Talk:Peter Roskam/Archive5

message: #.  Using weasel words to colour his stance on tort reform is not acceptable.  "However" is not encyclopedic and introduces judgement.  Also, the only  source for this is an editorial by a Roskam critic.  Not particularly well sourced for such a blatant hypocrisy solouring.
#. People being angry at the VFW for supporting Roskam is not particularly relevant to his Bio.  People are mad at every endorsement.  The VFW's endorsement is relevant.  The connection to the person recommending the endorsement is relevant.  That certain VFW members disagreed with it, is not relevant.  Not every union member agrees with union endorsements and that is a given.  Bringing criticism of the VFW to Roskam's bio is false light libel.  The disagreement is between VFW and it's members, not Roskam. 
#.  Using weasel words to take away from or diminsh McCain's endorsement of Roskam is POV.  It needs to be reworded without the "although" and I'm not sure a disagreement over a single issue is noteworthy but it can neutrally reworded.   It's a Poisoning the well argument style that is unencylcopedic. 
#. Roskam proposed eliminating some books that parents objected to from the library.  that was exxagerated by his opponents campaign.  Both of those facts are notable if any of them are notable.  The exageration is from factcheck.org . --Tbeatty 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a couple of edits based on your concerns. On the VFW issue, Roskam is a party to the dispute. VFW members are upset with Roskam too, not just VFW leadership. Roskam acknowledged his involvement in the process; he even claims to have planned the timing of the announcement. Propol 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we had better remove the NPOV tag before we think about "Good Article" status. Does anyone object to removing the NPOV tag? Propol 15:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. Dino 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I'm the one who put it there in the first place; and I've just taken it down. Dino 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect that it will be found that the article still falls short of GA, but it will be interesting to see what some fresh eyes find.    --rogerd 15:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been around long enough to know how it will go. Thanks for your input, Roger. Last night you made one comment and it really did me a lot of good. It just gave me the sense that I'm not alone in this. Dino 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it passes.  I made some improvements that I think will help.  --BenBurch 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: The article was quickly renominated for Good Article status; since Goethean was heavily involved in editing this article, it was decided that he wasn't qualified to make a decision on the merits. They have rules about that sort of thing. Dino 18:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The review is still going on, something any GA reviewer might want to keep in mind. Homestarmy 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some observations

message: I have asked for a review of the denial of Good Article status. I get the sense that it was a unilateral fit of pique by Goethean after most of the criticism was removed. "I removed this article from the Good Article nominations because it is highly unstable and, in its current Freeper-ized state, highly POV." diff As long as the current consensus holds and the DU representatives here don't start an edit war, the stability problem is resolved. I'd like a few "fresh pairs of eyes" to determine whether there is a "Freeper-ized" "highly POV" problem. Even if we blow it, we'll get some constructive criticism from someone with a fresh perspective. Dino 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that it will be found that the article still falls short of GA, but it will be interesting to see what some fresh eyes find.    --rogerd 15:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been around long enough to know how it will go. Thanks for your input, Roger. Last night you made one comment and it really did me a lot of good. It just gave me the sense that I'm not alone in this. Dino 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it passes.  I made some improvements that I think will help.  --BenBurch 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: The article was quickly renominated for Good Article status; since Goethean was heavily involved in editing this article, it was decided that he wasn't qualified to make a decision on the merits. They have rules about that sort of thing. Dino 18:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The review is still going on, something any GA reviewer might want to keep in mind. Homestarmy 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]

message: I hope nobody minds that I alphabetized the positions category?  Seemed more orderly and good-article-like that way. --BenBurch 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow when this section was alphabetized, the "alternative fuels and fiscal responsibility" quote from Roskam lost its way. I've restored it. I'm sure it was an unintentional oversight on your part. Dino 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it was, thanks.  --BenBurch 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetization 

message: DeanHinnen - this article "Pyke, Marni. "How the Midwest Figures Into Global Warming." Chicago Daily Herald, February 8, 2007" is no longer on their site. Could you post the part that describes Roskam's participation in the energy bill in question? Thanks. - FaAfA 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the full text of the article and I will send it to anyone who emails me. "In terms of emissions, Rep. Peter Roskam of Wheaton said Congress should consider the issue. But he wanted assurances no manufacturing jobs would be lost as a result of any policy changes."  That's all the article appears to say about Roskam. Gamaliel 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found it too. How the Midwest Figures Into Global Warming It says NOTHING about Roskam's participation with that energy bill, and in  NO WAY supports DeanHinnen's claims.  - FaAfA 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming article text? 

message: Assuming there is consensus here for any edits needed, post  here to flag it for an admin to make the edits. Thatcher131 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Thatcher131 in typical left biased administrators who think Wikipedia is the sword of the DCCC, then locks the Peter Roskam biography down because he does not agree with the edits and he unilaterally revert back without discussion, reason, or justification.  Again I charge the administrators particularly Gamaliel with allowing biased, non-encyclopedia, puffery which over the last nine months read like a Tammy Duckworth political flier yet any positive entries on this article is removed within a minutes and forced to argue argued, ad nauseam, with the participants who have been opposing the apparent left political agenda (see duck test) are personally ridiculed, diminished, and threatened with banning, in order to quash any fair and reasonable argument and substituted with allusion Faux argument through revisionist editing, as well as, to be insulting and demeaning to those who cannot respond back to said comments.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.172.201.80 (talk • contribs) 
:That was an interesting rant, most of which I have deleted.  Your assumptions about my political leanings are amusing; I expect FAAFA would disagree with you, and you would both be wrong.  But that is not the point.  If you wish to have any edits made to this article you can state them here and post {{edit protected]] on the page, which will alert admins to the request.  Controversial requests will probably not be approved without consensus.  You may also contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly via email; you can find their address under the link Contact us on the left had side of the page. Thatcher131 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I would ;-)  I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. If you would like to to prove to me that you are fair (not that you have to) you could spend an hour over at Zombietime which is 75% blog-sourced and OR. I listed it at RfC, but all it got was a tag. - FaAfA 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS ARTICLE IS BAIS AND SHOULD HAVE NPOV TAG WHILE ITS LOCKED

message: The portrait photo in question was first distributed by the Roskam for Congress campaign. It was released into the public domain about a year ago. I suppose we will all wait until there is bulletproof confirmation of that. In the meantime, is there any objection to moving the Roskam/Cheney photo to the top of the page? Dino 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a photo on his official site :Image:Peter Roskam 02 cropped.png that is cropped from a group photo and loaded it to commons.  After cropping, it isn't the greatest resolution, but hopefully he will have his official portrait on his site soon, and we'll grab that.  --rogerd 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, Roger. There are five group photos, and I was hesitant about using them but I'm still fairly new here. You appear to have chosen the best of the group photos. I'm aware that even a snapshot by a congressional staff member is undeniably public domain. But I don't care to run afoul of any of those "secret rules" again, since I'm being watched so carefully. Thanks. Dino 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you can't be bothered to read the rules or the discussion here about them doesn't make them "secret rules".  It's not that complicated, you are the one chosing to make it so. Gamaliel 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger understands what I'm talking about, sir. I guess it's an inside joke. Dino 21:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your jokes and allusions. How 'bout some more about Nazis? - FaAfA 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the photo

message: Typical of those with agenda and bias we have this little gem to analyze...
"Earlier this month, Roskam brought in the conservative National Rifle Association to knock on doors for him. The district is moderate enough that even conservative icon Hyde voted in favor of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban...." Which it is justified with a typical Eric (the troll) Krol   article dated Friday, July 28, 2006.
in this article I will quote an excerpt which would  appear to be the relevant one which justifies the gem above....
::"Earlier this month, Roskam brought in the conservative National Rifle Association to knock on doors for him. The district is moderate enough that even conservative icon Hyde voted in favor of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban"
What's really distressing is the false logic and assumptions that are made here and put up the gem on the Roskam Bio, this assumption is
A. Roskam brought in the NRA to knock on doors for him.  ( even though it may have or have not been asked by Roskam for the help.)
B. Because the NRA is against the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons ( even though the definition what is an assault weapon is dubious and vague which would entail and include sporting shotguns but be that as it may)
C. Henry Hyde voted in favor of the 1994 federal ban.
So, wonderfully we draw the conclusion from this short little blurb in (Eric the troll) article that 
D. Mr. Roskam is in not in favor of the 1994 federal ban on " assault rifles".  It should be noted that Mr. Roskam did not hold federal office in 1994 so the inclusion and the assumption is moot and illogical.
If you are going to put positions and assume they are somebodies political philosophy it would behoove the editors to get better and more reliable sources, as well as sources, (it has been said here in the cooperative atmosphere, we have on this article a minimum 4)corroborating said positions on political philosophy.
It should be noted that there are many more gems as the one shown here that need to be cleaned up before this article could be even considered encyclopedic without spin or political tomfoolery.
It has been said that if a reasonable person read this he can infer that the writer of this article did not have a political agenda, bias or point of view. Using this test, it is in my humble opinion this article on a Republican officeholder fails miserably and should be rewritten, hopefully by people who do not political agenda and goals in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.44.216 (talk • contribs) 
:I respectfully disagree, and am reverting your edits as they appear to come from a single purpose account.  --BenBurch 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed the reference, too and nothing is said to substantiate Roskam's alleged position on the assault weapons ban.  --rogerd 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In our first three or four edits, most of us appeared to be "single purpose accounts." Give the newbie a chance to spread his wings. Dino 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When evaluating anonymous comments, please keep in mind that for the past six to nine months, we have been plagued on a daily or weekly basis by an indefinitely blocked user who uses anonymized IP addresses to post personal attacks and partisan rants about the "agenda and bias" of the editors of this article. — goethean ॐ 22:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Typical associative assumption

message: I see that someone found a different reference to back up Roskam's assault weapons ban stance.  This op-ed piece, not a news article has one line about Roskam: "Banning assault weapons isn't a real issue, Rep. Peter Roskam said during the campaign last fall, because there isn't any real incidence of their use in Illinois."  The rest of the op-ed talks about Daley and Blagojevich.  Yes, he is supported by the NRA, but so what?  We can't just have what someone thinks his position is. I think that we need a reference that clearly states his stance on the issue.  --rogerd 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Roger. Anyone else? Would someone please provide a reliable source that shows Roskam's position on assault weapons? Dino 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for Roskam's assault weapons stand 

message: “Banning assault weapons isn't a real issue, Rep. Peter Roskam said”
From this statement in the Suntimes Op-ed, dated January 10, 2007 
We are to infer from this one statement the complete position Peter Roskam takes regarding gun control specifically, 1994 federal ban on assault weapons.
First, be noted, that Mr. Roskam did not hold federal office in 1994 so he could not vote or be against this law.
Second, this article cited is not applicable in identifying Mr. Roskam's views on the issue of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons.
“…Well, tell that to Denise Reed, an Englewood resident whose 14-year-old daughter was killed by a stray bullet from an AK-47 while looking out her window.  And tell that to other victims -- inadvertent or otherwise -- of gang violence involving these decidedly non-sporting firearms…”
Also, associative guilt by inferring that Mr. Roskam was the cause of death and misuse of the AK-47 by a gang banger using this, in all likelihood, a stolen and illegal weapon, it is a stretch that is disingenuous, insulting, as well as indicative of bias and guilt by association which characterizes character assassination which, many here, seem to be interested in doing to this Republican officeholder.  
So, based on WP:BLP and  WP:NPOV  and WP:Undue weight  as well as the false assumption that Mr. Roskam voted against and is against the assault ban law or is against this is spurious logic, without merit and is misleading as to his true position on this subject.
If you insist on loading this biography with controversial and salacious information at the least have the respect and common decency as well as courtesy to research the subject better and to show more respect for a living subject of a biography.128.241.45.61 09:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: guilt by association... assumptions not justified in print

message: * Intro should be expanded to 2-3 paragraphs that better fleshes out the material in the main article.
* The advertisement of his lawfirm should be placed at the top of the "Personal history" section so it doesn't butt into the "Electoral history" section.
* Why does "Electoral history" come between "Personal history" and "Illinois General Assembly"?  Frankly, I'm not sure it should be a section of its own. Patiwat 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions for GA nomination 

message: Why is there no dedicated section on his abortion stance? Wouldn't this be more notable and worthy of documention that his stance on O'Hare Airport, which merits a stand-alone section, for instance? Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, though intended for articles, essentially fits here. --Calton | Talk 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has never voted on an abortion-related bill in the House, and to the best of my knowledge, he never voted on any such bill in the state legislature. If his amendment to an alternative energy bill is not notable enough to be in the article at all, then his position on abortion (unsupported by any votes on legislation) certainly doesn't merit a section of its own. There's one sentence about it in the "Other Positions" section. Based on your arguments regarding the alternative energy bill, even that sentence shouldn't be there. Dino 14:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no section on his abortion stance? 

message: Not every editor on the Peter Roskam biography is Joe Hazelton. Propol is extremely uncivil to make such blanket accusations, with out any proof whatsoever.  Furthermore,  Propol accusations poison discussions and makes for a hostile environment.  Putting scarlet letters and wallpapering other editors talk pages is not assuming good faith and is in violation of wiki policy. To bad the administrators protect this rogue editor. 128.241.110.26 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see a native Londoner so concerned about Dupage County and the 6th congressional district of Illinois politics. 207.67.151.116 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have proof of you sockpuppet claims?  It seems like any time an anonymous editor edits here, they are automatically tagged with the JH sockpuppet tag.  --rogerd 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: JoeHazelton

message: The charge that Peter Roskam wants to ban books is disingenuous and stretches logical common sense.
The books that Peter Roskam wanting removed from grade school's had questionable subjects, which Mr. Roskam advocated parental choice of which books were going to be used in the classroom.  The fact that Peter Roskam thought the “Impression series” of textbooks had questionable content is not banning “Little house on the prairie” and “Martin Luther King” etc.  The assumption that Peter Roskam wants to ban classic books is totally disingenuous and misleading.
Additionally, to put this small minor event, which happened over 15 years ago, is undue weight and does not merit being included in this biography and be labeled with a subheading as his educational position.  This, again, is misleading and non-encyclopedic.
If you wish to illuminate Mr. Roskam's educational positions, more recent and more relevant, and well documented examples should be used rather than this poor and misleading little blurb.  
Also, relying on two journalists, one from the Daily Herald, Mr. Eric Kol and Eric Zorn, from the Tribune, whose style of journalism advocacy bias and slants this biography of a Republican officeholder.  This article would be better served if other sources were use rather than these two highly partisan journalists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.241.110.26 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Impression Series