Talk:Peter Roskam/Archive2

message: The article is now protected and will remain so until such time as the contributors begin discussing the content of the article instead of ranting and accusing each other of being pro or anti Roskam advocates. Please use the talk page to discuss prospective edits for the time being.  Any changes that are uncontroversial or any edits that meet the acceptance of consensus I will make to the article myself while it is locked. Gamaliel 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Since the Peter Roskam article is currently protected, would an editor please create the following sub-section titled, O'Hare Airport within the Positions section of the Roskam article.
:Roskam opposes plans to expand O'Hare International Airport, and instead favors building a third regional airport in Chicago's southern suburbs.  O'Hare expansion has been supported by many business groups, including the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.  Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, supports O'Hare expansion as does the local Republican leadership from DuPage County.  
I think the sources are rock-solid. This is a very important issue to the district. I can't believe the issue has been overlooked until now. Please add this at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Propol 01:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: O'Hare Airport

message: I have problems with the yellow pages ad for the law firm. 
I believe that the ad was placed there, in my humble opinion,  to imply that, since Roskam's firm is a P I firm, advertising in the yellow pages, that he's a. a ambulance chaser b. Since he is a ambulance chaser, he's a  against tort reform.
Now, mentioning the fact he's a partner in a PI firm is not the problem.  It's the why and how it's linked to his alleged statement that he(Roskam) is against "Tort Reform".  I have simple question, one of the W's, like what, what type of "Tort reform" did Roskam voted against, or is against, or is for. What bills (at lest a summery of the bills) which Roskam allegedly voted against?  When did he vote? Is there any type of Tort reform bill Roskam that he may be for? Which bill were acceptable, but did not, or could not come up in the democrately controlled Illinois general assembly so he could vote on them?
Is Roskam totally against tort reform, because he's an Ambulance chaser?  These questions begs, and we are left to infer with this, with the linkage we have in the article, that Roskam is against Tort Reform because he's a partner in a law firm that advertising in the yellow pagers, or to infer, due to the context the upcoming Nov 2006 elections, that Roskam an ambulance chaser against some "nebulous" "what each reader would define in his concept of Tort Reform" as Tort reform?
I don't think, in the context of being encyclopedic, the reader should be left with this inference, with out elaboration. Until such detail is researched and verified, it should be removed.Joehazelton 06:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joehazelton, as long as everything we provide is factually accurate with proper sources and follows Wikipedia policies, then it is not our responsibility for whatever conclusions or opinions the readers form. You've essentailly argued the article is only permissible so long as it doesn't influence anyone against Roskam. How would we even determine such a thing, as all readers hold a different standard? Also in your complaint, you don't reference any Wikipedia policy. What standard is being violated? I think you know that you lack a case on a factual basis and have chosen to keep complaining simply as a stall tactic to prevent useful information (i.e. O'Hare from being added to the article). If this continues, I will report your conduct to additional administrators, who may choose to block you. I have a long list of violations by you, such as making major edits and stating "spelling" in the edit summary. Thanks. Propol 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say?  I say False Cause it's an incorrect application of the rule.  The letter of the law is correct, the sprit is not. You are trying to push an agenda,  Your argument is false.Joehazelton 16:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of yellow page ad and linkage to tort reform

message: Again the question that begs for the reader, why focus on just the one vote vers all the votes Roskam participated as a member of the Illinois general assembly?  Why just this one.  The assumption and tenuous logic to such linkage is very thin.  Since he missed the SS vote, and four days later, he Roskam declared his candidacy of the 6th house seat, then second action must have been caused by the first action.  The logic so tenuous that like vapor in the morning mist.  The assumption is with out merit or without any direct, hard proof of linkage, other then the word of a blogger(Mr. Markg8 a member of that blog for one year, nine weeks), with an ax to grind. Under stand, just because some ax grinding, wild eye, partisan blogger says there is fire, does it really mean there is?  Did the blogger do his home work, where is his  references, were can I verify is claims and assumptions. Blog article has none, ( no other records or research I can find on this blog) The bloge article cited reads like diatribe of a angry liberal not happy and wanting to lash out. In the end (irrespective of run this blog) the qualifications this bloggers is unknown, and it's just his word, a word a angry liberal coaster, which we must take on face value. A word, considering his agenda, I would consider not verifiable or encyclopedic. Joehazelton 15:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joehazelton, for a description of the resolution click here. For proof that Roskam skipped voting on the issue click here. I think we can all agree that the Illinois General Assembly web site is not a biased source. If you want to replace the reference to the blogs and use what I provided instead, I'm perfectly fine with that. In my opinion, the real issue isn't so much a missed vote, but the unanswered questions about Roskam's views on Social Security. Does he favor privatization? I wish he would spell it out on his campaign web site, then there wouldn't be much need for debate. Thanks. Propol 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue for me is not the fact, it's the pushing of two facts together, then making implied inference why they may be linked Joehazelton 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've actually called Roskam campaign headquarters asking for Roskam's stance on SS. I gave them my name, address and number. Never got a call back, even though I live in the sixth district. — goethean ॐ 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet you were your charming self,  and they figured that your call was the most important thing on their boring schedule.Joehazelton 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my personal opinion, Roskam should clearly articulate his position on Social Security. In the absence of that, mentioning that he missed a vote on the issue is not out of line. Thanks. Propol 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Security vote

message: I am wondering if there will be any changes allowed at the Roskam page?
In the mean time, since Gamaliel had locked the Roskam article, the he or another admin add a tag to the page indicating that there is an on going NPOV dispute about this article. Let it be known that I am disputing the NPOV of the Roskam article.
Considering some of the issues I have pointed out at the Roskam talk pages, a 
tag placed on top of the Peter Roskam page would be most appropriate. The Peter Roskam article, as it sits, has to many sections, which any reasonable person could call in the question, the relevancy, accuracy and as well as the lack of poor or no citations for the pov assertions many of sections in that article make. The Roskam article appears, as I have read them, not to conform to the Wikipdia standards for living persons; is not encyclopedic in it's tone, and many of the assertions made in the article have flawed logic backing them. Until this NPOV Dispute is resolved, Please place the POV tag on this article.
Thanks Joehazelton 16:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have failed to show any bias in the article whatsoever. Your complaints above are without merit. — goethean ॐ 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Place a NPOV TAG on the [[Peter Roskam]] Page ASAP PLEASE! 

message: I apologize for my absence from this article. I've been a bit busy and I've also been frustrated at the lack of progess on this article and my inability to facilitate any such progress. The article has been locked for a while so I'm going to try unlocking it for a bit. Please do not return to edit warring.  We're actually discussing issues here and while we're not getting very far and tempers are still a bit heated, I'd like to take it as a promising sign.  Remember, be specific in your complaints and your proposed solutions and avoid accusations and discussing personalities instead of issues. 
In regards to the npov tag, I suggest that a  be placed on the specific sections that pose problems, or the section that you wish to address first.  A blanket tagging on the whole article won't help us make any progress in addressing specific issues. Gamaliel 18:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I hope for the best as well.  In good faith, I will move forward.  I hope there is discussion and consensus, before "juicy stuff" is added.  I am willing, but I will remove what is not agreeable and or not discussed here, among the "community" of editors" here.  Call me, as you will, "a gate keeper", not THE gate keeper, but only A gate keeper.  Thanks Joehazelton 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While discussing controversial edits on the talk page first is a good idea, it is not a requirement and I ask that you please not revert edits solely on the basis of the lack of prior discussion. Gamaliel 18:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: 24 hours after placing two sectnpov tags on the article, JoeHazelton has failed to provide substantive justification for the placement of those tags. Therefore, the tags should be removed immediately. — goethean ॐ 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give him a little bit more time to do so. It won't hurt if they remain a day or so longer. Gamaliel 20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tags 

message: This is truly hilarious. JoeHazelton claims that this article cannot mention Tammy Duckworth even as "Roskam's opponent", and yet he wants use her in order to neutralize Roskam's embarrassing campaign contributions. Make up your mind, would you? — goethean ॐ 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's exactly what he's saying in the first edit. It appears that he doesn't want to use the article to contrast the positions of the two candidates, which is a defensible position given that this is an article on only one of them.  But you are right when you say that it isn't a consistent position, as it seems to be contradicted by the second edit you mention, contrasting the donations to both candidates.  Gamaliel 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I've looked at that edit more closely, it appears that the language comparing the two candidates was already in the article and JH simply moved it. — goethean ॐ 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make up your mind 

message: Well, look and see the edits of the editors, on this article and tell me, you, the unspoken masses that read this minutia, who's the one with an agenda?  Now, you boys have no logic in your policies, god forbid, we should try to have a NPOV article here.  But so be it.  
Now to answer Mr Gamaliel questions is simply this.  In the section about the 2006 campaign, I feel what Roskam answers to questions,is very very relevant to the positions that Mr Roskam have on issues, as well as, to answer some the charges Duckworth makes, which though the use of clever placement of material by some of the editors seem to dovetail nicely with her published statements in the news. The statements by Roskam, in the section about November 2006 campaign are for balance and NPOV.Joehazelton 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it walks like a duck 

message: As the AMA advocate for Joehazelton, I tried several days ago to set out for Joe those which I understood to be his principal concerns, and I am quite happy that a discussion ensued here (even as I apologize for my having disappeared after writing).  I think it's quite clear, though, that things have not gone particularly well here.  Joe likely has commented on other editors rather than on the contributions of those editors (perhaps most untowardly imputing malign motive to other editors where other less pernicious explanations exist).  
Nevertheless, I understand his feeling fatigued and angry at what he—rightly or wrongly—perceives to be a concerted effort to frustrate his good-faith attempts to improve the article.  I recognize that Propol and Goethean may—rightly or wrongly&madash;think there to remain no substantive issues on which disagreement remains, but I, both as an editor offering a third/fourth opinion and as Joe's advocate, think there some areas on which discussion might serve to better the article, and so, in view of the recent devolution of the situation into one of edit-warring and personal attacks (in neither case, I suppose, particularly disruptive) and a prolonged  protection (one that was justified and was intended, I think, by Gamaliel to promote talk page discussion in pursuit of consensus), I wonder if mediation (of the cabal, as against of the committee, variety), rather than a user conduct RfC or a content RfC (to which few editors are likely to contribute) might be pursued.  
If those most involved in the discussions here would accede to mediation, I understand Joe would be altogether willing to initiate a medcab request, after which a third-party would contact all involved.  In essence, medcab serves to provide an outside view where one is necessary apropos of some specific areas of disagreement.  At worst, the process will serve to make plain those areas over which disagreements remain and to provide succinct descriptions of the positions underlying such disagreements, such that another user happening by might well and quickly understand the issues and offer his opinions (this appears, unfortunately, to be a rather poorly-trafficked page, and the occasional editor reading the talk page surely won't participate in an exceedingly complex debate).  Would others be interested?  Joe 04:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outstanding disputes

message: The article talks about a possible "future" August 19 debate. Does anyone know whether this ever actually happened? NatusRoma | Talk 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it did not. — goethean ॐ 15:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate schedule 

message: User:Joehazelton has raised some questions about the material he removed in this edit.  He claims it is a WP:BLP violation and raised concerns here, but did so in an uncivil manner so I removed his post.  Still his concerns should be addressed. BLP requires that the material be solidly sourced.  A source was provided, but it would be preferable that the original AP article be used as a citation if this material is to remain in the article.  Other areas of concern that should be addressed are the appropriate section header, whether or not this matter is important enough for its own section, and whether or not this matter is important enough to be in the article at all. Gamaliel 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The AP article is here: . NatusRoma | Talk 03:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged plagiarism and BLP 

message: Can people working on this article please add an edit summary to every edit?  On a contentious article like this one, it's all the more important. Gamaliel 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries