Talk:Louis Caldera

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

Fair Use Photos?[edit]

There are photos of Louis Caldera on UNM's website at [1] and [2]. (Same photo, different cropping.) I wasn't sure if they would be fair use or not. -Oddtoddnm 18:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, I believe it would be fair use to use the photo. It is promotional, so it would qualify as that kind of fair use. -Oddtoddnm 00:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photo in the Wikipedia Commons that is fair use; my account is too new to add it to the page. Here is the link if an administrator wants to add it to the article: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LouisCaldera.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasRanch (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYC flyover?[edit]

Possibly worth including a picture? Since its probably going to end up being career milestone for him... Also, I read somewhere that Obama was "incensed" and also "furious" when he heard of the flyover, I would have included the one about him being furious, but we already have Bloomberg described as "furious" so I thought it best to try and find another description of the President's reaction, if applicable. Has anyone else seen an article detailing Obama's reaction? It might be worth including, especially if we have Bloomberg's. --Pstanton (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Pstanton. Career milestone, indeed. Quite a claim to fame for someone born on April Fool's Day to conduct this frivolous at best "mission" in April. Anyway, I added a bit more info to the section, mainly based on the new Associated Press citation. Haven't come across a source other than "furious" for Obama yet. I feel it should be included anyway, even if redundant to Bloomberg's reaction, since a major scare incident involving the presidential plane without the presidential approval to use it for such a stunt, begs the inclusion of an accurate response from the president. 71.35.112.4 (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CA State Assembly[edit]

I would like to change the following statement to something that is not so wordy.

Caldera then served as a California State Assemblyman from 1992 to 1997, equal opportunity, supporting fellow constituents representing the nearly 400,000 residents of the 46th District, which is located in and around downtown Los Angeles.

What is it meant by equal oppportunity? Anyone who is a registered voter in that district can run for the office. What is it meant by supporting fellow constituents? He represented fellow residents of that district, but that doesn't mean that he supported them. I will be editing this statement, unless I hear objections as to why it shouldn't be changed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Section?[edit]

Is a section on his career missing? I don't understand how Caldera goes from the first sentence to the second?

"Before finishing his third term in the Assembly, Caldera left to begin serving as managing director and chief operating officer for President Bill Clinton's Corporation for National and Community Service (1997-1998), a domestic volunteer program. On May 22, 1998, Clinton announced Caldera as his selection for Secretary of the Army.[4] On July 2, Caldera was sworn in as the 17th Secretary of the Army by Secretary of Defense William Cohen."[5]Profhum (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Stunt" is not a neutral term[edit]

Stunt may well be an effective adjective to convey one's annoyance at the event. It is perfectly acceptable here on the Discussion page. As used in the article, though, it is neither neutral nor, as I see it defined, an accurate use of the term.

Unless someone effectively voices their disagreement, I plan to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhugot (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed it along with some other non-neutral language - it would appear that the origination of the term vis-a-vis this article was the title and some of the terminology of an AP piece cited in article. The fact that someone wrote it and AP picked it up doesn't make it neutral. In fact, it calls into question the neutrality of the AP article which contains references to non-specific statements that I have not seen elsewhere (e.g., Obama was "fuming" and questioned the need for updated photos) and which have been reproduced in the Wikipedia article. Euclidjr (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flyover of the lower Manhattan financial district created a public panic among stupid people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.20.200 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Scapegoat" and "Forced to resign" authority[edit]

Several users (one in particular) have been editing numerous times today to add specific language about Caldera being forced to resign and being a scapegoat and remove languag suggesting that he tendered his resignation. I have yet to see any authority for these statements or find any by searching news reports for the day. Although it may be true that he was forced to resign, content must be verifiable. Candidly, I am not versed enough in handling of Wikipedia policy to know how to address the issue as either vandalism, 3RR or something else - but would gladly accept any direction in that regard. Euclidjr (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, "Caldera was made a scapegoat by the Obama White House" is not a neutral POV. Rtolmach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.207.140 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit warring continues on this point. It's really silly and needs to stop. Janus303 (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Another addition of "scapegoat" and "forced to resign" removed. This looks like it will have to be actively monitored and removed each time it is added, at least until evidence is presented in the media or some other reliable source that Mr. Caldera was indeed made a scapegoat. Even then, the term scapegoat is a has negative conations. Current evidence presented previously in the article show that Mr. Caldera's office was the one that ordered the flight, and Mr. Caldera is the chief of the office, and that the White House Chief of Staff was not in the chain of command for individual movement orders for the aircraft that serve as Air Force One unless they are carrying the president (and thus President Obama and his close staff would not have been in the approval process). In addition, photography flights for Air Force planes serving as Air Force One are common in each administration and routine, part of the regular practice rotation for pilots and crew (who must according to the the FAA and Air Force regulations gain a certain number of flight hours per month to carry out their mission.) Thus at this time there is no journalistic or academic reason to see these flights as requiring a scapegoat, no evidence Mr. Caldera was forced to resign (as indeed, all evidence points to Mr. Caldera's office being the people who had the poor judgement to order the mission). 96.41.208.206 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Jackson[reply]

Was he forced to resign? Was he a scapegoat? Perhaps he simply threw up his hands and said something like, "You made your bed, now lie in it, I'm off to work with reasonable people who don't screw up". Maybe he was fired because he messed up pretty badly, who knows? Point is, unless there's a verifiable reference from a credible source, we just report the facts, we don't interpret them and try to put a "spin" on them. Banaticus (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only real evidence I've seen is the Internal Review published by the White House, available at many places including here[3]. If this report is correct, then Mr Caldera was clearly not performing his duty. However I wouldn't use this report as a source, because the White House is not an objective source. I don't see any alternative to the simple reporting of facts, the report came out, and Mr Caldera tendered his resignation, which was accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorillatheape (talk • contribs) 00:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Caldera Is Still Director[edit]

He's not a "former director" until May 22nd.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/CalderaLetter.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorcherokee (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theories[edit]

There have been suggestions made that the flyover was part of an experiment to gauge the public and governmental response to a real terrorist attack mimicing the style those of 9/11/2001. In order to perform any controlled experiment only one variable may be changed at a given time whilst all other conditions remain the same. Implicit in the nature of a controlled experiment would be the lack of foreknowledge by the public, key governmental officials, the president, as well as the mayor of New York of the scheduling of the flight.[citation needed]

I removed this paragraph. With no sources or citations it has no place in an encyclopedia. Various attempts have been made to make it less conspiratorial sounding, but none have addressed the basic fact that it's an unsourced claim. Even if it were true, it doesn't belong in this article unless Louis Caldera had something to do with it. Janus303 (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis Caldera. 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) 23:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_Caldera&oldid=1206510392"