller54 (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:PA. Stick to the issues - if pressed, I think you can do it. Trayvon1 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You think my suggesting that you make constructive contributions is a personal attack? Riiiight... Tiller54 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Residence

Wikipedia lists politicians residence based on what they state is their residence. We don't change the residence of a person based on politics. If it becomes such an issue that there is a lot of media coverage, in time that coverage can be listed in their elections section. That has been how other politicians from both parties have been handled. If some editors which to change that, please gain Talk page consensus before making those kinds of changes. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post says "On a statement of candidacy Landrieu filed with the Federal Election Commission in January, she listed her Capitol Hill home as her address," and "In Washington, Sen. Mary Landrieu lives in a stately, $2.5 million brick manse she and her husband built on Capitol Hill.'" [8]It says she has also listed her parents' home in New Orleans as a residence. I think this is sufficient sourcing to assert that she maintains residences in both DC & Louisiana. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think we're stupid? Almost every veteran US Senator has a house in DC. That's why these residency political attacks(from both sides) are stupid. You think David Vitter doesn't have a DC residence? His own website states he voted for a pay raise because of the expense of keeping up two residences. Are you going to scamper over there and list his residence as DC now? I'll let you two decide for yourselves. Either it's in this article, and every other Senator with a DC residence, or not in any of the articles. Otherwise this is going to another board. I've had with these POV warrior changes to BLP articles. Dave Dial (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Calm down, please. The article you cited is a actually a Roll Call article that says "The idea of flipping the equation might gain traction again after retiring Rep. James P. Moran told CQ Roll Call last week that he and his fellow members are 'underpaid.' The Virginia Democrat floated the idea of more money to assist with the expenses associated with keeping a second residence in Washington, D.C." It doesn't say anything about David Vitter having a second residence. Regardless, this is Mary Landrieu's article, so if you don't want us to include that Landrieu has two residences, please make a policy case here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted content

What's the rationale for removing this content? It's well-sourced and widely reported.CFredkin (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Standard campaign season nonsense bashing members of Congress for living around Washington instead of back home. Guess what, that's where their job is. 2600:1002:B119:5F8B:A0AF:B740:DD34:338 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's stating facts in neutral language. And the content is cited by reliable sources, not campaigns or candidates.CFredkin (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but those are necessary but not sufficient conditions for inclusion. There is still editorial judgement about what is important and what is not. This is not, unless it turns out to be a significant factor in the campaign, in which case it belongs in that section not where it is now. 70.215.67.245 (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It has already played a significant role in the campaign. I'm ok with moving it to the Campaign section.CFredkin (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is a nonsense issue sometimes taken out of context (Senator from the other side of the country owns a home in DC! Wow!), but it can be a significant factor in Senators' re-election campaigns. See: Lugar, Dick and Roberts, Pat. As for where it belongs, yes, probably in the 2014 election section, because it was an opponent who unsuccessfully challenged her residency. Tiller54 (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina and Landrieu's Lakeside Home

Can someone provide a source for Landrieu losing her lakeside home in hurricane Katrina? I have been unable to find a source for Landrieu actually losing a home in Katrina. Thank you. Sprinkler Court (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Here and here. Tiller54 (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

More deletion of pertinent information

Editor Scalhotrod thinks "Despite winning the jungle primary on November 4th, she failed to acquire the 50% needed to avoid a runoff. She was defeated by Republican Bill Cassidy in the runoff, 56% to 44%, on December 6, 2014" at the end of the second paragraph of the lede gives "undue emphasis and detail." S/He has replaced it with "she lost the election." Is there a consensus for this trim?

Imho, since there was first a "jungle primary" and later a run-off, more detail is necessary. I won't restore it on my own, but hope to hear from several other editors wrt this question. Yopienso (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Frivolous reverts

Seems this article is being reverted over unimportant things. Why can't the infobox say Bill Cassidy is the senator-elect who will succeed Landrieu? In my edit summary I promised to source it but found it was already sourced. This fact is common knowledge to anyone who follows the news.

Please let's all work together for the improvement of the article. Yopienso (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mary Landrieu. 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) 15:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

^ "Sen. Landrieu's Bill That Never Was". Human Events. Retrieved 2007-07-24.

[1] "Sen. Landrieu's Bill That Never Was". Human Events. Retrieved 2007-07-24.

[1]