Talk:Tammy Duckworth/Archive 1

message: A lot of this discussion is nonsense. Simple, utter, cynical nonsense. I keep noting that current political candidates, especially the ones in Illinois are creating a enormous waste of bandwidth, as operatives from one party or another attempt to manipulate the entries for the candidate standing for office. This is NOT a forum for political hacks, astroturfing, namecalling or any of the other political dirty tricks that some people think is absolutely necessary in politics today. This is not a soapbox issue, people. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in these matters, and allowing chowderheads to go in an either delete polsitions, or to add in statements that the person for whom the entry was created did not say is the opposite of neutrality. 
Keep your political problems to yourselves. I strongly propose that entries for political candidates standing election for current office be either banned, or subjected to a lengthy vetting process, so as to verify tht the entries are accurate. This prevents illegitimate information from being presented as fact. And no, perception is not fact. Neitehr is what someone's campaign manager said the candidate said. What counts is what the candidate said, or how the candidate responded to citable news sources. It's isn't that hard to accomplish. I imagine that people might suggest that there is a freedom of information and the ever-popular 'everyone=entitled-to-an-opinion.' Yes, there is freedom of information as well as an entitlement to one's opinion. However, signing up to write and edit for Wikipedia means you are surrendering your own personal opinion in order to write the facts, and ONLY the facts that are from credible, cited sources. Anything else is personal opinion, and has absolutely no place in Wikipedia.Pete 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would set a new precedent in Wikipedia. An encyclopedia lists what a person has done, usually not what they haven't done. Should we mention that Duckworth hasn't been investigated by the Illinois Attorney General? Should we mention that Duckworth hasn't violated FEC reporting requirements? How about the article for opponent, Peter Roskam, should we mention that he has refused to articulate his position on Social Security? That sounds like the mother of all slippery slopes to me. For now, I will delete your tag, unless you can come up with a very compelling argument. Thanks. — Possible single purpose account: Propol (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.Propol 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Based on your precedents, the Eric Zorn blogs entries on the Roskam pages in particular, should you  decide to remove the Tom Beven blog ( Mr. Beven has a website for his commentary, as Mr. Zorn does) entries from the Ducktworth page.  Propol, you can't  have it both ways, either you allow or disallow such entries.  You can't chose only positive ones for Duckworth and the negative ones for Roskam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.254.185 (talk • contribs) 
Also, the Beven information is corroborated with Chicago suburban news paper article. So its citation is correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.254.185 (talk • contribs) 
I am sorry, but why are we wasting our time even responding to unsigned comments? If they aren't going to even have the stones to identify themselves, then we should simply purge their comments in the interest of avoiding possible sock-puppetry or sniping. Geez, like we don't have enough to argue about...Pete 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debates

message: I would feel a lot more comfortable if the statements of Duckworth's position of the Iraq War came in the form of direct quotes. The form this subject takes seems more like a lift from campaign staff flyers and talking points, and therefore opens us to criticism for a lack of neutrality.I am sure that we can find specific quotes to citePete 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header: Criticism of the handling of the Iraq War

message: ::In August 2006, Duckworth criticized the use of earmarks and pork-barrel spending in Congress. Duckworth says that earmarks should be eliminated to rein in spending and to reform ethics, arguing that they often are divvied out in exchange for votes. Duckworth's opponent opposes earmark reform.[45]
This cited source is no longer available. Either new sources for the quotation need to be found, or the section needs to be deleted, as it is an unsupported statement. Entries about political candidates must be held to stricter criteria than that of, say films or comic books.Pete 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header: Criticism of earmarks

message: Maybe we should list those organizations that have endorsed the major candidates, and include links to those cited endorsements.Pete 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorsements

message: A peer-review of this article was asked by the Biography project. The suggestions of the pee-review were not taken into serious consideration, but this is not the reason I comment here. My problem is that I came in here to archive this old-peer-review and I found it missing from the Biography project banner! Why? Don't you care about this article's history and the reviews, in case somebody decides to improve it some time in the future? I hope it was just a mistake, but, in any case, somebody should have noticed it. The peer-review history of the article is back now.--Yannismarou 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently reconstituted the  banner here; and didn't include the archived peer review because I didn't know about it.  The "duh" question is why I didn't check; simply because so few articles have had one.  If it wasn't already annotated, I didn't have any reason to assume one had been done.  Sorry for the ire this may have caused.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 11:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: User:75.2.250.145, please do not delete large secions of text without discussing them beforehand. That is considered vandalism. Don't do that. You may discuss the matter to the discussion area and continue from theer. As well, you might consider that appearing anonymously (via an IP address and not a User:Name) can be suspect, as many rather unbalanced trolls use this sort of method to vandalize text. While you may disagree with the viewpoints expressed, you are required to submit to both peer review and WP policy. Please do not alter the text without allowing for the aformentioned peer review to occur. After all, WP is a collection of users.Arcayne 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Triumphant advance disabled veterans - fall one Bush soldier Of Marc Pitzke, New York In the US election campaign stand as a candidate for the first time to Iraq veterans for the congress. Among them a republican, who defends the war - and a Demokratin, against it fights: It lost both legs in the Iraq. It is chanceless, it Favoritin. A symbol for that Opinion change of the nation. New York - Van Taylor, 34, was one first US Soldier in the Iraq. Still before beginning of the invasion the reservist advanced 2003 with the naval infantrymen to behind the fine lines. It survived some Fedajin ambushes, saved wounded comrades and was after own Data at the release of the soldier Jessica lynch taken part, those the Pentagon to the propaganda heroine clarified. It fought for three medals, turned after four months intact home and made in real estates. Also Tammy Duckworth, 38, served in the Iraq. Years after Taylor it was used one and a half as helicopter female pilot of the national guard. In November 2004 its Black Hawk was met by an antitank missile. Duckworth lost both legs almost and right arm. She spent 13 months in one Rehablitation hospital, learned to run laboriously with prostheses again and got “PUR-polarizes Heart”, the automatic US medal for injury or death at the front.
It does have something to do with the article, but I am wondering why the inclusion of foreign language article is here. Is there such a dearth ofnews stories on this topic in English that we must turn to the foreign press? Granted, there might be Illinois expats living in Germany, or Germans living in Chicago, but why would they care about a congressional race in the 6th district? All of this sounds hinky to me.Arcayne 08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unwarranted Heavy Deletion without peer review is vandalism

message: I was just interested if it is standard practice for the US military to promote a serviceperson who has been injured.  The fact that a pilot has been shot down does not seem to warrant a promotion.  I imagine it softens the blow of permanent injury to have a higher rank (and higher benefits).  I am not asking in relation to Tammy Duckworth per se (I don't have any opinion about her or her candidacy); I'm just curious about military tradition.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.120.201 (talk • contribs) 
Ut's a good question, but I am not entirely sure of the answer. It mighthave a great deal to do with the circumstances surrounding how the injury were incurred. Someone losing an arm while in a firefight might be worth the standard Purple Heart; someone losing thesame arm while fighting off a tank battalion so that injured teammates could reinforce their position or call for reinforcements might be entitled to abit more, reflecting the highest values of the military service. Promotong such individuals tends to supportsuch values. As softening the blow of losing one or more limbs, one cannot eat with a fork using rank insignia; I would not imagine that there is any softening of the injury aftermath, nor do I think the military believes in this philosophy.Arcayne 14:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military question

message: Since the 2006 election has passed, some of the information needs to be changed into the past tense, or perhaps even deleted. Ms. Duckworth's positions on various issues should be summarized or simply removed, or replaced with references to other sites that focus on those questions. Wikipedia should not be a campaign site, and, in the future, any candidates for public's office material should be biographical in nature, with a brief summary of major positions included for academic interest purposes. 4.243.152.122 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Election Passed

message: Since she now lives in Illinios, and ran for Congress from that state, shouldn't be in WikiProject Illinois? 4.243.152.122 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. --YbborT 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject

message: Dual Freq removed the video ad links on this page, with the comment that the "election was over months ago".  I don't know if that is proper justification for removal.  I believe they are still relevant to and provide background to the article itself.  If the links are broken, remove them, but if not, I believe they are a valid and relevant supplement to the article.
--Couillaud 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal is per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, and If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. The CNN ones are definite copyvios, the campaign videos may also be copyvio unless they were posted by the copyright holder. I also see no reason linking some old campaign videos unless they are somehow notable enough for their own article like the Daisy Commercial. Wikipedia is not for campaign advertising, the links should have never been there in the first place. Also see WP:EL for blog links and foreign language links. --Dual Freq 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been an issue with the negative campaign tactics (including ads) that were used in this campaign, some of them might actually be apropos to the article.  I plan to examine the links, and I may wish to put one or two back if they are appropriate.  And campaign videos generally fall under fair use rules.  --  Couillaud 02:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of video links 

message: edit 1, edit 2.
Let us count the falsehoods. Duckworth is local, while the edit implies that she is a carpetbagger. Duckworth was the Dem candidate because she won the primary. People voted for her. Not because she was "hand-picked" by "Chicago Machine Democrats". Four of your links are to opinion-editorial pieces, which are not reliable sources. The other two links go to blog posts, also not reliable sources. One of which is a URL that doesn't work. I am reverting back to before User:Lordbyte (shockingly, a brand new user!) touched the article. — goethean ॐ 15:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Lordbyte]]'s edits

message: A carpetbagger, by definition... or perhaps a Parachute candidate
See Duck test
Truth one. She is have little connection with the 6th district considering she lives out side and spent most of her adult life out site the 6th.
Truth two.  She was hand picked by the Chicago Machine and Dick Durbin and Rahm.  Don't distort that truth, any fool can read that Christine Cegelis,, the local Dem, was thrown under the Wheels by Rahm Emanuel and The DCCC and in fact spent far more money and still barely won.  The insult the political intelligences of grown adults.
Truth Three, The uncivil and arrogant crack that "Shockingly a brand new user" and "I'm reverting back before (I) touch the article" is sheer insult and arrogance as well as inductive of your contempt for any one who should dare challenge the bias of this article, in light of facts. Grow up and be civil and not a WP:DICK.  
Truth Four I'm reverting your revert due to the fact your augments don't hold water.
Lordbyte 20:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Goethean]] lack of good faith

message: A discussion about reopening the RfC on Duckworth's DOB is here WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Tammy_Duckworth_RfC. – S. Rich (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI about reopening prior RfC 

message: Due to the results of the RfC on this page, I have proposed a corresponding change to WP:DOB. You may be interested in the discussion here. Edge3 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposing a BLP policy change 

message: Does Tammy Duckworth have any relationship to Angela Lee Duckworth?125.24.64.71 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angela Lee Duckworth 

message: The body of the article says Congresswoman Duckworth's father was a United States Marine Corps veteran & buried at Arlington National Cemetery. The source document is the story of the internment of Captain Duckworth and the heading of the article states that his branch of service is the United States Army.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/fgduckworth.htm
Captain Duckworth's tombstone is also available online at http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=49175716 which shows his branch affiliation to be US Army.
Spanky2016 (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs clarified. Most sources say Army. Currently the article lead says Army and the body says Marines.2600:8805:5800:F500:51AF:8D8C:EC60:FE94 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franklin Duckworth's branch of service 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tammy Duckworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070608120650/http://www.rotary.org:80/newsroom/print/cen_050615.html to https://www.rotary.org/newsroom/print/cen_050615.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110606171021/http://www.niu.edu/mediarelations/news/2010/april/duckworth.shtml to http://www.niu.edu/mediarelations/news/2010/april/duckworth.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tammy Duckworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110521063019/http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=community&id=5400678 to http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=community&id=5400678
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What stance has Representative Duckworth taken on Thailand's Coup and dictatorship. With personal connections, no doubt she greets Thais often and gives speeches to the Thai community. Has she condemned the Thai junta and the jailing of people in Thailand based on speech? What stance has she taken and if she hasn't condemned the dictatorship how does she justify her silence or support of it considering people in Thailand are being detained for the slightest criticism of the junta and Thai royal family. 203.131.210.82 (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You tell us what her stance is. Questions of how people justify things are not relevant here. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. -- Jibal (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thai Connection and US Values 

message: Re. this text: "The Department's lack of controls and record keeping was in place before Duckworth came into office," I'm still not finding that in the source. The source says "And then-Illinois Auditor General Bill Holland in 2009 released a fairly critical audit of the department, mostly during Duckworth's tenure, saying that it lacked internal financial controls and records and generally was run in a somewhat sloppy fashion." Where in the source does it say the issues were in place before Duckworth's tenure? Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The source mentions, "flaws in financial controls that surfaced under both Duckworth and her predecessor" -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "Despite flaws in financial controls that surfaced under both Duckworth and her predecessor, no action was taken, Crump said." This seems to be an opinion attributed to Crump, who was suing criticizing Duckworth. Regardless, the sentence "The Department's lack of controls and record keeping was in place before Duckworth came into office" is much stronger than what the article says, which is just that there were problems with the predecessor and with Duckworth. Besides, the article says "And then-Illinois Auditor General Bill Holland in 2009 released a fairly critical audit of the department, mostly during Duckworth's tenure, saying that it lacked internal financial controls and records and generally was run in a somewhat sloppy fashion." It seems clear the article (and the audit) are saying the majority of issues were during Duckworth's tenure. I don't think our article as it stands neutrally describes the sourcing, and it should be changed. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mostly" - it's of course too bad we don't cover the report apart from that quote you give (that "mostly" quote is barely informative let alone NPOV) but "mostly"  definitely means not all under Duckworth, and the source goes on to say it was under her predecessor, also, so it is precisely NPOV which requires us to relate that information to give the full context, if we use that source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Also, because it is a BLP issue as to Crump, Crump at least as far as that source is concerned did not sue anyone, so you should probably redact that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audit 

message: Senator Duckworth's official Senate portrait has been released.
https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/imo/media/image/Official_Portrait_2017.jpg
I'm not good at the image uploading process. Could someone else take the wheel? That way we won't have to use her old House portrait anymore (been over a year now).
Cheers! Woko Sapien (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Senate Portrait 

message: "Reflecting the strength of the arguments that the subject is a public figure whose personal details are already widely available and reported in high quality sources including those of the government, the consensus weighs heavily toward the fact that while the subject does not desire her DoB to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it should be cited in the article. Reflecting the strength of the arguments that the subject is a public figure whose personal details are already widely available and reported in high quality sources including those of the government, the consensus weighs heavily toward the fact that while the subject does not desire her DoB to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it should be cited in the article."
This is so much bullshit, and highlights a serious problem with Wikipedia's enforcement of its policies. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that the date of birth shall not be published if the living subject of the article asks for it not to be published. No "arguments" by editors or "consensus" can override policy. Nothing in the above quoted drivel is relevant. -- Jibal (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No Wikipedia policy requires what you claim.  She is a well known public figure and her birth date is public and well established in reliable biography sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh... I just stumbled across this page again, after hearing that Sen. Duckworth is expecting! I participated in the RfC over 4 years ago, and I'm surprised to see that it's still somewhat discussed today! Edge3 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think this is the first-time its been resurrected and someone may try to include her children's birth dates, which, no, should not be included. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with you. Edge3 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article violates Wikipedia policy. 

message: Maine has the notability but does it really make sense to remove Abigail’s identity from the prose?--Fradio71 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP policy on minors 

message: Article seems to lack subjects actual name...Ladda Duckworth. (sources:all of them. google it.) 86.142.118.91 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. From a cursory Google search, it looks like her full name is Ladda Tammy Duckworth. If that's the case, that's what  should be used in the lead sentence per MOS:BIRTHNAME. Surachit (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rovingrobert (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Change "Duckworth was endorsed by Barack Obama who actively campaigned for her." to "Duckworth was endorsed by Barack Obama, who actively campaigned for her." Sbam13 (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2020 

message: She's been nominated as Vice Chair of the DNC by President-elect Biden https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-to-tap-jaime-harrison-former-senate-candidate-to-lead-dnc-11610649160 HMShadowLeader (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: in Tammy Duckworth#National politics. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021 

message: Tammy Duckworth was promoted to the Army National Guard rank of Major after she sustained her injuries (https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/directory/tammy-duckworth/). Her about info in the sidebar should reflect this information, changing her rank from "Lieutenant Colonel" to "Major." 74.64.68.127 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The linked article is out-of-date.   Lt Col is higher rank than Major.  RudolfRed (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021 

message: Change "through her father's status as an American citizenship" to "through her father's status as an American citizen". Mark S. Krikorian (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022