Talk:Peter Roskam/Archive6

message: * It seems somewhat awkward to place Section 3 (Congressional service) before sections 5 and 6 (1998 Congressional campaign and 2006 Congressional campaign).  Section 3 occurs last (chronologically) so it might make sense to make it the last section. Patiwat 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion regarding article structure 

message: I have archived the contents prior to 10 March 2007 of this talk page to Talk:Peter Roskam/Archive5. If you wish to recommence a discussion prior to 10 March 2007, visit the appropriate archive and cut and paste the entire conversation over to this page.
I have also placed the archive links in an infobox to the right.
Kind regards,anthonycfc [talk] 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Good morning (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on ,     (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:
#Well-written: Pass
#Factually accurate: Pass 
#Broad: Pass 
#Neutrally written: Pass
#Stable: Pass 
#Well-referenced: Pass
#Images: Pass
I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!
Kindest regards,anthonycfc [talk] 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|Good Article]] [[WP:GAC|'''Nomination''']] 

message: I've made clear edit summaries and thoughtfully removed content that was either biased, deceptive or repetitive. Several times sources were not properly represented or only the side of political opposition was given. --Dual Freq 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to clarify the edits if the edit summaries were not clear enough, but wholesale reversion, especially considering I added a few cited items, is not acceptable. --Dual Freq 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your changes per your reasoning.  --rogerd 18:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed biased content 

message: I think its safe to remove the campaign video links since they are old as well as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee attack page, no added value and no additional information is provided by it. The Congresspedia link also seems to have no additional value as it appears to be a dupe of this article and the vote smart, Wa Post and open-secrets links cover the links provided by Congresspedia. --Dual Freq 16:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed --rogerd 18:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I was trying to update refs and standardize them, but there are many dead links and other unverifiable ones. Any idea how to handle those? --Dual Freq 20:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: I haven't had much luck finding election details, but I did find that in November 1992 Roskam defeated  Democrat Pat Cullerton, brother of Illinois state senator John Cullerton, and in 1996 he defeated Democrat Kevin Schuele (29.2% to 70.8%). I can't find much for 1994 perhaps he ran unopposed. I wanted to add this to the electoral history, but I have no percentages to use for 1992. Anyone have any additional details for 1994 or numbers for 1992? --Dual Freq 23:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chicago Sun Times, November 5, 1992. DISTRICT 40 (100%). Peter Roskam (R) 26609 61% Pat Cullerton (D) 17355 39% --Dual Freq 23:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: November 8, 1994 edition, the Sun Times issued no endorsement for the 40th district while listing most other districts in Illinois, so I assume this means it was unopposed.  Any problem with adding these totals? --Dual Freq 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illinois State Representative 40th district 

message: I have replaced this entirely proper section.  If you think there needs to be some sort of balance, go add a list of notable contributors to the similar Democratic politician's pages!  --BenBurch 12:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributors section. 

message: I don't think the landfill bit belongs in an encyclopedia, biographical article. Doing a LexisNexis search, the only article that comes up for the full text terms Roskam and Molen or the terms Roskam and landfill, relating to this topic, is the Daily Harald article cited, "Roskam challenged on environment Duckworth says challenger is pro-'green'", Eric Krol, Daily Herald Political Writer. The link between Roskam and the landfill seems tenuous at best and seems only to have been used as a typical campaign year smear taking advantage of a 2006 lawsuit. There is no significant national news on this under General news and only this one story under Midwest news sources or Illinois news sources. Since Roskam is not responsible for his contributers alleged actions any more than Duckworth was responsible for her contributors actions. I propose removing this and placing lawsuit details, excluding Roskam since his is not responsible for the landfill, in the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County which makes no mention of the landfill, Mallard lake or the lawsuit. --Dual Freq 15:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it so.  ;-) --BenBurch 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landfill 

message: In an effort to find some more biographical material for the article, I was thinking of including a small paragraph about father / mother siblings, etc. I consider that to be basics of a biography. What I have so far is Father, Verlyn R. "Swede" Roskam, (age 77 in Oct 2006, originally from Fort Dodge, Iowa), Vice-President (Agriculture division) Oil Dri Corporation of America and mother Martha (Jacobsen?), former school teacher / EAL / retired, unknown age. Father graduated Knox College, Illinois in 1951 (ROTC, 10 months in Korea), mother graduated Knox in 1952. Roskam claims to be "brother of 5 doctors". Potential sources include, 1988 award for parents, Roskams contributors P-T lists Mother, father, probable brother Stephen and a Phyllis and Dick Roskam (unknown relation), The Ogden Reporter 2007 - Interesting story about father, perhaps a start of a stub on him. What I'm still looking for is where mother is originally from, just to note it and siblings names or at least how many, brothers / sisters. Possibly a bit more about his wife, not too much just the basics. Any ideas, sources etc? --Dual Freq 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: In the 1990s, Roskam supported three different state legislative plans to remove books that some parents found objectionable from public schools: one to remove the textbook series Impressions that contained texts that were said to have themes of the occult, violence, witchcraft and disrespect for parental authority from Arlington Heights schools, another to remove any book that "expressly counsels for suicide," and a third to allow local juries to determine whether a book is obscene.[14][15]
''
This is section is typical of the hack and slash job of this “so called bio” on wikipedia.
I will take this step by step in this section which is typical of the whole article, and show 
the truth of this statment.
Lets start with  the statement (sentence #1)
“In The 1990s, Roskam supported three different state legislative plans to remove book that  some parents found objectionable from public school….”
First big problem… 1990’s ??? when??? 1990, 1991… 1999??? When???? No citation of this basic question of “WHEN”?
Second big problem … “…Roskam Supported three different state legislative plans…”
What plans??? When were they presented... What were they??? Any citation …NO…. Any details…NO … NO NOTHING but hersay.
Third big problem…”…to remove the textbook series ..”Impressions” What was in this book series and what was in them.  Were can I look at one and read one ??? Nothing, NATTA.
We are to infer from blue sky and partisan blogger Eric Zorn and trust him to do the readers crital reading and thinking of this textbook series? .  We are to take Joshua Green’s statements at face value (assuming I COULD even READ Joshua Green’s article which is not available for review).
And finely, the forth big problem is the citation …
(14)  ^ Would you, could you twist a fact? By Eric Zorn Friday, October 20, 2006 Chicago Tribune blog. 
(15)  ^ "A National Knife Fight" by Joshua Green, Oct 2006 Esquire, pg. 236
These two citation are more notable for what is left out… as well as the “Esquire” article, which  is not even available online.  
This is complete joke, considering we are to infer Roskam’s full and current education position from this sparse and completely misleading, and very old as well as small event in Roskam’s long career as a public office holder.  This entry is misleading and full of holes and should be removed and not considered in this bio as A “Roskam’s complete stance on education” 
No wonder why Wikipeida is a joke.  I could go on with down the line but   you get the drift.
Stop removing valid points for discussion —The preceding unsigned68.75.59.189 01:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Education stance

message: In looking at the rules and policy of wikpedia, in particular, the policy regarding
WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP this section is complete and clear violation of the 
policy and principles, out lined in these publish online docs.
Propol is clearly in the wrong with pushing this section about Roskams 
positions on Education.  This section is clearly flawed, citations bais and flawed bloggers, and has the tone of a "attack-ad campaign quasi-journalism in an "encyclopedia" article.  This section is clearly biased and interpretational and inconsistent with the way an "encyclopedic" article should be written.
* I'm not going to involve myself in this dispute other than to point out a couple of things:
** If Eric Zorn is a real reporter at that newspaper, then his blog entry on the newspaper's blog may be citeable as a reliable source. It's not ideal, but it probably falls within permitted sources if it meets the required criteria for blogs belonging to reliable sources.
** The Esquire citation is valid. A live url to a free copy of the article is not required for a valid citation. There is enough publishing information in the cite to make it verifiable at a public library. In fact, anyone in the US with a valid library card can probably retrieve that article for free over the internet, through AccessMyLibrary.com . - Crockspot 13:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Educational Positions Part II

message: Goethean
The endorsement section should be about who endorsed the candidate, not why or why not. The why and why not breaks the NPOV point of view, or a more balanced explanation of the overall controversy needs to be included. I don't think it should be since 1)the election has past, 2) It would take up a lot of room in the bio on what is debatebly a minor point and 3) It can be characterized as a, "I didn't know the teacher changed the assignment" type of conclusion if you read the response from the Duckworth campaign spokesperson.
I could not link back to the Daily Herald article about Sen. Ray Soden choosing the candidate, but I assume it is accurate. If you include that, wouldn't it be just as important to quote from the other part of the Chicago Tribune article that says Roskam said, the national organization's endorsement was based on the recommendation of veterans in the congressional district who know his background, record and priorities. 
There was also confusion in the process. Sal Capirchio, the director of the VFW's national political committee said, "The new process, he said, required candidates to request a questionnaire. Roskam got the 11th-hour endorsement after a recommendation from the state VFW chapter, Capirchio said."
Duckworth spokeswoman Christine Glunz said the campaign was never made aware of the new endorsement policy. 
If you want to get into all of that controversy and explain it, fine, then balance it out to make it NPOV.  but I believe that the endorsement section is just that and not much more.  
I await your response  
Bubbler2222 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsments 

message: Roskam's entry on the notable names database includes a reference to a wife, Jeanne, as stated on his Law's firm's website. Our article contains no mention of this Jeanne. This is the first I've heard of it. Does anyone know anything about this? Or more importantly, can anyone find any relevant sources? --YbborTalk 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the law firm's website listed and there is no substantiation of this allegation .TEAMCrocko 04:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Calm down, I simply forgot to restore them when I rolled back your removal of Ybbor's comments. (Was that "censorship" too?)  You are free to restore them, as you have done. I'm sorry that you are offended by this discussion, but NNDB is a popular website and we feel that addressing this issue here will prevent people from using the incorrect information there to "correct" the Wikipedia article.  There is no need for the bombast you have brought to this issue and it is inappropriate for you to react in this way to a simple desire of WP editors to insure the article is accurate. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen too much abuse on this article, in the past, by those with agendas.  I have gotten very cynical considering this. But, I am hoping that fairness and adherence to common sense fairness will prevail over the past POV pushers and POV gangs.TEAMCrocko 01:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "In the past"?  Given that you started editing with this account yesterday, you've just admitted that you've participated here under another identity.  Given this past participation, you have been around long enough to know that these kind of dramatics are frowned upon on Wikipedia. Please keep it in check and repsect your fellow contributors. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read histories and can think and I admit, nothing, as to if and when I may have contributed - so please don't put words my mouth.  I will respect as long as there is reciprocity. I expect you to enforce the rules evenly, even to your democratic friends .TEAMCrocko 02:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can read histories too. Yours seems a lot like User:Joehazelton's, but like you said above, I admit, nothing. Classy. Propol 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like your use of "WE" Mr. Propol,  considering your Must be the Du branch of the Wikipedia Welcome Wagon person (gender neutral) with the little hamster in your pocket (The WE). Now to MR Gamaliel, show me you are really willing to enforce this "RESPECT" you talk about and call this uncivil dog off.TEAMCrocko 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you create drama, don't be surprised when you attract drama in return.  If you want respect, please treat other contributors with respect. So far you have not done so. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't remove my response or re factor them to your questions, is shows disrespect and make the conversation one sided and misleading. Respect is two way street.TEAMCrocko 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are familiar enough with Wikipedia to read histories, then you should know that this sort of hostility and bombast is inappropriate.  Enough with the accusations and drama.  If you don't want to be mistaken for a banned user, don't act like a banned user.  Since you've read the histories, you know exactly what I mean. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, and I agree, as does Ybbor, I'm sure.  That's why no one inserted the information in question in the article.  We discussed it on talk first, as it was the proper and responsible thing to do. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have sent a letter to Roskam's office regarding the NNDB website as well as this discussion. I'm sure, in a few days it will be corrected because I know it to be absolutely false, because I know the family here in Wheaton.TEAMCrocko 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 2nd Wife, NNDB in error.

message: Since this article is semi-protected, could someone dab Medicare with Medicare (United States)? -- 208.81.184.4 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dab Medicare