Talk:Jan Schakowsky

message: I am going to delete the paragraph on Jan's husband Robert Creamer. First and foremost, there were no sources cited. I think this is especially important when discussing legal matters. Secondly, the article is intended to cover Jan Schakowsky. I think a brief mention of her husband is appropriate, but a more detailed discussion should be done on a page dedicated to Robert Creamer. 
I am not trying to conceal any information, but I think we must be careful to present it in an appropriate manner. If you wish to add back the deleted content, please discuss first before doing so. Thanks. 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jbpo made an edit that I find questionable. There was a sentence with a source cited (USA Today), which specifically said Jan Schakowsky was not accused of any wrongdoing. This was reworded to state "charged with" in place of "accused of". While the wording may seem minor, I believe it violates the NPOV policy. I think this was intended to insinuate that wrongdoing occurred on Schakowsky's part, but that she had been successful in avoiding prosecution. Also, this user states Schakowsky was on the board of the organization but no source was cited. 68.78.129.198 06:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're so worried about anonymous edits, then try signing your comments here! You might want to check you're spelling of anonymous while you're at it too. I left the mention that Schakowsky served on the board of the organization in question. I feel much better about it after a source was cited. I added back that the funds were repaid. I also reverted the deletion of the judge's favorable comments. You may not like these items; you may even think they're an excuse, but that doesn't matter. They are objective facts with properly cited sources, so they should remain in the article. By the way, I read Mr. Kass' article from the Tribune (the link above) and I don't see any explicit accusation of wrongdoing on the part of Schakowsky. There was a veiled criticism of a trip, but his main point was that Jan should not point a finger at Republicans. Also, consider the source, Kass is admitted conservative Republican with a general distaste for politicians (including most Republicans). Don't present your sources as offering more than they do. It diminishes your creditability. 68.78.34.178 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Jbpo, you essentially accused a sitting judge of improper conduct and didn't even bother to cite your source. Your edits have not been NPOV and have frequently included deletions of properly sourced information. My edits have typically been to ADD information to the article, and I always cite sources. I request that Jbpo be blocked. This user has launched personal attacks against me, calling me a shill/censor, when in fact his/her own conduct has been suspect. 68.78.39.163 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Where does the article say OK or not OK? The paragraph is a reasonable summary of WP:RS. Each sentence in the paragraph except the last is a paraphrase of leads from multiple WP:RS. He's done his time under our system, what is your attitude in general toward ex-felons or is it just this one? Hugh (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Creamer

message: Editors,
Your attention is requested in the matter of an AfD nomination for House Resolution 333. I invite your participation on the associated debate page.--OtisTDog 01:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for [[House Resolution 333]] 

message: I'd like to respectfully suggest that you may have thrown the baby out with the bath water re: the Schakowsky edits.  In particular, adding headings for each paragraph--each of those was either an already-existing direct quote from the paragraph below it or a brief summary.  They are no more promotional than what has already been approved, and less biased than the headings that current exist.  Was each individual heading improper, or was it limited to a few?  (I admit that "champion of health care" instead of "Supporter of ACA" was perhaps a bit biased.)
I am also confused regarding the clarification outlining the bias and reputation of author Caroline Glick, which was sourced via a 3rd party nonprofit.
Also, why is Caroline Glick's opinion of the issue valid, but John Dodge's commentary about it isn't?  They were both published in respected sources.
Some of the current paragraphs with headings under "US House of Representatives" are nowhere near as relevant to the Congresswoman's overall career as the preceding sections, which is why I feel that those earlier paragraphs should also bear headings.
Please advise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:9800:212B:286D:5F2C:57BB (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting a bold heading on each of a major platform piece reads like a campaign brochure.  Specifying a position on major issues is one thing, making an encyclopedia entry look like a piece of campaign literature is another.  That sort of formatting will be reverted as promotional regardless of party affiliation or content. Scr★pIronIV 18:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I have removed an entire paragraph which was sourced only by opinion pieces; however, those two items are specific events in which she was a central figure.  This does warrant a separate section, where a list of political poistions does not warrant one for each.  I will look more closely at them, but it is a decision that needs to be made by more than one editor. Scr★pIronIV 18:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I would concur that more neutral wording is warranted. Scr★pIronIV 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Hopefully my edit removing opinion pieces, which were not balanced out by opposing views, has helped restore some neutrality? Scr★pIronIV 18:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent headline additions/info regarding Caroline Glick 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Jan Schakowsky. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070725184700/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Jan Schakowsky. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719024607/http://www.dphie.org/distinguished.cfm to http://www.dphie.org/distinguished.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318062631/http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003230004/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=072606G to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=072606G
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217171546/http://jta.org/news/article/2008/12/12/1001495/shakowsky-throws-her-hat-in to http://jta.org/news/article/2008/12/12/1001495/shakowsky-throws-her-hat-in
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161022135446/http://glhalloffame.org/index.pl?page=inductees&todo=year to http://glhalloffame.org/index.pl?page=inductees&todo=year
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified