Talk:Mark Kirk

message: 71.228.10.185 has made multiple deletions of properly sourced information in the Mark Kirk article. In fact, this user has violated the three revert rule. At this user's talk page other complaints of blanking have been listed. This appears to be a pattern of vandalism. I will closely monitor this user's edits. I ask an ADMIN to please consider placing a block on this user. Propol 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 71.228.10.185 again deleted sourced information (for a 4th time) without any discussion on the talk page. This user was already warned on their talk page. Will an admin please block this user and semi-protect the Mark Kirk article. Thank you. Propol 16:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to WP:AIV to report the user and go to WP:RPP to ask for protection.--Ipatrol (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I've posted a request for a 3rd party to look at this dispute at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts.  Hopefully we can get some resolution to this issue.  EJFinneran 22:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just posted a request for Semi-protection on this page. -- EJFinneran 23:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Resolution

message: 71.228.10.185 Has removed sourced material that he claims is unrelated even though it deals with the subject of this article.  Please make a solid case why this information is unrelated to this article.  This user has already broken the three revert rule and has been uncommunicative about his reasons for content deletion.
THIS ARTICLE IS AN INSULT TO OBJECTIVITY
This article does a very poor job of maintaining an objective stance, it is undeniable. It is a travesty to make it appear as though Mark Kirk opposes the war in Iraq despite the fact that he helped write and co-sponsored the House Resolution to invade Iraq in 2003.
It is also absolutely ridiculous to boast that he received an award from the League of Conservation Voters, and yet fail to mention that the very same group gave him an "F" rating last Congressional session.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.94.125 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There seems to be a dispute about including this:
:Kirk is endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.  Kirk is endorsed by the Jewish Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs. 
Ignoring the not-quite-smooth wording, are these endorsements non-notable?  If Kirk were a Democrat, certainly, particularly on the first endorsement, but he's a Republican. John Broughton 01:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsements 

message: Need citation of him being one of only 2 reservists.  Who is the other one? DianeFinn (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  need citation 

message: I did have a legitimate reason for removing the two sections of material. 
The Poker Players Alliance and their blogger in chief Rich Muny  doesn’t qualify as a reliable source. If more news outlets were to pick up on the significance of his "f" from the Poker Players Alliance, then it might warrant inclusion, but since there is no notability indicated from secondary sources, I don’t think it noteworthy enough for inclusion. 
The funding section is much more strait forward. Only one statement was sourced, to  a primary source, with no secondary source indicating how its relevant or noteworthy. The rest of it has no sources at all , and makes a lot of guilt by association. Lots of people took money from these individuals and their PAC’s and unless the significance of Kirks taking the donation (and his return of the money as many recipients die) is made clear, and is more notable than anyone else’s receipts of the contributions, there is no reason this belongs n the article either.  
While the exclusion of the rating from the Poker Players Alliance was more of a notability call on my part, the campaign contribution section leaves little room for interpretation for its violation of BLP policies. CENSEI (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While youre right about the Rich Muny garbage, I've added in the contributions section with some basic references (you also deleted one item that was referenced), and plan to improve them when I have the chance to look through the Tribune archives.Shsilver (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That’s fine, just be sure that there is sufficient notability to include any specific contributors. CENSEI (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  Shsilver, I just looked at what you re-included. There is no notability given for anything you have reincluded. Using a primary source as the sole source for any information like this is WP:NOR as there is no indication why it is notable. The "Burnet County Democrats" is not a reliable source for a BLP. Correct this or I will have to remove it again. No rush, just get to it within the next few days.  CENSEI (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  Almost a week has passed with no additional sourcing, I am removing the section. CENSEI (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, i've reverted the edit and included the section again. I've removed the iffy democract ref and OR and replaced them with more reputable sources (opensecrets, newspaper articles). I've also added a ref for the money being returned, although with no date stamp it cant be described as "immediately". Ironholds 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Open Secrets is a fine primay source, but without any notability of the donation from a secondary source, its still OR. CENSEI (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one are you talking about, the Rezko bit? Ironholds 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, but again I'm asking; which OpenSecrets source do you mean? Ironholds 16:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of them ..... I think. CENSEI (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Material and Dubiously Sourced Material 

message: This article does an awful job maintaining an objective viewpoint, it is undeniable. It is a travesty to make it appear as though Mark Kirk opposes the war in Iraq despite the fact that he helped write and co-sponsored the House Resolution to invade Iraq in 2003.
It is also absolutely ridiculous to boast that he received an award from the League of Conservation Voters, and yet fail to mention that the very same group gave him an "F" rating last Congressional session. Absolutely misleading.
I do not often edit wikipedia, and am not quite sure how to correctly cite these facts. This page does not paint an accurate portrait of Mark Kirk.I ask somebody to help me correctly cite the credible sources of these facts in order to maintain this great site's credibility. 74.93.94.125 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Right now this article has a really clunky & repetitive feel. Sure it does get the facts right if the sources are properly attributed, but it's all jumping around "Kirk did this...Kirk did that." Come on, Wikipedia can do better than this.
And regarding the "Contributors" section, there should also be Kirk's ratings from the usual political rankers like National Journal, American Conservative Union, etc. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious cleanup needed 

message: Didn't this person take a trip to afganistan, the first congressman to do so since WWII?--Ipatrol (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info 

message: Please stop your bad faith editing and follow NPOV. John Asfukzenski (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is in that section has been raised by secondary sources as important issues. You cant just say it cant be here. The stuff that was only based on the primary source of the FEC records were removed, but the information based on secondary sources needs to stay. nableezy - 23:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No that is absurd, all this is is guilt by association and that type of garbage is not allowed here at wikipedia. John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No actually it is not absurd. This is valid criticism of Kirk that has been raised by secondary sources. Who a politician accepts donations from is very much a part of the coverage we should provide of them. You cannot just whitewash the page of any valid criticism. This is not "guilt by association", Kirk accepted the donations, that is what the sources say. When a reliable secondary source brings up donations from Tony Rezko that is an important topic that needs to be covered in Kirk's biography. I already removed the donations that did not have secondary sources commenting on them but you cannot just remove entire sections that are both well-sourced and on-topic. nableezy - 15:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is complete bullshit and you know it. This is nothing but undue weight. No where in Barack Obama's article does it mention he received donations from Rezko. John Asfukzenski (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not "complete bullshit". Can you explain how this is undue weight? What viewpoints are not given their proper weight on this topic? Or are you just trying to name a random policy hoping you get a hit? And as a matter of fact Obama's page does mention Rezko, and guess what; Tony Rezko's page goes into quite a bit of detail on the ties between Obama and Rezko. Based on other edits you apparently have an elastic understanding of WP:NPOV as can be seen in this somewhat funny reasoning. You cannot try and keep out information that is reliably sourced because it portrays somebody you like in a negative light. And if you are going to try at least have the balls to be consistent with your arguments and not try and put in denigrating information about those you do not like. That is what is called "complete bullshit". If you would like some more policies to try and throw up you can try these, but it is my suggestion you read them before writing that this is a violation of one of them: WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:V WP:RS WP:BLP. nableezy - 05:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Read that more carefully. This is not phrasing anything as criticism or praise. It is saying, as a statement of fact, that Kirk accepted donations from these people. Reliable secondary sources think that is important, so it can go in the article. What you are linking says the following: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides. That is what is done here. nableezy - 21:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough with the contribution section 

message: Is the "Contributors" section article good or does it violate NPOV with guilt by association?John Asfukzenski (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like guilt by association, although I think there are other problems with the section.  I'm pretty new, so I'm not familiar with the nuances of WP:Notability, but given the token amounts contributed by Rezko and Ney, and the fact that Kirk's name only appears in the middle of long lists in the secondary sources (that is, no addressing of the subject in detail), I'm not sure those contributions belong here.  Even if we keep them, it should be made clear that the contributions were made before any charges were filed, and as far as I can tell nobody ever called on Kirk specifically to return Ney's contribution; the source cites a general call to all politicians who received such contributions, and there is no indication that that played a role in Kirk's decision to return the money. --Aaronspook (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, welcome to Wikipedia. Notability applies to the existence of articles, not the content of articles. nableezy - 23:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I could see moving it into the years campaign each contribution happened in. nableezy - 19:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:UNDUE needs to be applied here. Also don't add anything unsourced negative content about a living person or it must be deleted, see WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing here is unsourced. And a total of 3 sentences about financing is hardly undue weight. WP:WEIGHT says representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, that is what is done here. nableezy - 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should this section in Mark Kirk's article be allowed? 

message: === Discussion ===
Not withstanding the comments above, I've removed this section.  I've probably edited more than a hundred bios of Congressfolk, and this is a totally non-standard section to have.  It isn't "three sentences" anymore, and there isn't any way to prevent editors from pulling more information from primary sources to enlarge it, because the criteria of newsworthyness has been lost.  Undue weight means that Wikipedia articles don't cover things that reliable, secondary sources like newspapers and magazines don't find interesting.  Also not mentioned is that pulling a fact out of a newspaper article (that Kirk was one of a number of politicians getting a particular tainted contribution) is not the same as citing a story about Kirk.  In short, if there have been stories about Kirk that discuss a particular controversy of campaign contributions, that's fair for the article.  But if it's about going into FEC records and finding a donation from someone bad (e.g., Tom DeLay's PAC), that raises original writing and WP:WEIGHT issues.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Contributors" section removed 

message: Not withstanding the comments above, I've removed this section.  I've probably edited more than a hundred bios of Congressfolk, and this is a totally non-standard section to have.  It isn't "three sentences" anymore, and there isn't any way to prevent editors from pulling more information from primary sources to enlarge it, because the criteria of newsworthyness has been lost.  Undue weight means that Wikipedia articles don't cover things that reliable, secondary sources like newspapers and magazines don't find interesting.  Also not mentioned is that pulling a fact out of a newspaper article (that Kirk was one of a number of politicians getting a particular tainted contribution) is not the same as citing a story about Kirk.  In short, if there have been stories about Kirk that discuss a particular controversy of campaign contributions, that's fair for the article.  But if it's about going into FEC records and finding a donation from someone bad (e.g., Tom DeLay's PAC), that raises original writing and WP:WEIGHT issues.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I'm really surprised that there's nothing at all - nothing - about this on the page. I don't feel comfortable at all adding it in, as it's such a hotbutton issue - but rumors of his homosexuality have been a major issue in the campaign, come from credible sources, and are reported in credible newspapers. (The finance chair of the Illinois GOP, for the first part; the Chicago Tribune, for the other.) I'm not suggesting that I believe - or even care - about the rumors, but when his primary opponent tries to make it a campaign issue, it seems odd that there is nothing at all on this page. I came to the Mark Kirk page because Wikipedia is my default "learn more about this issue" destination. Like I said, I'm surprised. Simnel (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule of thumb is that Wikipedia does not report on rumors, in accordance with the guidelines on biographies of living people. Only if the rumor is particularly persistent and extensively covered in multiple mainstream media sources is it likely to be covered. However, if his opponent is making a campaign issue of it, the use of the rumor as a campaign tactic may be appropriate for coverage in United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumors of homosexuality? 

message: I've used the following blog posting as a basis for changing the wording on Kirk's military service in Afghanistan to reduce the chances that readers will think that "deployment" means a six or 12 or 18 month tour of duty:
http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-blumenthal-but-not-kirk.html
The blog posting discusses what the blogger considers misleading claims by Kirk, but since none of them seem to have risen in notability to the point of mainstream media discussion (see WP:RS and WP:UNDUE), I have not added such information to the article.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military tours and "deployment" 

message: It seems that a massive removal of information was done in early April, much of it was sourced and may be worthy of re-installing. The editor did not indicate why the information was removed. Shsilver (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive removal of information

message: The section about Kirk's military service currently is far too short, and a WP:UNDUE violation (at the moment) because it speaks primarily of the errors in what Kirk said about his service.
At minimum, the section needs two longish paragraphs:
* Kirk's current military rank, and what he has done during his military career.  A version of the section as of a week or two ago would be a good starting point.  The point is to list information that is not disputed.
* Errors in what Kirk has said about his military career.  This should not be a long recitation, but rather include one or two examples, plus when the matters became of public interest, plus what Kirk's response has been.  The sources should include somelthing like this:  http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2352440,kirk-corrects-military-record-060310.article , which has all (so far) of the details, so the reader can judge for him/herself whether the errors are significant.
-- John Broughton   (♫♫) 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military service 

message: Much of what XJRfoBY does is remove information that is accurate and relevant but damaging to Kirk.
This user has also inserted much information that is of low import or not particularly relevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 03:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am noticing the same aggressive editing from XJRfoBY.  He is making major edits that are inaccurate, irrelevant, biased, and/or superfluous.  Further, he is making no attempt to discuss his changes here on the talk page.  --Denovo1 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is clear that both of the previous editors dislike Mark Kirk. On numerous occasions, they have deleted relevant and well cited information simply because it favors Kirk. User:LastNavigator for example tried to insert word for word a liberal blogger bashing Kirk's military record. This is obviously inappropriate and it shows his bias against Kirk. These individuals are clearly biased against Kirk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  XJRfoBY engaging in aggressive editing of page 

message: The following text has been deleted entirely by XJRfoBY.  Since XJRfoBY has not cited any reason for his deletions, I propose adding the following text back. --Denovo1 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rumors of Mark Kirk being gay remain unsubstantiated and are only rumors. Since they are rumors they have no place on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

text: No, there is not consensus. If this issue plays a part in the 2010 election then if definitely has a place on Wikipedia, with proper references of course. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I didn't mean to delete this XJRfoBY (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I added it back then, and I added a more reliable source that is not a blog.  Thank you.  --Denovo1 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text deleted by XJRfoBY and proposed for re-insertion

message: Citing his recent divorce (and not having had children) some have questioned Kirk's sexual orientation, although this allegation remains unsubstantiated. 
:: Rumors of Mark Kirk being gay remain unsubstantiated and are only rumors. Since they are rumors they have no place on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is not consensus. If this issue plays a part in the 2010 election then if definitely has a place on Wikipedia, with proper references of course. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual orientation

message: On December 18, 2009 Undersecretary of Defense Gail H. McGinn noted that Kirk had on two previous active duty periods engaged in politicking in violations of Department of Defense regulations; on one occasion Congressman Kirk commented on Rod Blagojevich's arrest while in Afghanistan and on another occasion Congressman Kirk posted a tweet. http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/pentagon-explains-kirk-politicking-on-active-duty.html
:I didn't mean to delete this XJRfoBY (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I added it back then, and I added a more reliable source that is not a blog.  Thank you.  --Denovo1 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Repute of Military Record

message: DISPUTED CONTENT:
In May of 2010, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Il) told Politico that he was contemplating giving his endorsement to Mark Kirk instead of his fellow Democrat Alexi Giannoulias.[16]. While Jesse Jesse Jackson Jr has not yet endorsed Congressman Kirk, he has failed to endorse Alexi Giannoulias [17].  Jesse Jackson Jr. is the son of civil rights activist Jesse Jackson
DISCUSSION:
Undue Weight:
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.  For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.  In this case, the section is entitled "Endorsement by Jesse Jackson, Jr.", when in fact the text explicitly states that Jesse Jackson, Jr. never even endorsed Mark Kirk.  Given no endorsement was made, I see no need for this section.  --Denovo1 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When Jesse Jackson Jr. said that he was considering giving his endorsement to Congressman Kirk it made the front page of Politico, one of the most popular political-news organizations. The implications of not endorsing Alexi and instead endorsing Kirk are huge. Now Alexi must diminish his limited funds in order to reach a key demographic that should have been free; it is a huge story. This event has not been given undue weight. --User:XJRfoBY  —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to discuss the implication to Alexi, you should go to his page.  This is a Mark Kirk page.  Jesse Jackson Jr. has not endorsed Mark Kirk, and thus this section is irrelevant and misleading.  --Denovo1 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This event had major implications for Kirk's campaign for Senate. In politics, Jesse Jackson Jr. snubbing Alexi was the equivalent of an endorsement; the effects were the same. Kirk won a major political victory.XJRfoBY (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If he wanted to endorse Kirk, he would have.  He did not, however.  Until he does, this section is speculation--not encyclopedic.  --Denovo1 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  By saying he was thinking about endorsing Kirk and then snubbing Alexi he in affect did endorse Kirk. Jesse Jackson Jr. provides access to a very large network on the south side of Chicago. That demographic would never vote for the Republican candidate. By publicly snubbing and then denying Alexi, Jesse Jackson Jr provided Mark Kirk with all of the benefits of an endorsement. Again, it made the FRONT PAGE OF POLITICO! It's obviously relevant if Mike Allen thought it was that relevant.XJRfoBY (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-endorsement is a non-starter. Your interpretation is just that, your interpretation, also know around here as original research. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A non-endorsement MADE THE FRONT PAGE OF THE LARGEST POLITICAL-NEWSPAPER IN THE COUNTRY!!! Obviously, it is a "starter"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not everything in the newspaper is encyclopedic. --Denovo1 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're clearly biased  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesse Jackson Jr. "endorsement"

message: “I simply misremembered it wrong" is the exact quote made by Mark Kirk, according to the reference and all other verifiable sources.  Deleting the word "wrong" would be a misrepresentation of the exact quote.  This should be changed back, so that the quote is accurate.  --Denovo1 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Quotes Should Not Be Altered

message: Misstatement is not accurate and there has not been adequate consensus that he did in fact make a "misstatement" to justify it's placement on a wiki page. If you read the whole transcript of what Kirk was saying it is clear that he was referring to the US as a whole.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. "Misstatement" is an opinion - "statement" is fact. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute of Misstatement or statement

message: Blogs are listed under wikipedia's unreliable sources. Any information from blogs should be deleted  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTacoKing96 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using blogs 

message: Barry Berk is not a notable figure; he did not win the Medal of Honor and he wasn't a well respected veteran's advocate. His opinion is lay and unimportant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTacoKing96 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no respect for veterans.  All of their opinions are important.  The source is relevant and sourced.  --Denovo1 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The net result of XJRfoBY/TacoKing's edit is to remove any negative comments by veterans, thus skewing the tone of the article. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're trying to add information from a letter to the editor. That is not reliable and Barry Berk is not a notable figure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTacoKing96 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry Berk  

message: Why is this important enough to include?
Members of Congress serve on large numbers of committees and boards. What makes this one important?§  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuesday Group 

message: Please use the proper format for footnotes. Don't just insert a URL.
If you don't know how to format a footnote, use an existing footnote as a template. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper format for footnotes 

message: "In June of 2010 the Washington Post reported that Kirk claimed to have been named the “Intelligence Officer of the Year,” when in reality the award was given to his unit." 
This statement is inaccurate.
Kirk claimed to be the Navy's "intelligence officer of the year". This statement is completely false.
In 1999 four squadrons were operating together. The combined intelligence divisions of those squadrons got an award from a professional organization, not the Navy. Kirk was the lead intelligence officer at one of the squadrons, not the squadron in tactical command.
The Wikipedia entry should not blur that there is some relation between the Navy giving an individual award to Kirk (what he claimed) and a professional association funded by the Military-Industrial Complex giving a multi-unit award to four combined shops.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate quote 

message: Kirk's supporters complain that a list is too detailed.
But then they want to summarize Kirk's erroneous statements in a way that is both inaccurate and minimizes the extent Kirk has provided erroneous information about his military record.
Do we need to footnote every lie Kirk has told about his record? That's fine if that's the standard the article is going to be held to. But it's not OK for Team Kirk to come in and delete references to Kirk's erroneous statements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting word-for-word of what some liberal blogger says does not conform to wiki's objective standards, is by definition not appropriately cited --as blogs are not reliable sources --, and his opinion is not relevant. XJRfoBY (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, blogs are not reliable sources. Second, it is not accurate; it is the opinion of someone who doesn't like Kirk.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  listing misinformation provided by Kirk about his military record 

message: Undue Weight: Since Sally Grub is only a member of the church and there is no evidence -- it is only implied -- that she was working while Kirk was teaching at Forest Home Chapel, her opinion is unreliable and unimportant. A statement by the administrator, principle, or other representative would be appropriate. We have no way of knowing is Sally Grub has direct knowledge of Kirk's employment status, bearing false witness, or is biased against Kirk for some reason. Having such statements posted gives undue weight to an unreliable and unimportant opinion. It should be removed for these reasons.XJRfoBY (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sally Grub 

message: The information placed on official Congressional websites is provided by the members of Congress and posted by their personal staffs.
As such, it is not third party information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirk's House website is not an appropriate reference 

message: It seems this section should get more detail.
I propose adding a section on the Iraq War and a section on Kirk's activity wrt the BP facility in Whiting, IN.
Also, how do people feel about including some ratings by interest groups? Is this non-standard?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenure in Congress 

message: IIRC Kirk did not start on the Appropriations Committee. This is normal. Few reps start on Appropriations.
The Wiki article should say when Kirk started on the Appropriations Committee and what committees he served on prior to being named to the Appropriations Committee.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirk committee assignments 

message: There should be more information about what Kirk has done in Congress.
Specifically, what Kirk has done in connection to the Iraq War should be explained.
Probably Kirk's work against the Whiting BP facility dumping more into Lake Michigan should be covered.
And Kirk makes claims on his campaign website that should be covered. "[Kirk] wrote a number of provisions which became law, including funding for commuter rail, improving veteran’s health care, ensuring military voting, and boosting aviation security."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirk's accomplishments and activities in Congress 

message: It is not the case that in 2011, Kirk voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act.  He voted for the bill in 2009, when he was still in the House.  In 2011 he was in the Senate.  <ref>https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/2454<\ref>  Can someone fix this?  I don't know how to deal with the wikipedia bureaucracy.  128.135.59.238 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Eeyoresdream fixed it for you.  Thanks for pointing it out! --Closeapple (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: American Clean Energy and Security Act

message: Kirk has mentioned Iran a great deal, especially on his Facebook page.
There probably should be a section discussing Kirk's emphasis on advocating that the United States take a hard line on Iran and the fact that Kirk is the top Republican recipient of campaign contributions from the Israel Lobby.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate campaign, Iran 

message: At the last time PP put out ratings I can find (2208) Kirk was given a 100. However, since then, partially as a response to his support of Stupack-Pitts, PP has pulled its endorsement of him and given its support to Alexi. Now I cant find a new rating, but using the 100 despite the fact that they have pulled their support seems disingenuous. I propose switching out PP with the NARAL rating, as they are a comprable pro-choice organization. If theres no disagreement, I'll get on that soon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripoli Art11 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just note the update in circumstances rather than switching to a less-used ranking? -Rrius (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless NARAL is more common. Frankly, National Right to Life are the ones I hear the most, but I think we should go with the most common and explain as necessary. -Rrius (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Planned Parent Hood? 

message: When will his term officially begin? From the Chicago Tribune on 2 November: "The results have to be certified, so state election officials said they expect to be able to send the new short-term senator to Washington in time for the Nov. 29 reconvening of the Senate to finish business in the lame-duck session."
If the results aren't certified on the 3rd—and based on the Tribune article, they won't be—is it correct to say that he assumes office on that date? —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was looking for info regarding Talk:United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010#Final Results, I came across this: officially Illinois has to wait until at least November 19, 2010 for absentee ballots to arrive; they count as long as they are postmarked by November 1 or 2, depending on the county.  See October 25 2010 Press Release from the State Board of Elections.  There was some talk a couple days ago in the media about the Mark Kirk certification possibly being put on a "fast track" somehow, but I don't know if anything came of it.  Perhaps the Illinois Secretary of State may be able to conceive of a way to certify to the U.S. Senate that Mark Kirk has been elected, without having to certify the exact tally for state records yet, if the total number of outstanding absentee ballots is already less than Kirk's lead over Alexi Giannoulias. --Closeapple (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was looking at the Illinois elections website, en route to the Tribune results, they showed a certification date of November 23. That may be the fastest they can do it, but I wouldn't want to speculate to that end in the article text. —C.Fred (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  When will his term begin? 

message: I read on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 page that Mark Kirk was the lone Republican to vote in support of the ban, sponsored by Diane Feinstein(D-California). I think it would be a good idea to add this to his page as it is a significant event that shows his political views. --Jsourber (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 

message: His kirk.house.gov url now redirects to clerk.house.gov as they will be handling payroll, mail redirect, and other issues until Dold is sworn in 03 Jan. Links need to be re-sourced; they may not ever be available once his senate site fleshes out. 75.204.127.229 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that's already been fixed. Flatterworld (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mark Kirk. 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/20100209024241/http://cbs2chicago.com:80/voterguide/mark.kirk.senate.2.1423262.html to http://cbs2chicago.com/voterguide/mark.kirk.senate.2.1423262.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100718203120/http://vaq140.ahf.nmci.navy.mil:80/Command%20History.htm to http://vaq140.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/Command%20History.htm
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 00:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mark Kirk. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/02/15/mark-kirk-%E2%80%9981-campaigns-illinois-senate-seat-after-winning-primary
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2352440,kirk-corrects-military-record-060310.article
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/mark-kirk-survived-a-stroke-now-he-s-picking-fights-in-congress-20130628
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 23:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ...but of course, no mention of it and his attacks on Tammy Duckworth. Way to go. 174.17.228.134 (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See proof here: http://www.salon.com/2016/10/28/watch-mark-kirk-hits-tammy-duckworth-over-thai-heritage-in-illinois-senate-debate/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:F500:51AF:8D8C:EC60:FE94 (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

text: 174.17.228.134: Wikipedia is not a news site; it doesn't exist to "report" things 10 seconds after they happen.  And it's already in the article by now, so you should be be civil and not shout accusations into the wind, as if someone here was doing something.  If you're smart enough to watch a debate, you're smart enough to know not to make preemptive attacks against the Wikipedia community like that. --Closeapple (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I have refactored some of the comments above to better comply with WP:BLPTALK. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Kirk's controversial debate comments

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mark Kirk. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nmia.org/images/2000_NATIONAL_Award_Citations.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2352440%2Ckirk-corrects-military-record-060310.article
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730201058/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://kirk.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92
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) 10:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Mark Kirk. 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/20120513053200/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/01/sen_mark_kirk_has_stroke_surge.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/01/sen_mark_kirk_has_stroke_surge.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160524213814/http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=about_senator to https://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=about_senator
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606042406/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/06/more_mark_kirk_military_record.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/06/more_mark_kirk_military_record.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403052456/http://www3.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=9385 to http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=9385
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016165228/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/05/kirk_lawmakers_wife_splits_for.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/05/kirk_lawmakers_wife_splits_for.html
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) 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Kirk. 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/20120430123434/http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=283 to http://kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=283
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304031413/http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=42 to http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=42
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) 07:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified