Talk:Mark Kirk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 current 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 the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

71.228.10.185 has made multiple deletions of properly sourced information in the Mark Kirk article. In fact, this user has violated the three revert rule. At this user's talk page other complaints of blanking have been listed. This appears to be a pattern of vandalism. I will closely monitor this user's edits. I ask an ADMIN to please consider placing a block on this user. Propol 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

71.228.10.185 again deleted sourced information (for a 4th time) without any discussion on the talk page. This user was already warned on their talk page. Will an admin please block this user and semi-protect the Mark Kirk article. Thank you. Propol 16:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dispute Resolution

I've posted a request for a 3rd party to look at this dispute at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Hopefully we can get some resolution to this issue. EJFinneran 22:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a request for Semi-protection on this page. -- EJFinneran 23:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

71.228.10.185 Has removed sourced material that he claims is unrelated even though it deals with the subject of this article. Please make a solid case why this information is unrelated to this article. This user has already broken the three revert rule and has been uncommunicative about his reasons for content deletion.

[edit] Endorsements

There seems to be a dispute about including this:

Kirk is endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. [1] Kirk is endorsed by the Jewish Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs. [2]

Ignoring the not-quite-smooth wording, are these endorsements non-notable? If Kirk were a Democrat, certainly, particularly on the first endorsement, but he's a Republican. John Broughton 01:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Contributors

I'm not a big fan - at all - of going into any detail about who has contributed to which candidate or incumbent, unless the contribution itself is controversial (as, arguably, is the case with money from DeLay and his PACs, and Bob Ney). But Wal-Mart, or Altria? These companies have donated, in all probability, to hundreds of politicians over the years. It's not illegal, and it really doesn't say much except that they prefer someone to whoever is running against him/her, or prefer his/her party to the party of his/her opponent. In other words, this seems to be guilt by association.

Given that this level of detail is absent from virtually every other bio of House incumbents and candidates, I propose to remove perhaps 90% of it. Comments are welcome before I do so. John Broughton | Talk 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

John Broughton, I kindly ask that we retain the contributors section. The Federal Election Commission is a reliable and unbiased source. Many organizations and publications pay careful attention to campaign finance / political contributions, such as the Center for Responsive Politics. Many people deem the contributions to be very relevant. I have seen this level of detail on the articles of other politicians. Please see Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert or U.S. Senator Jim Talent. I'm sure both of these articles receive extensive editorial review from the Wikipedia community. Thanks. Propol 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out Dennis Hastert#Campaign contributors. That section is an excellent example of what a section on contributors 'should be. It is relatively short and covers only major matters. It thus does not give undue weight to the topic, which would be a violation of WP:NPOV.
By contrast, the section in the Mark Kirk article is at least twice as long as that of Hastert's (though I'm sure that Hastert has gotten far more campaign contributions in his life), and provides far less connection to Kirk or indications why such contributions are noteworthy (because, I believe, such is not the case). If the section in the article on Kirk were halved, that would go a long way toward addressing what I think are its faults.
As for the Jim Talent article, I found three sentences about his contributors - so I'm not sure why you offer that as an example. If anything, it seems an example of why the section in the Kirk article is far too long.
I do not dispute that the section meets WP:RS standards. Nor that some people will find it interesting. Just that it's way too long, and detailed, and this level of detail gives undue weight to the topic. John Broughton | Talk 14:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
John Broughton, I am not opposed to edits of the contributors section. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I was concerned that you were advocating for the deletion of the entire section. In my opinion that would be a mistake. I took into consideration your concern of undue weight, and reduced the contributor section by about half. I tried very hard to be NPOV in my editing. I retained language noting support from Abbott and Baxter, which I suspect Kirk supporters will appreciate. I retained the details about Kirk receiving donations from Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, and Duke Cunningham. I'm sure Kirk opponents would want those three mentioned. Although, I did note that in all three cases at least part of the contribution was returned. I hope we're on the same page now. Thanks. Propol 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Very nice - just the right length now, I think. Thank you very much for taking the time to trim this back. John Broughton | Talk 14:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need citation

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