Talk:Peter Roskam/Archive3

message: User:NatusRoma said "just because one local paper has said it's the most-watched doesn't mean we should use that judgment"
The thing is that I didnt say that the race was the most-watched, but that it had been called the most-watched, which is pretty indisputable, and notable. — goethean ॐ 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indubitably indisputable. That doesn't mean that it's notable. It would be notable if lots of different sources called it the most watched. NatusRoma | Talk 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "most-watched race" 

message: I removed the segment referring to Roskam opposing any mentoin of suicide in public schools which was supposed to be taken from an Esquire article, because the external links provided were non-working and upon searching the words Roskam, suicide, esquire I found nothing relating to that topic.--Tdl1060 21:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They currently work for me. Furthermore, the removed text also included the following reference: "A National Knife Fight" by Joshua Green Oct 2006 Esquire, 236". If you were to pick up a copy of the latest dead-tree edition of Esquire magazine  and turn to p. 236, you will see coverage of Roskam's plans. The blog link is for your convenience only. I am reverting. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those links don't work for me either.  It only returns "forbidden".  Also, blogs are not a reliable source --rogerd 22:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Esquire is the source.  Please don't misapply WP:RS. Gamaliel 22:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The material should be removed if it fails to meet WP:RS. A blog, or news "analysis" or partisan website does not meet that criteria. In addition, the link is not readily applicable. Therefore, it is functionally uncited. Arcayne 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read more closely. The source is the October print issue of Esquire magazine. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide 

message: User:Tdl1060 removed comments made by Nationally syndicated columnist Molly Ivins on Roskam. The comments are probably the widest attention that Roskam has received in his entire political career. They are notable and should be replaced. — goethean ॐ 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This race has been featured on NBC Nightly News, that is wider attention than Ivins' commentary, secondly this is a third party commenting on a statement, Does wikipedia have every quote Rush Limbaugh (on the right), or Al Franken (on the left) makes on any given politician on their programs, placed on that politician's article? If it did that would be what most of many politician's articles would be comprised of. Molly Ivins' quote is no different, and is of no more importance. --Tdl1060 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Molly Ivins comments

message: I was wondering why was this added considering this article is a bio and Peter Roskam and not about Folly or Hasert?
On 3 October 2006, Roskam's opponent charged that Roskam should return the $40,000 in campaign contributions that he received from House Speaker Hastert and other House leaders due to their role in the cover-up of the Mark Foley sexual harrassment scandal. Roskam responded that Hastert acted correctly and added that "the Democrats have had lots of scandals of their own." [58]
I wonder why the tone of this article is so negative and only negative additions are not challenged as well as the article locked down and any positive entries removed.  As I understand Wikipedia policy regarding Biographies of Living persons, it would seem to me this article violates the sprit and intent of that policy as well there seems to be a lack of enforcement of these polices?
I can see, though the histories of editing by the primary participants of  this article, there seems to be a partisan agenda being pushed here.  
Why is this allowed?  Any Rate, these are questions that seem to beg here.Timmy0691 14:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Partisan entries

message: I am curious what relevance the subject's stance on the ERA has to this article. He wasn't even of the age of majority yet when that amendment failed. Should we include his stance on the Civil War, and Marbury v. Madison as well? - Crockspot 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, does he support the Magna Carta? Gamaliel 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn! That would have been a good question to submit to the debate. — goethean ॐ 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to remove Roskam's ERA position, I won't object, but I do think it provides some insight as to his mindset. As for the Civil War, Roskam stated he would support a States' rights argument. Campaign Manager Ryan McLaughlin is still researching the Magna Carta. Propol 19:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the ERA failed ratification, that mindset could certainly not be considered unusual, extreme, or even minority. I'm going to go ahead and remove it as irrelevant. Crockspot 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 84 Senators voted for the ERA. 354 Representatives voted for the ERA. 35 states voted in favor of the ERA. The Republican Party officially supported the ERA at that point in time. Some might think ERA opposition is an unusual, extreme, and minority viewpoint. Propol 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Equal Rights Amendment?

message: I have removed the paragraph about contributions from Jim Kolbe because, at this point, they're such a minor detail that they're irrelevant. No one has criticized Roskam (or any other politician, as far as I know) for keeping contributions from Kolbe. NatusRoma | Talk 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kolbe contributions 

message: Reading through the back and forth from the educated folk posting here, it is clear that even the intelligent and well-meaning (as well as those notably less so) have difficulty leaving their political leanings at the door. I understand and appreciate that Wikipedia is a living, breathing thing. I dig that the crucible of the back and forth for most topics renders the viewing public with a midle-ground article that is more truth than opinion, and I approve of it.
That being said, I am not sure we are capable of objectively creating entries for political candidates currently running for office. As recent election tatics in other media have clearly indicated, the potential for abuse of Wikipedia by those who would use this site as a lobbying platform or dirty tricks venue is too obvious to ignore. To allow or condone such activity undermines the goal of Wikipedia, and frustrates the efforts of the editorial staff. It also wastes both their time as well as bandwidth. 
The Roskam article is but one of many in which the editing back and forth by users either unfamiliar with the process of revision or unwilling to consent to supervision has wasted an enormouss amount of time. Clearly, some of the edits were necessary, as there were relatively inflammatory edits included as well as the inclusion of flyer information or campaign manager quotes that could not be directly attributable to the person named in the entry. I realize that this can become a somewhat gray area, and tempers can flare.
This is why I propose that the Editorial Staff (or Supervisory Staff/500 Monkeys/Whatever) at Wikipedia prohibit the entries of any political candidates currently running for office. This protects the integrity of Wikipedia. As people may use Wikipedia as a resource to learn more about a candidate, it is imperative that the site remains impartial in the extreme. Those who might object to this moratorium might argue that this prohibition interferes with the freedom of information. I would argue that these some of these same people are cynically utilizing the free access that Wikipedia provides to promote a less-than-neutral agenda. In short, Wikipedia should have the right to protect its own integrity, and keeping political gamesmanship from being submitted as neutral data.
It should be noted that this same moratorium should not apply to candidates not running for office, or for those out of office. Entries for individuals that eventually run for office  - and perhaps this should be a permanent policy to be instituted - should then be edited for both accuracy and non-partisanship. Pete 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most newspapers, Wikipedia generally presumes that a candidate who speaks through a campaign manager speaks for himself or herself. The solution to biased edits is oversight, not a lockdown. NatusRoma | Talk 20:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: An interesting idea, though I imagine it would meet objections from people who feel that this goes against WP principles of openness or feel that existing WP methods are sufficient to combat these problems.  You'll find a larger audience for your suggestion at the Village Pump, as opposed to the relatively few people who come through here. Gamaliel 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: WP is not most newspapers, NatusRoma. It is an encyclopedia. Anyone not living under a rock for the past 50 years is fully aware that campaign managers are political operatives who work in concert with others (sometimes extraordinarily unscrupulous individuals - ie., Karl Rove, Swift Boats for Justice, etc.) who will sometimes attempt to shape policy by putting words into the mouth of the candidate rather than reiterate the specific policy views of the candidate. To presume that a campaign manager speaks for a candidate when there are virtually unlimited methods by which a candidate can express their OWN views is at best gullible and at worst misleading and deceptive. The entry is about the subject of the entrant, not what someone says who the entrant is. If someone wants to craft an entry for the campaign manager, I think that should be done. However, if someone wants to presume that the words from the mouth of one person replace those of another, more significant person, then perhaps that person should revisit the timelines of the McCarty Hearings. The entrant speaks for themself, or they do not speak, It is clearly that simple. A person can be held to account for their words, not what someone elser said their words were.
WP for all of its openness as stated in the 5 Pillars owes its self-described descriptor as an online encyclopedia. As far as I know, neutrality was the key component to encyclopedias, online or not. The openness prescribed by WP was to presumably prevent bias from entering in, and for allowing a well-rounded entry - the sole purpose of this being to arrive at more accurate and less-biased entries. To utilize the open quality of WP as a shield to shape an entry via smear, innuendo or misinterpretation is a cynical abuse of Wikipedia, and should not be tolerated. There is no "fair and balanced" here, nor should there be. The entries are meant to be absolutely neutral - even to the extent of removing parts that cannot be proven. It is this overiding concern that makes all people and all entries equal in WP. Striving for anything less - or allowing less scrupulous or less idealistic folk to influence us into accepting less - and Wikipedia becomes a subjective microphone to anyone who wants to sock puppet with a host of others into getting their way.
Thank you for your advice, Gamaliel; I will address the larger concerns of my suggestion at the WP: PUMP. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Pete 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would dispute the idea that what a political campaign manager for a particular candidate says is not relevant to that candidate's article. — goethean ॐ 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I normally wouldn't blank anyone, but the comments offered by an anonymous user were specifically inflammatory and designed to cause a flame war. So I removed them, because I want a reasoned discussion  about my subject here.
Let's keep it civil, shall we? Pete 04:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how you could, Goethean. I understand how a campaign manager's statements or actions might be relevant if he took out a gun at a press conference and opened up on the press corps, or sank the campaign over comments that the candidate wouldn't have said. The guiding principle here should be: does it affect the entry of the candidate, or merely support it? If it affects the subject of the entrant (in this case, the candidate), then it is relevant as it affects the canddiate's life. If it merely attempts to speak for the candidate (in other words, imprinting the words and views of the campaign manager over those of the candidate), then it is not germane to the entry. Simply put, if it cannot be verified that a candidate took an actual position or spoke up personally on policy issues, it is not something that they said, and not germane to an entry on who they are. 
Frankly, it is lazy writing and sloppy editing to use a campaign manager's quotes in place of the actual candidates' own words. If the candidate isn't prepared to speak up for themselves and allow their own words to be used, quoted and cited, it is highly inappropriate to allow them the benefit of being paraphrased. That might be fine for teh Enquirer, but this is an encyclopedia, sir. We play by different rules and hold to a higher standard.Pete 03:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A candidate whose views were being misrepresented by a spokesperson would fire that spokesperson in short order. By definition, a person who serves as another's spokesperson speaks for that candidate as if the candidate were speaking for himself or herself. Furthermore, the dichotomy between "supporting" and "affecting" is a false one. Sourced and accurate information that falls short of undue weight is not judged by whether it is "positive" or "negative". However, there are apparently "rules" and "standards" that forbid Wikipedia from quoting spokespeople. I would very much like to see such a Wikipedia policy or guideline cited on this page. NatusRoma | Talk 03:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Problem with Entries of Current Political Candidates

message: I am changing the statement:
::Roskam attempted to pre-empt the appearance by holding a simultaneous press conference featuring a cancer survivor who was treated with his own cells.[24]
To something  more neutral, such as "Roskam held a simultaneous press conference featuring...etc." The first statement is inflammatory for numerous reasons. As well, the cited source did not even mention the simultaneous press conferences, or that Roskam decided to have a press conference after learning about Duckworth's intended press conference.
I will reiterate, the citation used for the unedited statement bore no resemblance to, or supported the content of, the statements used in the sentence. Perhaps we should take a look at the references for all of these statements. It is a common tactic by folks like Ann Coulter to cite sources so as to have the appearance of citation while not actually possessing the authority of citatable sources.Pete 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add comments on entirely new topics to the bottom of the talk page. This is the general practice here and people are more likely to read them as they are used to seeing them there. Thanks. Gamaliel 22:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Gamaliel. Sorta new here, and still learning the procedures. I had tried to enter the topic where appropriate, and now consider myself properly corrected. :) Pete 04:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am certain that the "pre-empt" language was in the source when I used it. It's possible that the article has changed since I accessed it. — goethean ॐ 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: google cache — goethean ॐ 21:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although Roskam fought privately-funded embyronic stem cell research in the Illinois legislature, he now suggests private funding as an alternative to public funding. [25]
I was originally alerted to the possible bias of the statement by the word 'fought.' Upon checking the source link, I discovered it was a link to a political opinion page. As well, nowhere was above quote or paraphrasing of the statement above to be found. Unless a more credible (or at least more accurate) source can be cited, it cannot stay.Arcayne 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The source is perfectly accurate. However, I will find a additional source. — goethean ॐ 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stem Cell Research...Revision

message: It was quoted: [On May 9, 2006, Duckworth accused Roskam of "standing silent in the face of bigotry."]. Actually, when checking the citation for this comment (to verify its accuracy), what was actually said was: 
::Peter Roskam's silence in the face of bigotry is not leadership.::
Quite a  difference, and one that made me look a bit closer at the text as written. I found a great many other contextural innaccuracies, and will therefore revise them to reflect  - correctly - what was originally cited. 
It should be noted that the cited source was a Conservative Christian news site that defends Rios' and her beliefs, and views secular humanity in the midst of a "culture war." I think it is important to note the philosophical stance of a publication before directly citing its material - there is a tendency amongst these publications to skew the reporting towards that which will feed its its subjective world-view.Arcayne 07:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. — goethean ॐ 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Happy to help, and thanks for saying thanks :) Arcayne 08:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spring, 2006...Revision

message: Torturous Devastating Cudgel, I kindly ask you spell out in detail your rationale for tagging the article with a NPOV warning. Otherwise, how can I, or any other user, collaborate with you. Thank you. Propol 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for NPOV tag

message: I added a new bit of info regarding the VFW endorsement of Roskam. However, I think I screwed up the link to the citation. Can someone offer a heads-up on how to fix it?Arcayne 23:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorsement

message: There is no dispute that there are issues concerning Coli.  The question is that does a discussion of those issues belong here?  A good comparison would be Tom Delay.  There are citations for articles discussing both Roskam and Delay's criminal charges.  The citations for Coli do not mention both Roskam and Coli's issues together, therefore a connection is either original research or perilously close to it. Gamaliel 22:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coli 

message: I don't like the accusation of a ban user.  goethean, you have no reason or proof of this and you assertion would be constituted as a violation of WP:CIVIL WP:AGF   
Your refusing to discuss, in reasonable terms, with out invoking some unfounded charge
is troublesome. 
Stop it.192.193.220.141 21:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will block any editor who engages in the sort of behavior that got Joehazelton banned, no need to worry about that, so please let's not assume every single anonymous editor is Joehazelton. Let's assume good faith and treat every editor with respect. Gamaliel 21:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Propol reads this page, he can see my comments just fine.  AGF means we must treat new editors with respect and not assume the worst of motives, but it does not apply to obvious sockpuppets who pretend to be new users while immediately attacking the same people and making the same edits. Just concentrate on the article and leave the personalities out of it, whether you are a new user or an old one. Gamaliel 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Roskam editing

message: I first found Peter Roskam's biography through the entry on the Evangelical Covenant Church, where he is listed as a notable member.  The article itself, however, lists him both as a Presbyterian and a member of the Anglican Mission in America.  These cannot all be true simultaneously.  Does anyone know where he actually goes to church?
:The only religion I could find in an outside source is Anglican , so I listed him as such in the infobox instead of Presbyterian.--Tdl1060 20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Roskam's religion 

message: There is an anti-Roskam blog at . Can it be added to the external links? — goethean ॐ 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blog links are #11 on Wikipedia's Links normally to be avoided.--Tdl1060 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link 

message: 75.132.141.231 apparently understands the meaning of WP:NPOV with his very first edit, but incorrectly applies it. His reversions are in violation of not only WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, but also WP:BLP. Anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit against a public figure like Pete Roskam. But until the allegations have been proven in a court of law, they do not belong in an encyclopedia article about him. Dino 23:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We have now been joined by the mysterious [[User:75.132.141.231|75.132.141.231]]

message: Strangely enough, here we have another anonymous IP vandal who knows all about NPOV but applies it incorrectly. The modus operandi is identical. I am reverting this POV-pushing which violates WP:NPOV. Dino 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And we have also been joined by the mysterious [[User:202.190.132.123|202.190.132.123]]

message: Hi Dino - I decided to pay a visit here in response to your claim on the Free Republic talk page : "Freepers were instrumental in helping Peter Roskam beat Tammy Duckworth three months ago, bucking the national trend." I couldn't find anything about it in the article! (but it does look like it needs some fresh input, so I think I'll stay). Could you point me in right direction concerning FR's instrumental help in Roskam's victory? (it should be here in this article, shouldn't it be?)  Thanks. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Republic claims

message: Furthermore, no Democratic member of Congress has his or her legal campaign contributions from law-abiding citizens picked apart in this manner. I have removed the dissection of legal contributions from specific law-abiding donors. The cumulative effects of out-of-state and out-of-district donors and PAC donors are notable, however. Please read WP:NPOV, specifically WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, and WP:BLP. Wikipedia cannot be perceived as siding with Roskam's critics. Dino 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing a non-notable attempt at guilt by association. This is an attempt to insert an absolutely irrelevant scandal (Foley) into this article. Legal campaign donations by law-abiding people such as Dennis Hastert are not notable. Dino 12:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign finance issues

message: True and notable.  And not just his opponent was critical of it,  looks like the columnist was too! And essential to understanding the character of this politician. --BenBurch 06:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticized for yellow page ad. 

message: To all new editors, please do not import edit wars from other articles to this one and please do not throw out accusations of bias or POV editing.  Dial it back and make your case without insults. Uncivil behavior will not be tolerated.  Thank you. Gamaliel 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I think we can make this a good article if people will keep their heads. --BenBurch 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Gamaliel - I found this article SOLELY because of Dino's claims on the talk page of another article.  "Freepers were instrumental in helping Peter Roskam beat Tammy Duckworth three months ago, bucking the national trend." I searched but couldn't find anything about this in the article.  I asked Dino to document his claim ('instrumental' is a very bold claim) but he ignored me. After reading the article and discussion, I think I'll stay. (please see your talk page for proof of my assertion) I will try to 'dial it back' a little as you suggested though. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CIVIL]] 

message: An article on Henry Hyde clearly stated his position:
*Hyde said his core view on abortion remains as it always has: Human life in all its forms and shapes and sizes is intrinsically valuable and deserves the protection of law. However, he argues for allowing abortions to save the life of the mother, and his Hyde Amendment allows for exceptions in the cases of rape and incest, even though he finds those two exceptions inconsistent with his own views. link
Why is it that some want to hide Roskam's abortion stance ? I bet he's not embarassed about it, like they seem to be. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I *know* he is not ashamed of his position.  Nothing about his position to be ashamed OF.  You can disagree with him, but he is taking a moral stand as he sees fit, and clearly the voters in his district know his position and a majority are comfortable with it.  --BenBurch 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Where? I don't see it! (maybe I need new glasses ;-) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Above the TOC and the last of the boxes at the top.  --BenBurch 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  accurately describing his abortion stance 

message: Moved to formal to-do box at top of article.  --BenBurch 23:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? I don't see it! (maybe I need new glasses ;-) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Above the TOC and the last of the boxes at the top.  --BenBurch 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list

message: Point by point, please explain to me how each of the items you reverted fail the "Willie Horton" test?  I am trying here to AGF that you really mean this and can justify it, and are not trying to simply banish all criticism from this article.  But I simply do not see how any of this was a Willie Horton-like allegation.  Now, you explained the rape and incest one, and I and several others disagree with you on that, but please explain the other items you reverted out just now?  Thanks!  I appreciate you taking the time to explain.  --BenBurch 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already addressed each point and not each one is Willie Horton but the most egregious ones are.  NPOV and BLP apply to each and every one.  Since the edit summary is only a few characters long I chose the description of inclusion of the non-exception description.  --Tbeatty 05:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I must be slow then, because I don't see it.  For example, how is the criticism of the yellowpages ad violating NPOV?  Eric Zorn is a well-established writer.  Few newspapers on the planet are more established than the Tribune.  He (and Duckworth) point out that it is odd to say you will eliminate frivolous lawsuits when you have made a portion of your living soliciting them.  And in fact your firm still is soliciting them.  The proof of which is the yellowpages ad.  You know, lawyers were prohibited from advertising for most of this State's history just to prevent ads like that one.  I think it is a RS-V fact that the ad exists.  It is an RS-V fact that there was possibly justifiable criticism of it.  And it was a notable factor in the recent campaign.  Or would you have us write that there were no significant negative issues about Roskam in that campaign?  Make this clear to me and I might agree with you, but right now I simply cannot see it.  --BenBurch 05:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the yellow pages add, he was criticized by his opponent, not the author of the source.  There was no criticism by the author.  He simply highlighted Roskam's opponents quotes.  The author actually says that PI lawyers are valuable.  But the criticism he leaves to Roskam's opponent.  Read the source but don't read into it.  The author essentially applauds Roskam's PI work.  The fact that he highlighted is not the same as criticising it.  If anything he is pointing out hypocrisy, not criticism of the ad. Journalist use these techniques all the time but it is not criticism.  The ad does exist.  There may be criticism of it but there is no source for it other than his opponents campaign comments which are not reliable for the purposes of an encyclopedia because of the obvious conflict of interest.  --Tbeatty 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TBeatty.  Point by point, please. 

message: "The ads refer to a controversy in Wheaton schools in the early 1990s surrounding a series of textbooks called "Impressions,"... They also contained some writings that some parents believed featured themes of the occult, witchcraft, violence and disrespect for parental authority.'
Here is a discussion of one of the offending pieces - a yarn called "A Wart Snake in a Fig Tree" which is  a pardody of 'The Twelve Days of Christmas' but with creepy-crawlies and spiders and snakes and stuff. Ya learn somethin' every day ! I never knew that "My Little Pony" was Anti-God and Pro-Satan! Maybe that's why I became a Devil-worshipping Satanist - too much "My Little Pony" ! LOL! (joke) A Wart Snake in a Fig Tree I wonder what Roskam's stance on Harry Potter and Holloween is? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have discussed "one of the offending pieces," but not all of them. I suspect that you have chosen the least offensive piece and presented it here as though it was typical. Dino 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Textbook material

message: *DINO WROTE : "If someone doesn't show me an article within the next 67 hours about just one Democratic politician, living or dead, that picks apart his or her position on abortion in the same manner (and wasn't edited to include the picking apart within the last three days), I'll remove the phrase about the rape/incest exception from this article. Picking apart a politician's position in this way, on an issue that is as divisive as abortion, is POV pushing. It is blatant and it is obvious. Comparing this article to similar articles about Democrats is the best way to reveal this POV pushing."
"Harry Reid is pro-life and was a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which set new rules and restrictions on abortion rights protesters.[20] He has voted on numerous occasions for the ban on partial-birth abortions, and in 2003 he supported substitute language that would have banned all late-term abortions, while allowing exceptions for the life and health of the woman involved. Although Reid received a 100% rating from NARAL in 2001, and from 1995-2004 voted with the interests of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association 68% of the time, in 2003 and 2004, Reid received 29% and 20% ratings, respectively, from NARAL Pro-Choice America." (more to come) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think we're done here. Nice work. Gamaliel 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I'm sure there are even more here. Democrats_for_Life_of_America  I only went through the first 5 or 6 out of 20+  - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have specified "pro-choice" Democrats. Naturally, any pro-life Democrat would have his or her position picked apart just like any pro-life Republican. Both of these examples are pro-life Democrats. Show me an article about a pro-choice Democrat who has his or her position on abortion picked apart in this manner. Dino 01:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  'should-of, could-of, would-of ... but didn't !' NOW you want to change your claim. Now that you have egg dripping off your face! Too late! LMAO - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still a relative newcomer here and the longer I stay, the more I learn. I've just learned something. The prevailing partisanship (and POV pushing) isn't Democrat vs. Republican. It's Left vs. Right. If a Democrat (such as Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman) starts showing conservative tendencies, his Wikipedia article will start turning into a hatchet job in direct proportion to those tendencies. And if a Republican (such as Lincoln Chafee or Chuck Hagel) starts showing tendencies acceptable to MoveOn.org, his Wikipedia article will start turning into an advertising brochure. Dino 01:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For Dino

message: I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it should be every longstanding editor's goal to get articles to Good Article and eventually featured article status.  This article is miles from that goal, IMO.  One thing that means is that you should be able to read the article and not be able to guess the political slant of the editors.  A good example is "xxx opposes abortion rights", or "xxx is pro-life".  Both of those phrases are politically loaded to one side or the other.  A more neutral phrasing would be "xxx opposes abortion".  We all have our political opinions here, but we should leave them out of the article.  You can have a fully referenced and sourced article that is still slanted and POV. --rogerd 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My goal is GA too.  But sometimes when you paint an accurate picture you wind up with something that *appears* to have a slant because the RS-V sources that can be found all paint a picture of somebody who has some negative issues.  I try to balance this by seeking out the positive issues that you can find about most people.  But if somebody has a hard-line abortion stance (harder than most anti-abortion advocates), seeks to ban books and movies, and talks tort reform while making his living on the lack of tort reform those facts are material to any true depiction.  As are his buying and returning soldier's dog tags part of a true depiction.  Very few human beings are 100% good or 100% bad, and wherever that line falls, you have to draw it in any biographical article.  But I agree with you that you should seek the most neutral language possible that still conveys the data to be exposited. --BenBurch 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I think abortion is bad.  Effective birth control should have been used in most cases where an abortion is sought, and wasn't through irresponsibility.  I wouldn't prevent anybody from doing it because I have a very Libertarian view of personal freedom, but I would hope that nobody here tries to paint me as some sort of advocate for it.  Thanks.  --BenBurch 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I think abortion (on demand, in the 1st trimester) is <S>good</S> GREAT - and furthermore - it should be federally subsidized and no more costly or harder to get than a flu shot.  That is all. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I don't care what your position on abortion or any other political issue is.  That is my whole point, you shouldn't bring it here.  This is not a politics forum, it is an encyclopedia. --rogerd 03:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo.  An editors' claims that there is only negative RS-V sources for a political candidate that won his district is going to have difficulty contributiong productively to the article.  Most people have trouble writing objectively if they have an opinion, however good editors recognize when an edit improves the NPOV stance.  It is my experience that this is not happening here and the article spirals into ever more biased POV.   There is no "line to be drawn" nor should his biography be a collection of simple positive and negative factoids.  --Tbeatty 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... sure... trying to HIDE his abortion stance (like the Roskam supporters here want) so that the reader has no idea what he stands for is really NPOV. LOL !- Fairness & Accuracy For All 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No one is hiding his abortion stance.  In fact, it is slanted left even when it is described as "Opposing abortion except to protect the life of the mother" is an accurate description of his position.  A NPOV version is that Roskam "opposes abortion rights" and that is apparently the AP method of reporting.  Tryng to portray his position in such a light so that it comes out as "hard line" is simply POV. I have not seen any Roskam supporters and I am certainly not one as I didn't hear about him until this article.  But I know a smear job when I see it.  This article reads like a DCCC ad.  --Tbeatty 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, go out and find those positive sources.  You just volunteered.  --BenBurch 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are adequate.  The tone is the problem.  You have opposed all attempts at changing the tone.  In fact you violated 3RR to maintain the critical tone of this article.  --Tbeatty 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Justify yourself that way if you want... Whatever gets you through the night. --BenBurch 03:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is our goal here? 

message: The following was recently removed:
:The late nationally syndicated columnist Molly Ivins commented, "Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?"Molly Ivins "BEYOND THE PALE", SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv
:Roskam supports the death penalty, and opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions. 
:(Roskam never served in the military)  
: Opponents have maintained that the legislation would force the removal of classics like Romeo and Juliet, Little House on the Prairie, and It's a Wonderful Life from classrooms."A National Knife Fight" by Joshua Green Oct 2006 Esquire, 236 
:On October 3 2006, according to Crain's Chicago Business, Roskam's opponent charged that Roskam should return the $40,000 in campaign contributions that he received from House Speaker Hastert and other House leaders who she accused of covering up the Mark Foley sexual harassment scandal."Local candidates fire jabs in Foley fallout" By Greg Hinz and Paul Merrion, Oct. 02, 2006 Crain's Chicago Business 
:Roskam has been criticized for his law-firm's advertisements in the yellow pages. http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/06/candidates_refo.html
:On 3 October 2006, Jillian Lindeen filed a malpractice lawsuit against Roskam in the DuPage County court. The suit alleges Roskam failed to use due diligence in pursuing Lindeen's personal injury case and that as a result Lindeen's case was dismissed on 1 August 2006."Dist. hopefuls spar over congressional page issue" By Eric Krol and Marni Pyke Wednesday, October 4, 2006 Daily Herald
:In 1992, Roskam's state campaign was investigated by the Illinois Attorney General and the Internal Revenue Service for failing to report campaign contributions from a 501(c)(3).http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/files/Delay-Indicted-Statement.pdf
: Roskam's campaign manager, Ryan McLaughlin, said that adult and umbilical cord research "is where the results are really occurring for individuals across the country", and said that other issues are more pressing for the Sixth district. However, the National Institutes of Health claims embryonic stem cells have greater potential.NIH - Stem Cells 
:Roskam's campaign manager says that Roskam supports "common-sense gun control provisions" in the gun politics debate. 
:Duckworth also noted that Roskam's campaign has received heavy donations from the House Republican Campaign Committee, to which Foley gave $500,000 over the past decade. Roskam responded that Hastert acted correctly and added that "the Democrats have had lots of scandals of their own.""Local candidates fire jabs in Foley fallout" by Greg Hinz and Paul Merrion, Oct. 2, 2006 Crain's Chicago Business  As of June 30 2006, Roskam has received more contributions from political committees formed by sitting legislators than any other non-incumbent Congressional candidate in the nation. A Roskam campaign spokesman credited House Speaker Dennis Hastert for those contributions: "That's related to how important [Hastert] is for us in this race." http://www.roskamforcongress.com/news/view_article.cfm?id=622 "Duckworth raises $844,000 in 2nd quarter" Patrick Corcoran July 20, 2006 Pioneer Press 
:*GOP Auction House: Peter Roskam of Illinois The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee criticizes Roskam's ties to Tom DeLay 
Travb (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And?  FAAFA NO LONGER has a nice picture of Ivins on his user page. AND HASN'T HAD ONE SINCE YESTERDAY  It's not attributed to anyone so I suspect it's a personal photo?  A Molly Ivins quote, while entertaining, really has no relevance in a Roskam biography but maybe in an article that covered the Roskam/Duckworth race (if there is one, which I doubt)?  --Tbeatty 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And nothing :) Travb (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "FAAFA has a nice picture of Ivins on his user page." WHAT???!!! THAT'S Molly Ivins? (RIP) ROFLMAO! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Memory hole

message: The fact that Roskam supporters think that HIS MOTHER buying 37 dog tags for $20 in Vietnam is 2001, and Roskam helping to return them to the families, in anything more than an interesting bit of TRIVA, but needs to be conflated into something more, and prominently featured in the article. Sad :-( 
Too bad MoveOn didn't think to make a biting campaign ad comparing the 2 candidates 'military' service and sacrifice! Duckworth - two legs and an arm in service of her country vs Roskam - $20 and postage! (assuming that he paid his mom back, that is) LMAO - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I deleted that in my version.  And the other bits of trivia and pablum.  --Tbeatty 01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's pathetic?

message: Including the name of each and every newspaper that endorsed Duckworth, along with excerpts from several of the endorsements, violates WP:BLP because it makes Wikipedia appear to side with Roskam's critics. See also WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an inventory of everything negative that has ever been published on the Internet about Peter Roskam. It is sufficient to state that several Illinois newspapers had endorsed Duckworth. At this point, I'll respond to a remark by Goethean: 
Are you really arguing that a Wikipedia article should reflect the opinions of the majority of votes from the Sixth District? That's absurd.
I am arguing that a Wikipedia article about the incumbent Congressman from the Sixth District should reflect the opinions of the majority of voters from the Sixth District, and that claiming the opposite is what's absurd. Wikipedia must not be used as a propaganda machine by Roskam's challenger in 2008. It cannot even resemble such a propaganda machine. Dino 11:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were to start a Wiki that only concerned itself with the Sixth District, then you would have a point. But here, you do not. — goethean ॐ 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violating [[WP:BLP]] is what's pathetic