Talk:Tammy Duckworth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click [show] for further details
This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Illinois. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Tammy Duckworth, or visit the project page for more details. NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. WikiProject Hawaii priority open tasks: To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh Open tasks
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. This article is supported by the Military work group. More information about this article... This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 Election Passed 2 WikiProject 3 Debates 4 Header: Criticism of the handling of the Iraq War 5 Header: Criticism of earmarks 6 Header: Gun politics 7 Endorsements 8 This is an encyclopedia not her campaign web site 9 Swiftboating 10 attacks vs. criticism 11 Why? 12 Recent Revisions 13 Fall 2006 Revisions 14 Unwarranted Heavy Deletion without peer review is vandalism 15 Military question 16 Robo Calling 17 removal of video links

[edit] Election Passed

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

[edit] WikiProject

Since she now lives in Illinios, and ran for Congress from that state, shouldn't be in WikiProject Illinois? 4.243.152.122 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

done. --Ybbor^T 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debates

A lot of this discussion is nonsense. Simple, utter, cynical nonsense. I keep noting that current political candidates, especially the ones in Illinois are creating a enormous waste of bandwidth, as operatives from one party or another attempt to manipulate the entries for the candidate standing for office. This is NOT a forum for political hacks, astroturfing, namecalling or any of the other political dirty tricks that some people think is absolutely necessary in politics today. This is not a soapbox issue, people. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in these matters, and allowing chowderheads to go in an either delete polsitions, or to add in statements that the person for whom the entry was created did not say is the opposite of neutrality. Keep your political problems to yourselves. I strongly propose that entries for political candidates standing election for current office be either banned, or subjected to a lengthy vetting process, so as to verify tht the entries are accurate. This prevents illegitimate information from being presented as fact. And no, perception is not fact. Neitehr is what someone's campaign manager said the candidate said. What counts is what the candidate said, or how the candidate responded to citable news sources. It's isn't that hard to accomplish. I imagine that people might suggest that there is a freedom of information and the ever-popular 'everyone=entitled-to-an-opinion.' Yes, there is freedom of information as well as an entitlement to one's opinion. However, signing up to write and edit for Wikipedia means you are surrendering your own personal opinion in order to write the facts, and ONLY the facts that are from credible, cited sources. Anything else is personal opinion, and has absolutely no place in Wikipedia.Pete 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Information about the debates which Ms. Duckworth has declined should be added. These are noteworthy and important information regarding the November, 2006 election. see...[1] [2] [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.94.134.222 (talk • contribs).

I think that would set a new precedent in Wikipedia. An encyclopedia lists what a person has done, usually not what they haven't done. Should we mention that Duckworth hasn't been investigated by the Illinois Attorney General? Should we mention that Duckworth hasn't violated FEC reporting requirements? How about the article for opponent, Peter Roskam, should we mention that he has refused to articulate his position on Social Security? That sounds like the mother of all slippery slopes to me. For now, I will delete your tag, unless you can come up with a very compelling argument. Thanks. — Possible single purpose account: Propol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.Propol 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on your precedents, the Eric Zorn blogs entries on the Roskam pages in particular, should you decide to remove the Tom Beven blog ( Mr. Beven has a website for his commentary, as Mr. Zorn does) entries from the Ducktworth page. Propol, you can't have it both ways, either you allow or disallow such entries. You can't chose only positive ones for Duckworth and the negative ones for Roskam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.254.185 (talk • contribs).

Also, the Beven information is corroborated with Chicago suburban news paper article. So its citation is correct.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.254.185 (talk • contribs).

I am sorry, but why are we wasting our time even responding to unsigned comments? If they aren't going to even have the stones to identify themselves, then we should simply purge their comments in the interest of avoiding possible sock-puppetry or sniping. Geez, like we don't have enough to argue about...Pete 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

[edit] Header: Criticism of the handling of the Iraq War

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

I rather meant my earlier remarks to serve as a warning that if the text in question could not be properly cited as being stated by Duckworth, it would be deleted. The text doesn't have basis in fact unless it is cited.Arcayne 23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Header: Criticism of earmarks

In August 2006, Duckworth criticized the use of earmarks and pork-barrel spending in Congress. Duckworth says that earmarks should be eliminated to rein in spending and to reform ethics, arguing that they often are divvied out in exchange for votes. Duckworth's opponent opposes earmark reform.[45]

This cited source is no longer available. Either new sources for the quotation need to be found, or the section needs to be deleted, as it is an unsupported statement. Entries about political candidates must be held to stricter criteria than that of, say films or comic books.Pete 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Since there has been no proper re-citation of the statements, they are being culled.Arcayne 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Header: Gun politics

There are numerous problems with this paragraph which are small in and of themselves, but when taken together present apparent bias:

•^ "Gun law heats up race for Congress" By John Biemer and Christi Parsons Chicago Tribune October 11, 2006 - this source is no longer available as a link. It needs to be either replaced or removed. Maintaining the integrity of our links allows WP to keep the high ground when confronting unscrupulous folk from using Ann-Coulter-style tactics and citing incorrect or absent material to add weight to their arguments.

• "Basically, whatever the NRA wants, Peter Roskam will vote for it." This quote citation is inaccurate. The direct quote was:

'"He's voted consistently against sensible gun laws and it's basically whatever the NRA wants, Peter Roskam will vote for," Duckworth said.' This is from the cited source numbered as #48. Consequently, the quote will be changed immediately.

Incidentally, there is an astonishing amount of paraphrasing going on in (at least) this paragraph. While I appreciate and applaud the intent of brevity, I think that direct quotations are going to serve the integrity of the entry as well as that of WP as a whole. We are better than that, folks, or we need to be.Pete 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Maintaining the integrity of our links allows WP to keep the high ground when confronting unscrupulous folk from using Ann-Coulter-style tactics and citing incorrect or absent material to add weight to their arguments.

Wikipedia editors are not limited to online sources. Please don't create new policy when editing articles. — goethean ॐ 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

. User: Goethean - They most certainly are when the entries and/or subjects are contentious - these are precisely the sorts of articles that require citation (aside from general fact, like birthdate, etc) regarding policy positions. Since unscrupulous editors (and I am not referring to you, Goethean) might claim to be able to cite sources that are offline (but which in actuality do not exist or are being taken completely out of context) and thusly manipulate via interruption the editorial process, it is the office of the editor to write clearly and concisely - consicely in this in stance referring to a clear path of legitimacy of the edit. I am not suggesting in this instance that you are acting disreputably, but instead that by arguing that an editor can choose biased sources or not even cite online sources you are opening the door to a wider field of abuses.

. Please don't confuse initiating new policy with enforcing policy already in place. In addition, please do not paraphrase cited sources. Maybe revisiting WP:RS as well as the article regarding writing good entries would be of assistance to you.Arcayne 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not limited to online sources. If there is a reliable newspaper that I read at the library and the article is not online, I can cite that article. I will give the title, author, issue, and the page. — goethean ॐ 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there is an enormous potential for abuse, I ask that you read again what I wrote. You might cite correctly, but allowing any editor to simply cite a source not readily available - and let's be clear: as this is an online encyclopedia, it follows that the sources cited should be searchable online. This prevents disreputable folk from citing sources incorrectly or making up sources as they go. As this is crunch time before the election, it is even more important to cite proper, verifiable sources. I am sure that absentee voters referring to this site from overseas (ie, stationed overseas, etc.) Your proposed method of citation requires us to rely on your honesty, and while I would not call that particular trait into question, I am sure that others might. It is far easier to simply find sources that are readily apparent, wouldn't you think?

Clearly, any editor interested in maintaining fairness in an election would see and agree to such a protective measure. In the interest of protecting the veracity of data, information not citable through an online source will be considered suspect, and purged. This is advisable to do so, especially when so many links in this entry have proven to be - at the very best - paraphrased. It is advisable for any editor to cite a source readily verifiable, and making sure the source marterial is not overly biased. this avoids issues arising out of WP:NPOV Arcayne 23:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but declaring "readily verifiable" only what you can access from an armchair is turning "reliable sources" on its head. Maybe you want to recheck WP:RS yourself? Anyone can put anything on the internet. YOUR proposed method of citation requires us to remove 99.9999% of scholarly literature references from Wikipedia, since they're not freely available online. The internet (and Google) is not in vain frequently labeled the all-wise trash heap. You're likely to find confirmation for anything on the internet, and for its precise opposite to boot. Your statement "but allowing any editor to simply cite a source not readily available - and let's be clear: as this is an online encyclopedia, it follows that the sources cited should be searchable online." is contrary what has been established as standard for Wikipedia AND contrary to good research practice. --OliverH 00:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear - when adding information in an article as fluid and moment-to-moment as current political campaigns, it is inadvisable to allow referenes that can be immediately verified for accuracy. While it is true that most of the internet is subjective trash, it is clear that most (say, 99.9999%) of the world's scholarly citable works are in fact online and available for free to the public. In fact, work that cannot be seen because of its age or rarity (like a Güttenberg Bible or ancient sanskrit) is more readily available than it would be in real life. Ergo, there is more scholarly work available online now than ever before, and far more than is available to the offline user. Of course, this requires the editor to actually use the Ol' Thinkin' Cap, and decide which sources are trash, and which are neutral, true to its parent material and reliable. Editors not prepared to do that should find another use for their time than WP. If an editor's idea of the depth and width of your research tools is Google, then perhaps it is a good time to revisit the definition of 'good research practice.'

It should also be pointed out that it is pretty uncommon for uncited sources to be permitted for use in encyclopedic and other, authoritative works. It is even more uncommon for uncited sources to be quoted by news agencies without terribly good reason (sensitivity of the source, etc.).

Allow me to be more clear: due to the volatile nature of political campaigns, it is imperative that accuracy is preserved. As has been found not only in this particular article but others, the material making it into the article do not match the referenced sources. The idea of tolerating non-cited sources which might go for days until the offline source is sought out and verified (if at all). I am reminded of competitive law students who will check out or remove from availability required material from the library. I think it is fair to consider the possibility that unscrupulous individuals might utilize non-citable or offline (therefore not immediately verifiably true) resources in the hopes that a mistruth might last - unverified - until after the polls close. They rewards for doing something like that would be substantial (is, swinging an election towards one candidate or another), while the consequences of this cynical practice are relatively minor (blocking).

In fact, I would go so far as to advocate that articles prior to an election be hard-protected the week of the election, to prevent 11th hour tampering, rampant vandalism and other unscrupulous nonsense. The basic reason for this is obvious, but no less important is WP's legal protections and reutation. That the current policies do not spell out clearly enough how to address the unusual challenges presented by political campaigns is only indicative that the issue needs closer scrutiny. WP policy is always developing, and might very well learn from the sorts of problems encountered with current political campaigns.

Lastly, I might suggest that adding a lengthy comment to this discussion area does not constitute a 'minor' edit, as you described it, User:OliverH. However, I make mistakes all the time, and giving you the benefit of the doubt.Arcayne 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to. What there is need of is you actually verifying your own research. It's beyond pale. I did not describe adding a lengthy comment as a minor edit, but actually correcting a small mistake within that comment that I had added previously, NOT marking it as minor. Maybe check the version history a bit better in future. And maybe think a bit more closely as to what you actually know. Your claim that 99.999% of scholarly research is available for free and online to the public is a testimony, if anything, of not knowing what you're talking about. Scholarly research is published in books and academic journals, and 99.999% of publishers expect to be paid for providing you with access to that content. Even with academic journals available in electronic editions online, the vast majority is subscription-based and you will have to pay for access. And even IF Wikipedia policy for reliable sources needed a closer scrutiny in the context of political campaigns, this here is not the place for it. Nor does a source become reliable on your sheer say-so, nor another unreliable because you lack the energy to go and verify it. To demand that sources should be reachable from your armchair, is, sorry, intellectual sloth and unfit as a standard for WP. --OliverH 11:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that some (and please note that I said some) academic and scholarly research does operate on a subscription basis. What does any of that have to do with a current political campaign? I find it hardly likely that Duckworth and Roskam will get into a heated debate over the value of Jessica Einhorn's essay, "The World Bank's Mission Creep," published int he subscription journal Foreign Affairs. I am not debating that some scholarly text exists offline. It does. And you failed tomention that for every - I repeat, EVERY - subscription-based journal, etc. there is an abstract of that article. And good news - most of those abstracts are also available online.

That being said (and re-said, as fate would have it), uncited sources, or sources from offline, unverifiable sources don't belong in articles where an unscrupulous individual (or cabal of individuals) with a specific political agenda could make use of damaging and grossly inaccurate information shortly before an election, with the goal of altering the outcome of said election. The need for scloser scrutiny by WP in political campaigns is not a perhaps thing.It is absolutley needed. How many edits and editwars have been fought just in this single article? How many IP snipers have come in to delete text or alter language with no repercussions except for maybe a clock,at which point they just move on to the next sock puppet and do the same thing? Too many timers is the only correct answer here, OliverH. You advocate a policy that is likely - no, scratch that - WOULD absolutely be used by people (either unscrupulous vandal monkeys or folks with a political axe to grind, or just some chucklehead with a god complex) to insert un-checkable information right before the election, and have the stink of it last while concerned individuals work overtime to confirm the veracity of the information. I am sorry; it is quite simply the wrong approach, and that you cannot see this is disturbing to say the least.

This contention I have with articles being neutral - especially for a candidate that I think deserves a solid hickory-stick beating for the negative campaign he has run - is that of simple fairness. I do not believe in the end justifying the means. I do not think that it is okay to win by any method. I protect Roskam because I have to, to be able to defend Duckworth. I have to defend Bush, in order to be able to claim the high ground when defending political figures more to my liking. This is not an 'armchair' concern. This is a fairness concern. If an online encyclopedia cannot provide links to online sources, well, the efficacy of that online encyclopedia comes into question. It is not about the energy involved in seeking out an offline source; it is about the envirnment that the informaton is provided. It is not intellectual sloth, as you put it, but rather demanding of a higher standard of proof that protects the subjects of the articles, the editors and WP from subsequent legal ramifications, but more importantly, it protects the casual user, who comes to WP to seek out information.

Do the leg work. The sources are there, and verifiable, intellectually honest sources are an absolute must for time-critical events like political campaigns and elections.Arcayne 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is absolutely ridiculous that you tell ME to do the legwork when you are too refuse to get out of your armchair. You can try to lecture us all here on how the world is flat, the fact is that the sheer fact that you declare offline sources to be unverifiable doesn't make them so. It merely underscores sloth and dishonesty on your part. And your efforts to rewrite wikipedia policy on an article discussion page underscore that. If you want to limit Wikipedia to the mindless drivel on the web, do so at WP:RS. This isn't the place. I have all sympathies for Duckworth, but what you are doing here doesn't do her a favor at all. It suggests that to support her, you have to engage in shoddy research and hand-picked sourcing, which, far from making the contents of the article more believable, makes it less credible. Limiting the sources to what is convenient for you to verify is, plain and simply, censorship. And I doubt she would tolerate your calling for that in her name. Offline sources are verifiable. They just require a bit more leg work. Which is why your calling for me to do the legwork is so ridiculous. The credibility of sources is not defined by being within reach of your fridge and your remote. Your ideas about the "efficacy" demonstrate well that it's not the verifiability that's the point here, it's sloth. Research requires work. If you're unwilling to put that in, at least don't hinder those who aren't. --OliverH 07:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are arriving at this archair analogy, but I think they would go further if you addressed your concerns a bit more politely. If you are unable to do so, I would suggest you have a nice cup of tea and sit down. Please do not attack me for suggesting the obvious. Then again, perhaps the obvious is not as clear as I have been striving to make it for you. Do I advocate a clarification as to WP 'rules of article engagement' where it concerns political candidates currently standing for election? Of course I do.The current rules do not sufficiently protect WP from unscrupulous folk with an eye on using the online encyclopedia as a free propoganda tool at the eleventh hour in an attemtp to influence public opinion and, perhaps, an election. Surely a reasonable person would be able to see the vast potential for abuse.

Am I suggesting that offline references lack legitimacy? Absolutely, positively not. I believe I have clearly stated previously that the problem with offline sources is the length of time verifying the veracity and accurate interpretation of that source. At no time did I attack the credibility of aforementioned offline resources. Allow me to repeat that here, because I am concerned that you have missed that key issue: I am not stating that offline resources are not credible; they may very well be. I am stating that these sorts of sources do not belong in time-sensitive, controversial, tendentious issues like political campaigns. Due to their nature, these sorts of articles require immediately citable sources, so as to avoid unscrupulous persons from using WP as a propoganda tool.

A very clear example of this would be someone this afternoon posting a report that a political candidate was once arrested for child molestation, and citing an offline source that takes a period of time to verify. It may be accurate, but what if it's not? The accusation has done untold damage to a public figure's reputation in the time before it is deleted as an incorrect source, and may very well cost them the election. What is the cost to the scumbag who uploaded the spurious information? Perhaps they are blocked or banned, a small price to pay for them, and untold damage to the reputation of WP. Granted, this is the worst-case scenario, but I think we have all learned through hard lessons to not be a pollyanna about these matters.

Am I calling for a ban on offline, non-internet-ready references in all cases? Absolutely, positively not. While finding a source for which there is not at the very least an online abstract is nigh impossible (or worthy of not, according to WP policy), I am suggesting that, in the instances of political candidates currently running for office, immediately-viewable resources should be required. I have already described above the possibilities for abuse, and they are nowhere near remote. If anything, 527 groups (like the Swift Boat for Truth thugs) and others have clearly demonstrated their willingness to use whatever tactics necessary to make sure their candidate wins. I am not even advocating that we ban them from contributing. I am strongly suggesting that these types warrant very close supervision. Allowing for offline source citation opens a door for the most extreme distortion of the parent source or citation of a non-existent of rare/unavailable sources, with little lead time before they can be verified.

I submit to you, that this is precisely the place to ensure that only credible sources make it online. There is little way to verify an offline source with the immediacy that a political campaign requires. I submit to you also, that this process of discussion is exactly how existing policy is adapted, and new policy is adopted. That the formal policy is constituted in WP:RS is an afterthought, a final product of what is made in the crucible of these discussion pages. In a very real way, this IS the place where that discussion should happen.Arcayne 18:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Arcayne, your proposal is not supported by Wikipedia policy. The 'child molester' thing is covered by wp:blp — goethean ॐ 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I submit, Goethean, that while the example (extreme as it is) may in fact be covered by WP:BLP, citing a source for what essentially constitutes an ambush that cannot be immediately verified is quite simply irresponsible. If it is a violation of policy (or a brazen lie), it cannot be immediately verified until after the damage has already been done. I am suggesting that we take steps to mitigate the possible damage. I am not calling for some massive re-working of how WP operates. Everything I have suggested follows both the spirit and letter of the Five Pillars of WP. I am suggesting that we exercise diligent caution, as there are larger matters at stake then a bad quote on a Spongebob Squarepants article.Arcayne 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsements

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

[edit] This is an encyclopedia not her campaign web site

This article reads like it was written by her campaign staff. I will probably be attacked for "attacking" a disabled veteran, and I acknowledge that Maj. Duckworth is a true American hero, but this article is very POV. --rogerd 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What specific changes would you like to see made to the article? I'm certainly willing to work with you. Propol 05:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

MY answer is most of it... every thing below "Military service" read like a Tammy Duckworth campaign flyer with absolutely no balance or NPOV. Now, for starters, and one that defies logical argument is the simple question... How do you Swiftboat..see Swiftboating for details, a real live war hero??? The implications are made with staining allegations and unverified speculations from bloggers and left leaning editorial commentators. No verified facts, just pure Ad Hominem attack with a good dose of | Non Causa Pro Causa .

Finally, Why is there is nothing about the nasty Campaign flyers Friends for Duckworth have sent out on this or Roskam Article, again ..Why? See WP:SENSE and try to add that factual information, it will be removed off this article very quickly as Popol lovingly protects this article from any negative contributions. Don't take my word or even believe me, look and see the entry logs and histories for your self. Joehazelton 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is completely filled with glowing campaign flyer copy about her and bashing and negativity about Roskam. It should be noted that Propol is a single purpose account, mostly editing on the Duckworth and Roskam Page. Propol protectes the Duckworth page, and dumps any thing negative and near slanderous entry on the Roskam article. It is painfully clear what is happening and should be noted that most of the information on both article is not encyclopedic and conforming to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV Also, Propol is very smart and aggressive to use wikirulez to get his way. See his histories and confirm, don't take my word for it. Beware, to question means geting bad from those that protect this article Joehazelton 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Joehazelton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Joehazelton, please stop your personal attacks against me. I have edited a couple of dozen articles and am hardly a single purpose account, you on the other hand...

I removed the section below from the article. I don't doubt it's accuracy, but I think we should try to find more authoritative sources. The unhinged press release deserves some kind of mention in the article. Making a play on words to ridicule an opponent and point out their prosthesis is utterly shocking. — Possible single purpose account: Propol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.Propol 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A target for swiftboating

It has been alleged that the same group of political consultants, media strategists and communication experts who swiftboated, John Kerry in 2004 will reportedly now target, among other veterans, Duckworth. ^[1][2]

The Washington Post has confirmed that "Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies."^[3]

The headline of a press release released by the Roskam campaign on September 7, 2006 described Duckworth as "unhinged". The press release described the language used in a Duckworth direct mailing as "shrill"^[4]

According to James Boyce, The Patriot Project was founded to defend John Murtha, Duckworth and others from being smeared as disloyal or unpatriotic.^[5][6]

Propol, this is not the first time that Roskam has made oblique reference to his opponent's handicap. Check out the results of this google search — goethean ॐ 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The best way we can filter out this nonsense is not by fighting fire with fire, but fighting fire with water; in this case, water being neutrality. We stay above the fray, and edit out of existence any attempt by these Swiftboating scumbags to use Wikipedia as their low-cost, propaganda-spewing, multimedia bullhorn. As well, we carefully edit (and possibly protect from retaliatory revison) these candidate's entries, making damn sure we take no sides in this matter. A lot of people use WP (probably inadvisedly, considering the nature of the site) to research political candidates. We must remain neutral. Otherwise, we are just another swiftboater. Pete 23:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Free Speech is not free folks; it requires vigilance. I don't care if Roskam's campaign manager swears that the candidate molests dead squirrels. We do not rise to the bait and open ourselves - and by association, WP - to subjective attack by unscrupulous, cynic-minded folk.-arcayne

As an addendum, if Roskam swore as to his opponents necrophilic bestiality, that would in fact be noteworthy. :) Arcayne 23:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swiftboating

In an edit summary, User:Fisherking wrote Swiftboating a decorated war hero is illogical and just fanciful paranoia.

Ever hear of Max Cleland? — goethean ॐ 15:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny he's a democrat, now I have not heard of the Honorable Mr. Max Claland??? Besides, what's does that have to with this and the illogical charge of Swiftboating a Genuine War Hero like Tammy Duckworth, who honorable served this country? I have not seen any material, what so ever, showing any thing negative about Ms. Tammy Duckworth's Military service, which would be nessary under the defintion of "Swift Boating".

Show me and the fine readers and editors real (realiably sourced facts, Not editorial speculations, commentary, or idle gossip, from rags and blogs then you will have a point.Fisherking 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that Wikipedia reports on idle speculation all of the time. — goethean ॐ 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's rather the problem, isn't it? Too many people, inserting their own political agendas in a realm designed solely - I repeat: solely - for neutral commmentary and observation. This is an encyclopedia, not the Justice League. If you see biased entries, do (as you suggested I do) check the discussion pages, argue your point, and make the appropriate changes to return the entry to a neutral state. And of course, do not write anything that can be construed as biased, as well. Even if you think your guy (or gal) is getting a raw deal. We aren't in the justice business, nor are we in the "fair-and-balanced" business. We are in the fact business. I cannot see why it would be difficult to comprehend that. We leave our political and personal views at the door, and simply write the facts. I realize that we don't have a lot of role-models in that category, news programs and society being what it is, but to give in and allow WP to be used as a tool for the corrupt and self-serving is surrender. Tell the hard truth, and only the hard truth. If you are wrong, there are others that will help you (and the entry) get itself in order. Arcayne 06:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] attacks vs. criticism

User:NatusRoma removed the header reading "Attacks on Duckworth" and replaced it with one that says "Criticism from opponents". Is calling your opponent "unhinged" more accurately and neutrally described as criticism or an attack? — goethean ॐ 14:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the point, Goethean. NatusRoma acted appropriately by changing the header. The new header is a good start on distancing WP from the political fray, and not taking sides. Whether the candidate's opponent called her unhinged or a three-handled credenza is immaterial. What someone else says about the candidate is not germane to the entry. Period. The entry is supposed to deal exclusively with the facts about the candidate, the positions of the candidate, and WORDS of the candidate herself. Anything else is subject to interpretation, and we editors at WP are not in the interpretation business. We are in the fact business. I've addressed this with you before. You might have strong feelings about this candidate, and that is precisely why you should step back a little to regain your usually impeccable focus. You might think that you are acting in the best interests by including what can be seen as attacks, but we are required to be above the fray. By staying neutral (and policing ourselves thusly), we become empowered to prevent abuses by others with less-altruistic agendas.

Having discussed this here, I have replaced your reversion to the more neutral NatusRoma alternative. Please leave it be, or defend why your preferred header of "Attacks on Duckworth" is more neutral.

A side note: I am not sure why we are including anything other than DIRECT opposition by the candidate here. It doesn't speak to the nature, words or actions of the candidate, and their inclusion seems very much like bias.Pete 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

If I recall my thoughts correctly, "Attacks on Duckworth" seemed a bit too sensational, so I changed it to something with a more neutral tone. Naturally, like all biographical articles, this one should include critical comments about Duckworth where appropriate. NatusRoma | Talk 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you here, NatusRoma. I think we need to be vigilant in how we crop critical commentary. If it is criticism based upon what the entrant has done or said, then it is wholly appropriate. If it is notation of negative campaigning by the opposition that requires a reflexive repudiation or correction by the entrant, then that is also appropriate. The gray area begins there, though; where the notation takes on the appearance of bias against the opponent, or defense of the entrant. From there, it is a slippery slope to the inevitable name-calling, and of course, objectivity goes out the window. That is to be avoided at all costs.Arcayne 06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Something else I was wondering: is there a reason why Roskam's comments about Al-Jazeera were included in Duckworth's entry? She was not there, did not send the reporter from Al-Jazeera, and has made little in the way of comment about it (at least, none that was cited). Since it seems better inserted in the entry for Peter Roskam, it begs the question as to why it was entered here. Comments, please...Arcayne 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

She stands accused of being a proxy for terrorists. It is a notable fact about Duckworth that she has been the victim of a scorched-earth campaign. Any neutral contemporary or future biographical article will note this fact. — goethean ॐ 18:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite clearly, we will have to await that future assessment, as it is an obviously contentious matter at this time. It is neither your place nor mine to officiate the fairness of such accusations (which you rather paraphrased). It is not the place of WP or its editors to come to the defense of Tammy Duckworth or her election opponent; to do so flied in the very face of neutrality, as defined by the Second Pillar of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. The very fact that you are looking at her opponent's strategy as "scorched earth" indicates that you are unclear as to the inherent bias of that statement, as well as being unclear as to the meaning of "scorched earth". Perhaps it is time to have a nice cup of tea and sit down.Arcayne 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

A peer-review of this article was asked by the Biography project. The suggestions of the pee-review were not taken into serious consideration, but this is not the reason I comment here. My problem is that I came in here to archive this old-peer-review and I found it missing from the Biography project banner! Why? Don't you care about this article's history and the reviews, in case somebody decides to improve it some time in the future? I hope it was just a mistake, but, in any case, somebody should have noticed it. The peer-review history of the article is back now.--Yannismarou 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently reconstituted the {{WPBiography}} banner here; and didn't include the archived peer review because I didn't know about it. The "duh" question is why I didn't check; simply because so few articles have had one. If it wasn't already annotated, I didn't have any reason to assume one had been done. Sorry for the ire this may have caused. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 11:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Revisions

User:Arcayne, please discuss your deletions. Otherwise, I intend to revert your changes. — goethean ॐ 14:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for making rational changes to what was obviously biased writing; moreover, I apologize for not discussing them in advance. Speaking candidly, I am not interested in getting into a shouting match over what you feel are the enormous unfairnesses of peer-review. Rather than threatening to simply revert my changes, perhaps you could bring your own problems with said revisions here beforehand and we can discuss them. For my part, I will state my recommended changes and/or deletions before making them.Pete 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Why are you so snippy? You deleted several entire paragraphs without discussion. That is generally considered vandalism and is immediately reverted. I thought that I would be polite and attempt to discuss your changes instead. I take your comments to indicate that you don't care to defend your edits and don't mind having them reverted. Why would you delete the section on Roskam calling Duckworth "unhinged"? A direct quotation from a press release is "obviously biased writing"? What about Roskam pointedly asking a crowd why Al Jazeera is in the sixth district? Pointing that out is "obviously biased writing"? And calling your opponent "unhinged" is not criticism. It is an attack. Call a spade a spade. — goethean ॐ 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am not going to get into snippy match with you, Gothean. I've seen how they end usually unproductive and amazingly stupid in scope and scale. So I will leave the weapons of distraction at the door if you will. okey-doke? :)

Let's address your concerns:First of all, the press release cited was unsigned and from the RoskamForCongress website. As you did not cite a major news source that reused the material, I must presume that it might not exist. So, you are quoting what could essentially be an extraordinarily biased blog that has only the most peripheral connection to Roskam. Its inclusion is an attack on Roskam, failing the litmus test for neutrailty (one of the 5 Pillars). Thirdly, what does Roskam's comment about Al-Jazeera have to do with Tammy Duckworth's entry? It tells us nothing about her, or her politics, or anything else of consequence. It does, however, tell us quite a bit about Peter Roskam...which is where this comment really belongs. And since he actually said it, it is neutral (we are not in the bias business, Goethean; we are however allowed to snicker when some fool puts his foot in his mouth). However, it does not belong in Duckworth's entry. It has nothing to do with her. As well, I have noted that you have again - without the peer review that you chastised me for - changed back the title of the header. the use of the term attack is non-neutral. And since Peter Roskam has not charged Duckworth with an axe or shot at her with a gun, then the proper term here is cirticism. You were over-ruled on this decision by two other editors (who took the time to comment), 2-1. It is changing back. Please, leave it be, or the matter will be escalated. Goethean, I don't know why you have to be reminded that this is not the Justice League, where you set out to right the world's wrongs. Roskam might be a scumbag. and his political machinery is almost certainly so, but aside from pointing it out as smear tactics, it is highly inappropriate to jump to the defense of Duckworth. Using the term of attack inspires violent imagery, and since there hasn't been an actual physical attack on Duckworth, it should be replaced with more neutral terminology. Leave it to others to point out what is and is not a spade. Our job is to simply show the hole that the spade created.Arcayne 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I must presume that it might not exist

What? I provided a link to it. Maybe my link was deleted, but a simple google search turns it up. I quoted no blog.

Actually, you quoted a news analysis, which is a half-step above a blog. My apologies for mis-naming the type of bias cited, as well as the non-existence of the citation (it was found after following an internal link within the source link). What is the issue with providing basic news story, unretouched by analysis? What is the issue with allowing the reader to arrive at their own conclusions regarding the candidates, without the filtered sources spinning their interpretation of the facts? And why not, if it is a simple Google search, use the clearer link instead of a dead or misleading one?Arcayne 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "attack" doesn't necessary mean "physical attack". My wording is perfectly factual and neutral. — goethean ॐ 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I might suggest that if I were to say: 'I am going to attack you because your edits are unsubstantiated,' you might take considerably more offense than if I said 'I am going to oppose your edits because they are unsubstantiated.' The difference in tone is crystal clear, and overrides a simple thesaurian choice, but I am sure you are aware of the semantical nature of your argument, as well as the nature of filtered source links. What is the matter with using the word oppose? Why are you determined to demonstrate bias and revert any neutral change back to stronger, obviously more biased language. Please don't waste time over semantics.Arcayne 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop accusing me of inserting bias into the article. My motives are frankly none of your business. I used the term 'attack' because it was the most accurate word to describe the situation. Here are some examples of newspapers using the word 'attack' to describe political attacks: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] google search

The point is moot anyway because the wording of the header has been changed. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed there was no need for you to bring it up as rebuttal. Let's move on.Arcayne 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall 2006 Revisions

The text reads:

On October 24, actor and Parkinson's disease sufferer Michael J. Fox appeared at a fundraiser for Duckworth at Arrowhead Golf Course in Wheaton, supporting Duckworth's stance on embyronic stem cell research.[21]Duckworth's opponent attempted to pre-empt the appearance by holding a simultaneous press conference featuring a cancer survivor who was treated with his own cells.[22]

Since the Roskam conference was not recited from more neutral sources, I found a more neutral source, which adds neutrality to the entry without removing content. The article now reads:

On October 24, actor and Parkinson's disease sufferer Michael J. Fox appeared at a fundraiser for Duckworth at Arrowhead Golf Course in Wheaton, supporting Duckworth's stance on embyronic stem cell research.[21] Roskam organized a news conference just hours before his Democratic opponent in the 6th Congressional District race was to appear with actor Michael J. Fox in support of embryonic stem cell research. (italics mark the new text)

This new version will replace the old citation. the newer citation - as stated before - is better as it is pure news and not news analysis (and therefore biased).

What are you talking about? My version was perfectly factual. Roskam holds a press conference at the same time as his opponent has one with a celebrity. Obviously Roskam's was timed to take some of the momnentum from Duckworth's. That's not editorial opinion, that's simply reporting. And a newspaper reported it. And I quoted the newspaper. And you deleted it because you feel that it's somehow not neutral. Your logic is eluding me. — goethean ॐ 19:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder why the wording was changed from "Duckworth's opponent attempted" to "Roskam organized a news conference just hours before his Democratic opponent" Why is Tammy Duckworth suddenly being referred to as "Pete Roskam's opponent" on her own entry? I have to agree with Goethean that this is wrong. It is also redundant, rephrasing part of the previous sentence. Is it necessary to again refer to Michael J. Fox by full name and mention again that he was there in support of embryonic stem cell research?

This smacks of making it "neutral" to the POV advantage of her opponent.

---Couillaud 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I will make the necessary change. — goethean ॐ 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here Arcayne call ABC News a biased source (presumably, given your changes, biased to the left). ABC News is a legitimate reliable source of news for this article. — goethean ॐ 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here User:Arcayne 'falsified a quotation from a Tribune article. Here's the article. Don't do that. — goethean ॐ 19:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Arcayne has taken to deleting sections of text that are referenced to an non-working newspaper article link. However, Wikipedia editors are not limited to online sources. If the citation has a reference to the print edition of a newspaper article, that is a valid citation unless it is found to be inaccurate. Do not delete sections of text merely because a URL has stopped working. — goethean ॐ 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

. User:Couillaud - oops, that was a revising mistake on my part. Thanks for catching it, and please understand that no partisanship or bias was at all intended. I would have changed it, but it would appear that Goethean has already done so. The cited source was a news analysis,and not pure news, thus the language of having "attempted to pre-empt" Duckworth's press conference was altered to more accurate and neutral wording. Roskam didn't attempt to hold a press conference - he did hold a press conference. Nor did he pre-empt Duckworth's press conference - her press conference occurred, despite his simultaneous conference. The difference is clear.

. User: Goethean - while I happen to concur with your assessment of ABC News' neutrality, the relevant source you had cited was a news analysis - about a half-step away from a blog - from within ABC; essentially, a opinionated commentary. It would seem to me that quoting opinions evades the point of neutrality of WP. How hard is it to find pure news sources and quote from that?

And the failure to enclude the entire quote from the Tribune was unintentional. Please try to use more civil language, and not accuse your fellow editors of falsification simply because they seek a more neutral viewpoint than you. It was a mistake, not a deliberate or intentional effort to deceive or alter perceptions.

Lastly, if material cannot be cited, it cannot be included, especially if it is contentious material or sources where caution is prescribed (Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:RS). It seems disingenuine to argue that editorial citations are not required when there is - quite obviously a clear need for them.Arcayne 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A citation is not necesarily a weblink. Example:

Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empires, p. 455

is a perfectly legitimate citation. Similarly, if there is a magazine or newspaper article that does not have a corresponding internet edition, it can still be cited:

Yes, but - as you have pointed out in the past - a simple Google search can likely find the direct quote from that particular source. Gibbon has been published a number of times, and one edition's page #455 may not correspond to another's. I did a simple google search, and found no less than 10 pages regarding both Gibbon and the book in question. In regards to periodicals, there is almost always an online source to verify the veracity of the information. It just requires the legwork that should be automatic when citing a source. Anything less than a citable source is just laziness.

"McLuhan interview", Playboy, October 1966, p. 50.

That is another perfectly legitimate citation. It doesn't make the source or the cityation any less reilable because there is no online edition. Editors wishing to confirm the accuracy of the reference can make a trip to the local library and look it up. You should really take these issues up on WP:RS. — goethean ॐ 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was an online source: [9] and here: [10], and hey, right here (with mirrors) in WP, too: Marshall_McLuhan. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and it follows that the sources cited for articles considered contentious be provided online. It just requires research skills, not an arrogance that we should take editors at their word and trust - against precedent - that they are going to be unbiased and avoid weasel language.

Being an editor means one has to do some actual editing. That includes fact-checking for the best possible source, and not taking the first one that happens to agree with a personal viewpoint. You really might consider taking a closer look at WP:RS as well as Guidelines_for_controversial_articles, although this is not the first time that I have suggested that course of action.Arcayne 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unwarranted Heavy Deletion without peer review is vandalism

User:75.2.250.145, please do not delete large secions of text without discussing them beforehand. That is considered vandalism. Don't do that. You may discuss the matter to the discussion area and continue from theer. As well, you might consider that appearing anonymously (via an IP address and not a User:Name) can be suspect, as many rather unbalanced trolls use this sort of method to vandalize text. While you may disagree with the viewpoints expressed, you are required to submit to both peer review and WP policy. Please do not alter the text without allowing for the aformentioned peer review to occur. After all, WP is a collection of users.Arcayne 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was removing vandalism obviously put in by her campaign staff. 75.2.250.145 06:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As much as I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, I am finding it impossible to do so. Your account is an utter and complete lie, and you make mass deletions in the middle of the night. While some have an agenda here, you are the only one deleting entire paragraphs of text, and doing so without peer review. If you change any text or delete again, I will call for you to be blocked. I am sure that isn;t a new situation for you, Joehazleton. Please save yourself the trouble and find somewhere else to haunt. If you aren't this other person, then you should explain yourself, especially the fake account. (sorry everyone else - I think the above person is a toad, and the sort who makes our jobs harder.)Arcayne 08:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the other edit put in place by User: 75.2.250.145 - a news article in German - here is a pretty awful translation (sorry, my high school German is pretty rusty):

Triumphant advance disabled veterans - fall one Bush soldier Of Marc Pitzke, New York In the US election campaign stand as a candidate for the first time to Iraq veterans for the congress. Among them a republican, who defends the war - and a Demokratin, against it fights: It lost both legs in the Iraq. It is chanceless, it Favoritin. A symbol for that Opinion change of the nation. New York - Van Taylor, 34, was one first US Soldier in the Iraq. Still before beginning of the invasion the reservist advanced 2003 with the naval infantrymen to behind the fine lines. It survived some Fedajin ambushes, saved wounded comrades and was after own Data at the release of the soldier Jessica lynch taken part, those the Pentagon to the propaganda heroine clarified. It fought for three medals, turned after four months intact home and made in real estates. Also Tammy Duckworth, 38, served in the Iraq. Years after Taylor it was used one and a half as helicopter female pilot of the national guard. In November 2004 its Black Hawk was met by an antitank missile. Duckworth lost both legs almost and right arm. She spent 13 months in one Rehablitation hospital, learned to run laboriously with prostheses again and got “PUR-polarizes Heart”, the automatic US medal for injury or death at the front.

It does have something to do with the article, but I am wondering why the inclusion of foreign language article is here. Is there such a dearth ofnews stories on this topic in English that we must turn to the foreign press? Granted, there might be Illinois expats living in Germany, or Germans living in Chicago, but why would they care about a congressional race in the 6th district? All of this sounds hinky to me.Arcayne 08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You are a very confused man, Arcayne. I never created any German articles, I do not speak any German. I am not this other person you speak of and I have no clue why you think I would be. My edits are not vandalism. The majority of my edits are adding people to categories that they belong in. I removed sections from the Tammy Duckworth article that don't belong in an encylopedia. Also, the 6th District is not in Chicago.

I checked the other guy's edits you accuse me of being and I see that his edits were mostly related to Peter Roskum and Tammy Duckworth. Just because another person edits one of those articles, do you automatically assume that it's that person? I guess this guy had mostly anti-Tammy Duckworth edits, and you believe that my edit was anti-Tammy Duckworth, and that there is only one person in the world who is anti-Tammy Duckworth (There are more than one, and I am not one of them).

I suggest that you apologize to me for these accusations not only out of respect for me, but for you to savage some dignity for yourself. 75.2.250.145 19:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. perhaps I was vehement in my accusations, and I think that is just me being disgusted with the vandals running about thinking they can act without peer review; so maybe you felt the full weight of my ire towards that segment; were it unwarranted, I will apologize. It appears I was wrong in suggesting you were the editor that supplied the Germn news link. For that I am very sorry. That being said, I am not yet convinced you are a legitimate user. However, I won't post anything more like this here (as there are more appropriate venues to pursue this sort of suspicion), but my personal opinion remains unchanged. Please be very, very careful in the edits you make here from now on. You attracted the wrong sort of attention because your actions were unilateral.Arcayne 23:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military question

I was just interested if it is standard practice for the US military to promote a serviceperson who has been injured. The fact that a pilot has been shot down does not seem to warrant a promotion. I imagine it softens the blow of permanent injury to have a higher rank (and higher benefits). I am not asking in relation to Tammy Duckworth per se (I don't have any opinion about her or her candidacy); I'm just curious about military tradition.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.218.120.201 (talk • contribs).

Ut's a good question, but I am not entirely sure of the answer. It mighthave a great deal to do with the circumstances surrounding how the injury were incurred. Someone losing an arm while in a firefight might be worth the standard Purple Heart; someone losing thesame arm while fighting off a tank battalion so that injured teammates could reinforce their position or call for reinforcements might be entitled to abit more, reflecting the highest values of the military service. Promotong such individuals tends to supportsuch values. As softening the blow of losing one or more limbs, one cannot eat with a fork using rank insignia; I would not imagine that there is any softening of the injury aftermath, nor do I think the military believes in this philosophy.Arcayne 14:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robo Calling

This part of the article has a slant against Roskam and his campaign, and then misquotes Campaign Law. Please Discuss Removal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:66.93.119.157 (talk • contribs).

According to the Elk Grove Times, The National Republican Congressional Committee has paid a Richmond, Virginia contractor to call Sixth district voters with a recording that says: "Hi. I'm calling with information about Tammy Duckworth..." The repetitive frequency of these calls has annoyed people and has hurt the Duckworth campaign's ability to speak to voters. The Duckworth campaign has characterized the calls as harassment.[64] This tactic may be a form of political dirty tricks. The Daily Herald reported that the NRCC spent $9,000 on robocalls to help Peter Roskam in a single week. This translates into approximately 180,000 calls.[65] Because the recording did not announce its patron at the beginning of the message, the robocalls were in violation of federal regulations.[66]

This is reporting what was stated in a newspaper, and does not mention Roskam at all (for which reason I fail to see a "slant" against him), only the NRCC, which spent the money for the robocalls. I'm not sure at all that campaign law is being misquoted (you offer no example of what that might be). I see no reason to remove it, as it was simply an account of the news of the day. If you have some followup that exonerates the NRCC, please include it. --- Couillaud 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The campaign law was having too announce who the phone calls were from at the beginning, that is not the case. They have to be included, but at any stage. I worked on a campaign, and have some knowledge of the law. So, I propose that it be removed. Also, does that portion below on Duckworth's page, why not Roskam's or on the House Elections, 2006 page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.119.157 (talk • contribs).

If you're going to continue this discussion, then I'd like to suggest that you establish a regular ID and sign your notes. It's easier than calling you "User:66.93.119.157".

As far as campaign law goes, I worked on campaign ads in my own state (Kansas), and the Federal law does indeed require that phone messages identify on behalf of whom the call is being made early on, not necessarily at the beginning, but at least before mentioning an opponent's name, in order to avoid exactly what the NRCC was doing, which was giving a false impression to voters that the annoying robocalls (which kept calling the same numbers over and over) that the call actually originated with the opponent. If you want to suggest that this issue be made more clear, then that's fine. But this may have played a significant role in Roskam's win, and there are still legal challenges to this behavior, so it is still relevant, and I'd vote against removal.

Do you still believe that this is "slanted against" Roskam, or is that objection withdrawn? --- Couillaud 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Couillaud, claiming that the robocalls were illegal goes beyond what the source says. Claiming that they were dirty tricks is editorializing. This is an encyclopedia article, not an opinion column; and while I respect your opinion, it has no place in an encyclopedia article. Please review WP:ATT, particularly the bits about original research and unpublished synthesis of published material. If a source doesn't say it, the Wikipedia article can't say it. Kzq9599 05:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Robocalling accusation from the Roskam article based on the two press releases linked here. The DCCC press release called it illegal, while the Republican release claimed they were only duplicating democrat efforts in other states and that the calls were in compliance with the law. No charges have been filed on this and both press releases are from law firms. This was a purely political accusation, a last ditch attempt to create a scandal by the Duckworth campaign. There is no need to include a one sided version of the story. --Dual Freq 11:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. There is no place for political theater in an encyclopedia article, except in an encyclopedia article titled, "Political Theater." Kzq9599 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the robocalling was "within the law", (actually, I didn't write that, but simply restored an earlier one), but that was only because the law was vague and the RNC exploited a loophole. The loophole was that while the law required that such calls identify their source, it did not specify that the source be named right up front, and it had failed to address the issue of redialing.

The RNC made a series of purposefully annoying robocalls that identified Tammy Duckworth in the opening few seconds but did not identify the source till the very end. If you were a target of the call, it would continually redial your number if you hung up before the end, and there were a series of three or four calls that would all go to that number within a few hours. The robocalls came at all hours of the day and night, which actually is a violation of FCC regulations. It targeted potential Duckworth voters. In addition to the Illinois 6th, such calls were reported in the New York 19th, Illinois 8th, California 4th, New York York 19th, and New Hampshire 2nd. This tactic was unique to the RNC.

There is no parallel on the Democratic side. They made robocalls also in races, but identified the source up front (as has been the practice), and did not engage in the harrassing redials. I do not believe that "dirty tricks" in this case is a case of "weasel words", nor do I agree with Kzq9599's description of it being "political theatre". This was a unique negative campaign tactic, was unfair and misleading, was limited to one side only, may have had a significant effect on the election, and I believe that reporting it is as a dirty trick is not one-sided. -- Couillaud 17:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

NRCC claimed to be duplicating DNC efforts in disclaimers and placement of the disclaimer. Maybe not done in this district / race, but these phone calls appear to be done by both sides. Please link to the article that explains that the NRCC or Roskam was fined / cited by the FCC for a violation. As for the rest of this article, the last part is a block quote farm. The ref style is not consistent and note 43 is blank. It needs some serious fact and NPOV checking. External links contain a link to a German language site and a blog. Oddly, this article mentions her opponent's contributors, but not her own contributors. There seems to be a lot of work needed here. --Dual Freq 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dual Freq said that "these phone calls appear to be done by both sides."

Please, I have cited specific races in which the RNC used this tactic (and there were a total of 53), and the only citation in response is a letter from an RNC lawyer that said in effect "So did the other guys", without a single citation. Please cite something that actually shows that this was a two-sided issue, and that Democrats used the same or similar tactics in specific races. Please see this [11] link for a list of races where Republican robocalls were an issue.

Tammy Duckworth ran robocalls herself, but they immediately identified themselves as from her camp, stayed within the rules, and cannot be compared to the RNC attacks.

If you wish to claim "both sides" used this same tactic, please cite specific instances where this was reported. As much as the Republicans were cited for this behavior, one would think they'd have a list of every Democratic violation.

As for "fined / cited by the FCC for a violation", are you saying that it's not a violation of rules unless you're specifically cited? Are we going to parse words so finely here? I did not say they were found guilty of violations, but that is what you are asking for. The point is, even if they were entirely within the letter of the law, they violated its spirit, and they still qualify as dirty tricks. FCC Title 47 CFR 64.1200(b)(1) states:

"All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages shall at the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call."

Please explain how the robocall was not in violation of this without resorting to "fined/cited".

If you go 75 in a 55, you're in violation of the law, irrespective of whether or not you get caught.

Please go [12] here to listen to some of the robocalls.

-- Couillaud 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing convincing there. This article does a fine job of giving one side of a political issue, a last ditch attempt to create a scandal by the Duckworth campaign. Since this is such an important public issue if it were illegal, the Democrat controlled congress would have demanded FCC prosecution for the "purposefully annoying" ads. Why would the NRCC make an ad that was "purposefully annoying". That wouldn't seem to help their candidate. I suppose the phone message said vote for Roskam or we'll call you at 2am. --Dual Freq 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated by Dual Freq, "I see nothing convincing there.". I never expected you would see anything, or more properly, hear anything to convince you. Your viewpoint is decidedly partisan in this matter, and it does not serve that viewpoint to see anything. You are willing to take the RNC's word that it was simply a widespread practice on both sides, but the only evidence available is that this was a Republican tactic.

Why would the NRCC make an ad that was "purposefully annoying"? If you had actually read the entire statement instead of parsing words again, you would understand that it was made "purposefully annoying" with the intent of making voters think it came from the Duckworth campaign. I note that while attempting to misdirect this discussion, you also fail to address the question I posed about the language of FCC rules.

article does a fine job of giving one side of a political issue. So, show us the other side. Show us where this same tactic was played against Republican candidates. Show us where Democrats have dropped the issue (tightening election and FCC rules is on the agenda). If this presents one side, it might be because there was nothing on the other side to show.

the Democrat controlled congress would have demanded FCC prosecution. Sure. The FCC, with five commissioners, all appointed by the current Republican president. If the Democrats haven't done what YOU think they should have done, then they couldn't have a case. I've heard Rush make that argument before, as if there were only one possible solution to the issue if it were really true. I think Democrats' idea of simply changing the rules to tighten the rules to make them more dirty trick-proof. --- Couillaud 04:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose Bush fired the prosecutor who was working on that. Your viewpoint is decidedly partisan in this matter, and it does not serve that viewpoint to see anything. --Dual Freq 11:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've cited information that Republicans were the only party to have engaged in the abusive robo calling. You have not rebutted.

I've cited the specific FCC regulation regarding the fact that it was indeed a violation of FCC rules. You have not rebutted.

I've pointed out that the robo calling tactic qualifies as as a dirty trick. You've not rebutted.

Your only response so far has been to make snide remarks and attempt to address the most peripheral issues.

By your failure to address the issue of this being (a) a dirty trick, (b), a violation of FCC rules, and (c) entirely a Republican tactic, I must assume that you have conceded the points by default, and that you are now, in effect, banging your shoe on the desk.

Couillaud 13:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You've stated your opinion that it was a dirty trick and you've claimed it was illegal according to your personal legal opinion / interpretation of the law. You've stated your opinion that the calls are intentionally annoying, but there is no benefit to annoying a voter that you want to vote for you. You can copy and paste FCC laws in here all day, I don't see any cited news articles that make your claims. Don't bother posting some blog article. I don't see any charges filed in court and I see no citations or official findings of wrong doing. I also seriously doubt this is a republican only issue as you've claimed. Basically you're saying Democrats made robocalls, but since they were not annoying and not alleged to be illegal by their opponents that makes it OK. --Dual Freq 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I must conclude that you DO concede the point by default. Your entire argument now consists of gainsaying my argument, and parsing my words in order to twist what I've said, and a refusal to provide any evidence to support your argument. You're just trolling now. This is less about accuracy and relevance to you than winning a political point, truth be damned.

I also note that after removing video links because "the election was over months ago", you then loaded the article with irrelevant information about where donations came from, an issue from BEFORE the election, as if such things didn't happen anywhere else, have never favored a Republican, and are in any way unfair.

Maybe instead of putting irrelevant information in both articles, we should instead REMOVE it from both.

Kzq9599 offered to discuss this when we disagreed on some edits, but has unfortunately vanished from any discussion, and now all that passes for such is this sophistry of yours.

I'm sorry, but this is not what I'm here for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Couillaud (talk • contribs) 02:14, March 27, 2007 (UTC)

Right, I conceded that your points are only your opinion. Political matters have two sides. In this case one side claimed the other has done something wrong, no news there. I'm waiting for the indictments on the crime of robocalling, but since you noted above a "loop hole", that indicates you understand it was not illegal. It was very public, and if it was illegal, opponents would have forced prosecution to gain further political advantage. The contribs are going back because they are used in other articles, like Roskam's, Weller's I'm sure others as well. (Goose / Gander thing) At least I didn't include some individuals , see also: Barbara Streisand or Susan Sarandon. Oddly, Duckworth's contribs are linked on Roskam's page, but not here. No mention of her individual contributors either or the fact that many of her contributers were not from her district or state. The Open secrets links indicated that as well. What about top metro area contributors like San Francisco and Los Angeles, those don't sound like they are in Illinois. Interestingly, Roskam's contributors are linked here, on this page to try to smear a little Mark Foley guilt by association on Roskam. This is supposed to be a biography not a press release archive for the Duckworth campaign. --Dual Freq 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A very effective way to ensure an edit war is to use the undo function to revert non-vandalism, cited material. Not very polite I must say. --Dual Freq 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was not reverted for vandalism, but for irrelevance. And you chastising anyone for impoliteness is a Kettle-Pot meeting. -- Couillaud 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'm appearing a bit testy, it's because this article has already been the target of vandalism by pro-Roskam editors during the campaign, and only very recently by some user calling himself "Tammyduckworth" (not a pro-Roskam edit, but a pro-war, pro-Bush edit, actually changing facts and quotes). You're suddenly adding and subtracting things, making it abundantly clear that you have a political agenda for doing so, and your entire argument in favor tends to take the form of deliberately misinterpreting others' statements, making snide remarks, ignoring and gainsaying the information presented because you can't present anything else to counter it), fine. Your only reason to insert the information about is to make it seem wrong that Americans take an interest in Congress as a whole. You act as if the right wing PACs never ask their members and contributors to give money to a candidate that does not represent them. Every major congresional candidate gets out-of-state contributions (and I thing that out-of-district, considering we're talking of Chicago, is stretching the matter), and unless Duckworth's out-of-state contributions were noteworthy and unusual, then the information is irrelevant. Personally, I think that the fact that so many out-of-state individuals supported Duckworth is a sign of her broader appeal, but I still think the information is irrelevant here, as it is on the Roskam article.

But it's already in the Roskam article, and copying and pasting it here is redundant. The Duckworth article links to the Roskam article, and this information is available if any reader were to want more information about the election. What is the value of the information?

As for a non-Wikipedia link "smearing" Roskam, that's not the responsibility of Wikipedia. It is an external link, and if you think it's irrelevant or misleading, you should remove it. I have no problem there. --- Couillaud 03:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This line is the one smearing Roskam about Foley, not an external link, it is in this article. "On October 3, 2006, Duckworth 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.[22]" This line talks about one of Roskam's contributors, but any mention of Duckworth's contributors must be swiftly removed. The addition was relevant, if it is relevant to Roskam's article, I don't see why it is not relevant here. So because I disagree with your opinion and your original research FCC legal analysis I'm banned by you from editing this article. If I'm banned from editing this article because of some perceived POV, then you also should not be editing this article for the same reason. I have 9,200+ main space edits, and my edits to this article are certainly not biased, they are simply stating facts on the linked pages. Yet you compare me to an obvious vandal with 3 edits. Maybe my edit only seems biased in this article because the rest of the article is a press release archive for Duckworth. Keep up the good work keeping out any negative facts about Duckworth. Eventually someone else will see this article and force a cleanup, right now it is in bad shape as I listed above. --Dual Freq 11:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The information posted about the FCC is not "original research", as you claim, any more than quoting the Sixth Amendment. I have added links to two sites that show the FCC language. Interpretation of the relevant section is not difficult to anyone moderately fluent in English.

The statement made by Duckworth during that campaign was part of the news cycle, and your categorization of it as a "smear" is simply your spin on the matter. Your adding the extraneous information about other contributions seems more retaliation for that statement than any real desire to add relevant information. If the accusation was untrue, find exculpatory information. If the accusation was untrue, I'm sure there'd be a link about it in the Roskam article.

As for "banning", I do not have that power to ban anyone, and you've made edits since this, so I fail to see how you have been banned, particularly by me.

Gotta remember to sign these things.Couillaud 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you can properly copy and paste an FCC rule, the original research part is applying it to this situation, which still has not been cited. Where is the article that says that this law fits this situation? As for the "statement made by Duckworth", that's exactly what it is, a political charge made by an opponent during an election cycle. This article lends it undue weight by, assuming it is the correct and full story. --Dual Freq 22:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I CAN copy and paste an FCC rule, since you needed citation, and you disbelieved that any rule was violated. But that is extremely interesting logic to claim that noting that the RNC violated said rule is "original research"; methinks you are stretching the definition to the breaking point.

OTOH, your unique claim that "being in violation" ONLY applies if you get fined for it falls under your interpretation of "original research" much better than my plain-text reading of the FCC rule: by your standard, if you aren't found guilty and fined, then it just didn't happen. The FCC rule (which I have cited in the article) is very clear: the calling party must identify itself or its patron at the beginning of the call. The actual robocalls are documented: they start out referring directly to Tammy Duckworth, and do not identify that they are from the RNC until the end of the call. I stated that the robocalls "were not in compliance with FCC Title 47 CFR 64.1200(b)(1)", and you've asked for a citation with the statement that I have characterized them as "illegal", which is untrue.

I'm not sure what kind of citation you're asking for. I can provide a link to the calls themselves. I can provide the reference to define what a robocall is. Your request is unclear. If it's because you still think I'm using the word "illegal", then you're in spin mode without even reading the statement.

As to Duckworth's charge about Roskam's money: was it true? If not, or if there was a counter-claim, can you cite a source that says so? If you can't, then your earlier claim that it was a "smear" (which I should remind you is a weasel word) could fall under that umbrella you opened called "original research". At the very least, it's violating NPOV.

There are areas of this article that do need to be cleaned up, and they're beyond the time and ability for me to do. If you're going to help, thank you. But I object to the changes that you say are necessary for POV reasons, when what you're doing is removing things that might show Roskam or the RNC in a bad light. If the information is true and relevant, then the information should be there. Couillaud 05:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation needs to say that the calls are illegal according to that law. Additionally, half the paragraph is cited with a dead link Elk Grove Times article so I can't verify that portion. Simply linking to a law and claiming the calls violated it is not a proper citation. Combining two sources, one that says the calls did not say who the caller was at the beginning and another that states the FCC law then combining them saying the calls were illegal according to that law is Original research, Synthesis of published material. I am not a lawyer and for all I know there are specific campaign laws related to campaign advertisements that exclude them from FCC rules. All I see cited here is a press release from DCCC lawyers claiming they are not legal and a rebuttal press release from NRCC lawyers saying they are legal. Since the two law firms differ in their statements, and no charges have been filed, no indictments made and no fines issued, I have to assume that no crime was committed especially since this was so widely publicized by the DNC and DCCC. As you said above they were "within the law" and you cited some loophole which again indicates it was legal. So if they are not illegal, only alleged to be illegal by the opposition, what is the point to the paragraph? Supposedly illustrating some dirty trick? Trying to prove the election was stolen? It is no surprise that a Republican won in the Republican dominant 6th district containing most of the historically Republican DuPage County. The only surprise here is that the race was as close as it was, that is the notable part of this election. Blame robocalls, electronic voting or some other conspiracy theory, but that doesn't change the historical profile of that district / county. --Dual Freq 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not accept your personal interpretation of the facts, nor of what constitutes a synthesis of published material (and neither did the Admin I contacted), but there is now a link to the statement. You won't like it, and you'll complain, but you'd do that anyway. I've provided references, you keep making arguments. I've made my point to the readership in general, since you won't listen. Unless you can show the section is untrue, leave it alone.

The rest of your statement is simply trolling, and does not properly belong on a Talk Page.

-- Couillaud 04:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A for effort, but Congresspedia is not a reliable source per WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet plus it doesn't say anything about the Illinois calls being illegal. Nice try though. I must have missed the admin posting here saying that your opinions were facts. --Dual Freq 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As we've all missed the statement somewhere that you are Lawgiver of Wikipedia. I put the link the Congresspedia as a courtesy, because the word I got was that a citation is not needed simply because Dual Freq says it is. Nice try yourself, but airball. The citation of FCC rules and a description of the act itself was sufficient, and does not constitute original research. Some day you'll grow up to be a good attorney for the RNC, or if they don't want you, a tobacco or oil company. You're getting all the fine techniques of modern sophistry down already.

We all know the reason you're here, which is because you hate everything Democratic, and want to change everything here that might reflect badly on your single-term congressman. All your citations of Wiki rules are excuses. Defining my edit as "original research" is stretching the definition, and if my opinions are not fact (I never said they were), then neither are yours. This ain't Fox News; here, "fair and balanced" means more than "the loudest guy is right".

You never followed up on your "smear" claim before. I assume you never found a reference when challenged, but that you still want a news story hushed because it's "wrong". Is that fact or just your opinion?

Counting the number of edits you've done as a statement of superiority, and quoting Wiki Policy with your opinion of what it means is no better than anything you've accused me of. Make all the changes you want. I'll just politely revert them when you go too far. I have time to do this. -- Couillaud 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS -- Most of the biographical information on this site (marked as citation needed) came directly from the bio on Duckworth's own website ([13]).

All you have done is accuse me of supposedly being POV, partisan and now you assume I "hate everything Democratic". I will no longer respond to your overt trolling. Feel free to continue to talk to yourself and call everyone who disagrees with you an "angry republican". You can disregard my warning above, but that doesn't make citing wiki's or other user created encyclopedias right. I keep forgetting that you are some kind of political operative supposedly working on campaign ads, perhaps next time I will not waste my time dealing with similar people. --Dual Freq 05:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that Dual Freq's interpretation of WP:SYN is correct in this case (and in my opinion). I have held this consistent position in other articles, and have noticed quite a bit of resistance from certain quarters. This policy has been clarified a bit recently, and a lot of people are going to have to give up their little pet statements, because they are OR. - Crockspot 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of video links

Dual Freq removed the video ad links on this page, with the comment that the "election was over months ago". I don't know if that is proper justification for removal. I believe they are still relevant to and provide background to the article itself. If the links are broken, remove them, but if not, I believe they are a valid and relevant supplement to the article.

--Couillaud 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal is per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, and If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. The CNN ones are definite copyvios, the campaign videos may also be copyvio unless they were posted by the copyright holder. I also see no reason linking some old campaign videos unless they are somehow notable enough for their own article like the Daisy Commercial. Wikipedia is not for campaign advertising, the links should have never been there in the first place. Also see WP:EL for blog links and foreign language links. --Dual Freq 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been an issue with the negative campaign tactics (including ads) that were used in this campaign, some of them might actually be apropos to the article. I plan to examine the links, and I may wish to put one or two back if they are appropriate. And campaign videos generally fall under fair use rules. -- Couillaud 02:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)