Talk:Peter Roskam/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Deletions

I noted Tom DeLay is facing criminal charges. User:Tdl1060 seems to take exception to this and has made multiple edits to delete this fact. I realize this article is focused on Roskam; however, I strongly believe this is a relevant point. Roskam previously worked for DeLay. Roskam has received funding from DeLay. Roskam has recently spoken in support of DeLay, with his quotes appearing in mainstream publications, such as the Chicago Sun Times. Roskam's own behavior has made Tom DeLay an issue. This is going to be a campaign issue that Democrats will raise. It is inappropriate to ignore this. In the future, please discuss prior to making edits on the DeLay issue. Thanks. 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tdl1060, why are you deleting sourced information from the article ([1]

<Bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Roskam&curid=3193789&diff=45925753&oldid=45856298])? — goethean ॐ 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have a section on contributers and list them specificly, in order to keep the article written from a NPOV, list all of the contributers not just the ones that could make Roskam look bad to some people. Secondly Tom Delay being under indictment has no bearing on the article whatsoever, all it serves to do is bias the article against Roskam. --Tdl1060 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the Delay phrase, and did not add it (an anonymous editor did). But you are wrong about the contributors. These are contribution inforamtion that one editor found notable. If you find other contributions notable, add more information rather than deleting. — goethean ॐ 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You have again deleted information. I will put it back in the article for a third time. — goethean ॐ 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

goethean, you deleted information about Judy Biggert's criticisms of Peter Roskam's support of gambling and tobacco interests. You stated the article is about Roskam. I think criticisms of Roskam's positions by another elected official is relevant. Would it be better form to mention the criticisms without attributing them to Representative Biggert? Your assistance in presenting the material in an appropriate matter would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.137.41 (talk • contribs)

I have now replaced the information that was deleted. What I meant to delete (and did) was the fact that Duckworth accepted money from PACs. Hence my edit summary that this article is about Roskam. It could have been a database burp. — goethean ॐ 20:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Goethean, didn't you say this aricle was about Roskam? Why is McSweeney's criticisms of Kathy Salvi relivant?--Tdl1060 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point. But I would appreciate discussion for future deletions, as some of your edits have been borderline vandalism. — goethean ॐ 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the phrase which calls Joe Dunn a social conservative from the article, just because Joe Dunn may be more conservative than some on social issues does not make him a social conservative over all--Tdl1060 22:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to a poll conducted by the Windy City Times (a publication for homosexuals). Putting poll results in the article by a gay publication on an issue such as this is akin to putting results from an NRA sponsored poll saying a majority of Americans disagree with an assult weopons ban, The Windy City Times clearly is not impartial on this issue--Tdl1060 21:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of deleting sourced information, I would recommend leaving both the poll and the source in, and trust readers to interpret the results. — goethean ॐ 21:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can find poll results by a more impartial source put them in there, but if a user has to rely on questionable sources to make the point they want, I feel it is best left out of the artice.--Tdl1060 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. If you can find another poll that measured the same opinion, please include it. — goethean ॐ 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think poll results from the Windy City Times should be automatically excluded because they're a publication geared towards homosexuals. They are a legitimate newspaper. Granted their editorial positions are likely in favor of gay rights; however, this doesn't discredit their polling or reporting. The Chicago Tribune has consistently endorsed Republican Presidentail candidates throughout recent history. That doesn't mean their criticism of a Democratic candidate should be dismissed without consideration. I'll live with your deletion. The reason I'm going to let it go -- I'm afraid too many readers will have a similar reaction as you did and reject the findings due to the source. Instead I noted business groups, such as the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, were in support of the legislation. I hope this conveys the legislation does have a broad-based appeal. There are several traditionally Republican groups that backed this legislation (and many others who quietly stood to the side so it could be passed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.68.74 (talk • contribs)

Language

This edit is unhelpful. AMT "relief" is empty rhetoric, and Wikipedia is not in the business of propagating Republican propaganda. We need a word that explains what "relief" means in this context rather than mindlessly repeating Republican talking points. Wikipedia would call the Bush tax cuts "tax cuts" rather than "tax relief" as the Republicans call them (or "taxes deferred" as an economist would). I attempted to insert a more descriptive word and was reverted. Please explain Roskam's position with meaningful language, if you can. For starters, is he in favor of increasing or decreasing the number of people who fall under the AMT? — goethean ॐ 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Goethean What source do you have that Roskam wants to increase the number of people that fall under the AMT or "expand" it. I do not have a complete knowlege of his exact position on it but from what I have gathered he does not want to change the number of people who would fall under the tax but cut it in totality. If his position cannot be explained in a more specific way would it be better if any referance to a position on the Alternative Minimum Tax be removed from the article?--Tdl1060 22:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Anglican

The AMiA only has an indirect affiliation with the Episcopal Church USA as they are both in communication with the Church of England--Tdl1060 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your text was unclear about what your clause modified in my clause, so I changed it to the following:
It has been described by the Anglican Journal as a "right-wing faction" of the Episcopal Church, although technically it is Anglican rather than Episcopalian.
— goethean ॐ 22:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The only part quoted from the Anglican Church of Canada's article is "right wing" so I changed it to: "right wing" faction of the Anglican Church.--Tdl1060 22:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding generalities

Roskam supports tort reform and fiscal responsibility

What candidate does not claim to support "fiscal responsibility"? The phrase is meaningless without specifics. I suggest that we delete the phrase. — goethean ॐ 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Goethean Norquist has not been convicted so your premice for reverting my edit, that "Roskam is supported by criminals" is invalid.--Tdl1060 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Norquist

User:Tdl1060 has been deleting the following information from the article:

Norquist has been criticized for aiding convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff as a financial conduit.

Norquist, a Roskam supporter, laundered money for a convicted criminal. This is not notable or related? — goethean ॐ 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms of Grover Norquist are fair game. Roskam chose to accept support from Norquist; had he declined it wouldn't be an issue. It doesn't matter if Norquist has been convicted or not. There is a reliable source (Washington Post) that voiced a criticism. That is an objective fact. 18:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Exelon, FEC, etc

Roskam is a candidate in a highly disputed congressional race. There is a consistent bias (often from a user who doesn't use a username) erasing or altering any information that reflects positively on Roskam, and inserting information that is biased, innacurate, or irrelevant. Some examples include: frequently using biased blogs as sources, including (and reinserting if deleted) personal and obvious slams and jokes such as the comment from Rick Carney (link 38) and the comment at link 17. In addition, sections such as the distant chain of connection with Exelon (link 47) and the CWF's trouble with the FEC, which was declared by the FEC to not implicate Roskam's '98 campagin (link 32), are frequently added in even as properly validated comments are deleted. Allowing both sides' comments to remain, as long as they list good sources is important, as is accurately reflecting the information in the sources instead of only listing half of the source's comments. For example, in the Chicago Tribune article on Gun Control, the unknown user inserted complaints about Roskam's legislation restricting gun purchase, but ignored the part of the article that noted that Roskam also introduced new legislation strengthening important gun control. When this information was inserted, the user properly erased an innacurate part of it, but also erased the entire part about Roskam's beneficial gun control actions, allowing only one side to be heard. Such actions have been occuring consistently for weeks, and even months.

Reader5 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment by Rick Carney (currently link 38), while it is a joke, does serve to illustrate an important point - that Roskam has relocated on multiple occasions to advance his political career. He has moved between Wheaton, Naperville, etc. Perhaps a more formal discussion of Roskam's changes in residence would be better. I will look into this.
I believe Roskam's connection to Exelon (currently links 46 and 47) is valid. Roskam has chosen to accept, on multiple occasions, from a company accused of nuclear pollution. It was recently announced that in addition to Braidwood, Exelon had tritium leaks at the Dresden plant in Morris, IL and at a third plant (now closed) in Zion, IL. The fact that several communities near the 6th Congressional District have been affected makes it of particular interest.
The FEC violation by the Campaign for Working Families does not implicate Roskam directly (currently link 32). You are correct, and I think subsequent edits were appropriate. What the article now states seems fair and there is a reliable source (the FEC). It is still of relevance because the conduct of Roskam's supporters reflect upon him.
Reader5 where I disagree with you the most is in regards to the criticisms of Roskam's gun position. You feel that other editors have attempted to suppress the fact that Roskam supported closing the gun-show loophole. However, he only voted for this in a piece of legislation that called for the destruction of records for firearm purchases. Nearly every gun-control organization was opposed to this. Roskam could have authored legislation closing the gun-show loophole, without calling for record destruction. Roskam and his supporters have tried to illustrate this as a balanced compromise, but gun-control advocates and independent observers, such as the Chicago Tribune, believe it to be a Red herring. There are always political games (both parties are guilty) where Bill A (i.e. banning murder) is amended in a contradictory or unrelated manner (i.e. repeal all environmental regulations), so that if a legislator votes against the bill, the authors can claim the opposing politician supports murder. This is an obvious logical fallacy. So if you wish Reader5 to include Roskam's support of the legislation closing the gun-show loophole, that's fair (as long as you provide a proper source), but realize others (possibly myself) will edit further to show Roskam's support may have been disingenuous. I will of course cite proper sources.
I intend to remove the NPOV check tag in a few hours, unless you make specific recommendations as to what should be changed and what the revised language should be. Thank you.
Propol 18:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. In response to the Exelon point, I disagree in a few places. First of all, the fact that issues such as the Tritium leak at the Braidwood plant occurred outside the sixth district is important. Roskam and Major Duckworth are both running to represent the sixth district, not the surrounding communities. In addition, one of the founders of Exelon is Congressman Rahm Emanuel, one of Major Duckworth's main supporters. However, no one is posting on Duckworth's wikipedia entry that she is therefore responsible for, or even connected to Exelon and its dispute involving the Braidwood plant, even though she recieved support in approximately equal connection to it as Roskam did. We all realize that, without further data, such a connection is extremely tenuous.

With respect to the gun control law, Roskam's action was in fact paralleling federal law. Just like federal law held that federal agencies had to destroy NICS (National Instant Check System) records within 24 hours, federal law also required that non-federal government groups destroy NICS records as well (though not specifically within 24 hours). Illinois has its own instant check system in addition to the NICS system. However, Roskam's legislation simply paralleled the rules for the NICS which specifically prohibited using firearms background checks to establish a firearms registration system nationally or in the states. At the same time, the legislation he introduced recognized that the police might need the records for longer than just one day. The Illinois legislation still allowed police some time to use the records (90 times longer than the federal government allowed its own agencies to keep records) while preventing the state government or its subparts from invading citizens' privacy. This legislation in now way interfered with Illinois law requiring all gun owners to have a Firearm Owner's I.D. card, allowing police to still have a good idea who possessed firearms.

Reader5 02:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Exelon issue, I understand your point (it's only tangentially linked), but I think it should remain. Per FEC records, Roskam accepted donations directly from Exelon and Duckworth did not. Roskam received donations from Exelon's PAC (typical) but he also received donations from CEO John Rowe and other senior officers, which is less typical and suggests more of a relationship. I don't think the geographical location (outside the district) of Exelon's tritium leaks invalidates it as a campaign issue. Nuclear pollution would be an issue even if it were occurring outside the United States. By the way, if you want to document a Rahm Emanuel / Exelon link, I think that would be fair for Rahm's page. All politicians should be accountable for whom they accept support from. I would like to reach a consensus. Are there any edits that I can make to the paragraph on the Exelon issue that would make you more comfortable? What are your thoughts? Thanks. Propol 04:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
On the gun issue, forgive me, but I'm going to poke a little fun at you. What, a Republican arguing for privacy rights? Isn't that a little inconsistent with other positions (abortion) held by Roskam? OK, all teasing aside, I'll think over a more serious response and post tomorrow. Propol 04:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • grins* First of all, believe it or not, I'm an independent. Second of all, in return: What? A Democrat arguing against privacy rights? Isn't that a little inconsistent with complaints about NSA wiretapping and the like held by Democrats (or Duckworth - can't say I actually know what she's said on that issue)? More seriously, I don't have time to write on the Exelon issue right now, but I'll try to get back to the page on that soon. Reader5 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Campaign censorship / advocacy

I am concerned about a couple of users. Perhaps they are new, so I will try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think User:Reader5's conduct has been questionable. All of his/her edits have been to the Peter Roskam article. Verify User:Reader5's contributions here. Many of the edits have been deletions of sourced information. Several of the additions cite Roskam's campaign web site as the sole source. Aside from basic biographical information, I think it would be best not to use such a site. See reliable sources. Lastly, information was been presented in a highly biased manner, i.e. noting Roskam received a 100% rating from an environmental group two years ago, but neglecting to mention he received a 67% rating in 2005 and only 40% in 2003. I try to remain open-minded, but it comes across as the work of a campaign operative. I'm hopeful that this conduct will improve. Just so you know, I'm not opposed to information favorable to Roskam. I just think it needs to be done properly. A more recent edit, noting Roskam has voted for tax cuts and providing a link to the Illinois General Assembly is much better form. 204.16.84.50 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You both need to read Assume good faith. These accusations aren't really actionable from the point of view of Wikipedia. Campaign workers are free to edit articles (although several have been embarrassed, and one has even resigned, over press coverage of their actions). Comment on contributions rather than on contributors. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

DCCC link

Well, it would appear some ax grinding from some here... looking at the way the article is written right now , it appears rather negative and not true NPOV. We can agree this needs better balance. The concept of NPOV is lacking right not. I am willing to assume "good faith" but there seems to be little in this article right now and from the posters to this wiki article.

--Joehazelton 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that the article is unbalanced. What exactly is unbalanced about it?


If you remove the DCCC link again, I will report you to an administrator for violating the three revert rule. The only reason that you have not been reported, and possibly blocked, already is because you appear to be a new user who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules. Please read Wikipedia's policy on external links. — goethean ॐ 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The DCCC is a blog and not relavent due to the fact is full of opinions and political axgrinding... my question is Why should this link be here? Wikipedia's policy on external links --Joehazelton 05:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will report you as well .... I am familiar with the concept of NPOV and this article very much lacks it Let the admin see it for what is is and rule. --Joehazelton 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the DCCC websitre shouldn't be here, then why should Roskam's website be here? They are both biased. The answer, of course, is to include both sides for balance. At Wikipedia, we don't endorse one side or they other by only presenting links that exemplify one side. — goethean ॐ 14:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

deletions

Joe's edit

  • Why did you delete the picture of Roskam and Cheney? I think that it is quite notable that a State Senator has the support of the vice president of the United States.
  • Why did you delete the picture of Roskam's Chicago Tribune ad? It is certainly relavent to this article. You seem to be embarrassed by Roskam's career as a lawyer. Furthermore, the picture that you uploaded has no source information while the two pictures that you deleted have complete file information. This reason alone is reason enough to keep the two original pictures instead of yours.
  • Why did you delete the description of the types of cases that Roskam's law firm handles? That is quite relavent to understanding his career. If it is inaccurate, please replace the wording with more accurate wording.
  • Why did you delete Republican Rick Carney's comments about Roskam's political career? They are accurate and sourced. Please do not deleted well-sourced information from articles. This is considered vandalism.
  • You can't just insert a quotation from a blog without any introductory explanation or formatting. People won't know that it is a quotation. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

response

First off, I believe you have bias and edit this article as well at the Tammy Duckworth article with a very left leaning agenda and a political ax to grind. With that, I have begun to take a look at your heavy hand on this wikiarticle and the first question I ask, directly, is - are you an “official” admin or just some one who as taken it upon them self to sit on this article and keep out,control and steer the content of this article though the clever use of semantics and augment for your own agenda in mind.? What makes you have the right? I have seen your hand in this article thought the weeks in the logs and I have begun to compile them, and with time, I will be able to prove my point, but for now, I will assume good faith and engage you in this discussion.

Don't waste your time trying to prove bias. Assume good faith is an official Wikipedia policy enforcable by ban.— goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I am new to the wiki way in dealing with this type of discussion but I would like to formally declare this article to be bias and have is so noted on the top of this article until this is resolved. I plan to look in this and add that banner on this article as soon as I am able to figure out how and who I have to go to get that done. With that I will engage these points you bring out.

  • Why did you delete the picture of Roskam and Cheney? I think that it is quite notable that a State Senator has the support of the vice president of the United States — goethean ॐ

I remove the picture because, first and foremost this a biography about Pete Roskam not Dick Cheney…. So it is my opinion at the picture should be nice picture one of Pete not the small, fuzzy one of Roskam and Cheney. If you must, the picture can be in the article some were in the campaign 2006 section. Further more, I got the picture I scanned from goverment web site which I forgot. I know it s public domain and will find the copyright... untill then there was a grace peroid of 7 days, I belive with wikipidia before such copyright had to be established.

Apart from Cheney's low poll numers, there's no reason why the Cheney picture should be removed, and if you remove it, I will revert you. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did you delete the picture of Roskam's Chicago Tribune ad? It is certainly relevant to this article. You seem to be embarrassed by Roskam's career as a lawyer. Furthermore, the picture that you uploaded has no source information while the two pictures that you deleted have complete file information. This reason alone is reason enough to keep the two original pictures instead of yours. — goethean ॐ

The reason is simple, first I have lived in the Chicagoland area all my life and find the writings of Eric Zorn to by highly political and crusading hack with a well known personal hatred for most of the Dupage Republican office holders, which dates back twenty years. Hardly a source of NPOV. Second Eric Zorn is a “Columnist” running a “BLOG SITE” and that alone would disqualify him as a “reliable” source for “unbiased” information about the good or bad on Peter Roskam and all Dupage Republican office holders for that matter. Eric Zorn, in my opinion, anything he writes is not be trusted and to be highly bias.

Your opinion of Eric Zorn is irrelevant. Zorn works for a little paper you might have heard of called the Chicago Tribune. If statements are correctly cited to the source of thev statement, you cannot remove them. I will link you to the appropriate Wikipedia policy — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did you delete the description of the types of cases that Roskam's law firm handles? That is quite relevant to understanding his career. If it is inaccurate, please replace the wording with more accurate wording. — goethean ॐ

I removed because of the elaboration of what a PI attorney does...

"...a personal injury firm which handles cases such as automobile accidents and injuries, medical malpractice, bodily injury, slips & falls, dog bites, pedestrian injuries, and wrongful death..."

...is redundant and waste of the readers time and space. That’s like saying a truck driver steers, accelerates , brakes and stop to eat at truck stops… this is irrelevant and its just in there to build a red herring based on many people's distorted perceptions of a PI (personal injury) attorneys and what they do. You have it there to try to portray Peter Roskams law firm as “ambulance chasers” and to try to build a red herring based that negative, distorted perceptions many people have of PI work.

The text you have a problem with is from Roskam's website. It is his own words describing his law office. It is relevant and sourced and as such should not be removed. I will revert any removal of sourced and relevant information from this article. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did you delete Republican Rick Carney's comments about Roskam's political career? They are accurate and sourced. Please do not deleted well-sourced information from articles. This is considered vandalism. — goethean ॐ

Vandalism, You throw that word around a lot… I consider your “edits” be “vandalism” … a smooth writing vandal but a vandal all the same…. What makes your opinion any better than mine. Stop using that word in the contexts of this discussion, it is patently wrong and out of context of this discussion. I remove the comments because they add nothing because they are minor "quips" and are irrlavent to the 2006 campaign.

The difference is that Wikipedia policy is on my side, not yours. Again: the deletion of sourced relevant information from the article is vandalism. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You can't just insert a quotation from a blog without any introductory explanation or formatting. People won't know that it is a quotation. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just balancing by the July 12,2006 House Race Hotline Update: Experience Countsthe article I posted. [Nationaljournal.com]


Just the fact that Eirc Zorn commments predominats this article and is allowed to have such a high profile, considering that Eirc Zorn is well known in the Chicago/Dupage County area for his axe grinding and “Highly Editorialized” column in the Tribune, and his well known, personal hatred for most Dupage County elected officials is grounds alone to depute NPOV of this article.

I added a link to a Norwestern Universty Medill School of Journalism Professor's website with his opinions about Eric Zorn's and the Libel lawsuit against the Chicago Tribune for a little background on Eric Zorn's "point of view" [John Cook, magazine writing at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.] --69.220.184.129 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In closing, I feel you are just steering this article to just to build red herrings, strawmen and guilt by association with a left agenda in mind. Any honest look this article can see that. NPOV is lacking.

I will look into getting “Neutrality is in dispute” banner stuck on this article unless you can give compelling reasons why it should not be done.--Joehazelton 05:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)--69.220.184.129 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)--69.220.184.129 12:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about: There is no bias. You are free to add whatever sourced, relevant information to the article that you want. What you did with the hotline blog was to simply cut-and-paste material from a website. That is not allowed, because it basically makes Wikipedia redistribute copyrighted information, an act for which Wikipedia could get sued. I don't want that, so I will delete copyrighted info from the article. You have to re-write it accurately yourself. — goethean ॐ 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Playing nicely

Let's all calm down a bit. Throwing around accusations of bias doesn't accomplish anything, won't improve the article, and just poisons the atmosphere, getting in the way of productive, cooperative editing. I see some valid points all around that are being lost in the static. If you think you see bias, comment on the content and do not attack the contributor. Gamaliel 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

GamalielI have no problem with playing "nicely" as long as goethean stops name calling by using "vandalism" for my legitimate edits as well as using wiki-tricks to get his way and personally discredit me with out a fair,unbais, and good faith discussions on this article about Peter Roskam and his current run for the US congress
I found this in the wiki policy and it this part read....
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons... should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.
The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view....
As a side note, I consider Eirc Zorn and his writings to be an example of "Extreme" Advocacy Journalism. Which, even though Eric works for the WGN (worlds greatest newspaper) that newspaper has been wrong many times and also been sued for libel on a number of occasions.
I wonder how this would apply to Peter Roskam and his contested campaign for the 6th congressional district of Illinois and the fact that Democrats are "pulling out the stops" to win this.
also, it should be factually noted that goethean has been very active on the Tammy Duckworth article [Some recent Goethean edits on the Duckworth article] and it should be also noted that it seems that Goethean likes to put up negative "stuff" on the Roskam's article and not so quick do the same with the Duckworth article? Why is that? would that imply a bias editor or agenda? Now, I am reading Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and wonder how it would apply in this case of apparent bias?
For referance I found this as well:


Malicious editing
Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association....

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons


In closing, I hope to see the principles of fair play, ( tricky rule manipulation to allow a hack job stay up may be "by the rulz" but is it really NPOV?) and not allow a trash and bash article for this honorable man stay up.

--Joehazelton 01:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care for it when people label edits they disagree with as "vandalism" and I think goethean should immediately cease doing that. However, you are responsible for how you act and your good behavior should not be contingent upon the actions of others. Accusations of bias and bigotry are even more inappropriate and do just as much to poison the atmosphere and inhibit collaborative editing. And such accusations could easily be turned around on you. How would you feel if you were accused of bias because of your desire to defend the reutation of "this honorable man"? We're not going to make any progress by throwing around accusations. Gamaliel 19:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted JoeHazelton's repeated deletion of sourced, relevant information from the article. You can see from his own words that he considers any airing of Roskam's dirty laundry here to be "bias", and "a hack job". He considers adherence to Wikipedia policy to be "tricky rule manipulation". There is nothing wrong with describing how Roskam's arguably misogynist religious sect differs from the mainstream Anglican and Episcopelian churches. The only reason that this sourced, relevant information has been deleted from the article is because his supporters are (rightly) ashamed of his religious position. I don't think that we should be taking JoeHazelton's personal embarrassment into account in the editing of this article. Honorable man, my ass. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In response to Goetheane, You love labels, and in your recent edits, you now have labeled me a "Roskam Advocate", now I'm well with that label, but it should be noted Gotethen editing on Tammy's site by Goterhen has been less aggressive to add "negative" information on Tammy's site. See the logs and see what I'm talking about. So,with out prejudice, I will label you a "Tammy Advocate" I would suggest you stop with the labels and start playing nice.
Now to Gamaliel, I respectfully submit, that I thought the inclusions of the Episcopalian church to be out of bounds unless direct, attributed quotes can be found by Roskam to these charges, then it's fair game. Now I thought this detail had "smack of bigotry" but I never did accused, the other "good faith"- editors of being bigots. If Goetheane took as such, I apologies. But nether the less It's very clear that Goetheane is real quick to put up the worst spin on this article and not so quick on Tammy's agrticle, which Goetheane is very active editor on. So, it would seem what his aggenda is. I now question the NPOV of this article.
Also, Gamaliel I saw on your home page that you list your self as a Democrat supporter? If this is true, (see Systemic bias) Then I may, very respefuly ask to have this article reviewed by other editors/admins as soon as I have figured out how to get that done. Would this impily a lack of "good faith"?--Joehazelton 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm troubled by the comments made by people on both sides, and it's never going to stop if people keep dialing up the hostility and insisting that the other person stop being uncivil before they bring themselves to be mature. Just stop. That's all you have to do. Stop.
And Joe, what you have suggested is a violation of WP:AGF. You have accused (or implied or suggested or whatever) me of bias before I have even made any comments on or edits to the controversial content of this article, an article about a politician I've never heard of from a district I've never been to. Countless people edit articles about countless subjects here every day and in almost every case people are able to overcome their inherent biases. If you disagree with that idea, then you really have a fundamental problem with the way Wikipedia works. Gamaliel 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In response to Gamaliel... First, the facts I bought out are known and documented. Whether that suggest bias or not, the facts are facts. I have no malice, as you would suggest I have. Second, just for the record I happened to live in Wheaton, Illinois and have a real stake in this race since it effects me directly as a constituent. So, if I am a bit "passionate" its because the stakes here are high for me personally. I can deal with truth, but "spin doctoring" to diminish good points and accentuating the bad points is as I under stand a violation of rules as well. I may not be "Harvard Educated" in rhetoric but I can read and know if something is really NPOV. As for me to pursue the process of "Dispute Resolution" does not constitute a "Violation" of Wiki law as you inplied with your threat. I would suggest you really look at this article and truly help contribute to a true NPOV. I just want my guy to get a fair shake.--Joehazelton 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How have I threatened you? What on earth are you talking about? I'm just trying to get everyone to stop accusing and insulting each other so we can all do exactly what you suggest, contribute to an NPOV article. That's not going to happen if you keep accusing other editors of bias or threatening you. Gamaliel 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Tags

Joehazelton I think you took the dubious tags a little far. There are a couple where I see your point. The joke by Rick Carney doesn't come across as encyclopedic, so I reworded it to express the criticism but remove the joke. The DCCC link also comes across as highly critical of Roskam, but that doesn't mean it should be automatically excluded. It would be a poor article if we only included links favorable or opposed to Roskam. In my opinion we should have a balance of both. I think the DCCC link should stay; it's an official organization, not just the blog of some random person, so it carries more weight than it otherwise might. To be fair though, I modified the description to note it is a site critical of Roskam. On some of your other concerns however, I do not share your concern. I don't know what is disputed about the description of Roskam's church. There is a properly cited source.

The problem if very simple, the description of Roskam's church and it's controversy is totally inappropriate and does not belong on the Peter Roskams article. The reasons are as follows:
First, the details of this controversy should be found on the cited article, Anglican Mission in America not here. A person can very very easily click the link and read all about it,having it cited here as well is redundant. It would appear though this bit of information is only to inflame and is absolutely against the principles of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and polices for articles on living persons Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
Second, It smacks of religious bigotry and should be removed on principle. Now Bigotry is a strong word, but what to you call trying to link a splinter sect actions and policies of the protestant church to which you belong to - to you? This has absolutely no relevancy to Peter Roskam or his 2006 campaign and has no business being in this article.
What it does shows is the agenda of some of the editors of this article and shows with out any doubt the bias, and lack of neutrality this article has.
--Joehazelton 07:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Joehazelton I understand your point, but I don't agree. A discussion of Roskam's religious affiliation is not bigotry. He should be free to worship however he chooses, but the public also has a right to inquire about and discuss his beliefs. I think we can all acknowledge that religion influences politics. Roskam chose to attend an AMiA church. If there are any positions where he disagrees with the church's position, he is free to elaborate (i.e. a pro-choice Catholic). Also, you should note the original source (which you deleted) about Roskam's religious background was by Sun Times columnist Tom Roeser, a well-known movement Conservative. Mr. Roeser seemed to think it was relevant, and I highly doubt he is bigoted against Roskam. I think at least a brief discussion of Roskam's religious background is appropriate, and that goes for all other politicians as well. Propol 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Propol First, if Roskam makes a "on the record public statement" (any man including a public figure is entitled to a "private life" within a church of his choosing), published comments agreeing or disagreeing with his church policy, then it (maybe?) fair game, but trying to say "A" belong to "church B" and that "church B" has a sect "Sect C" and "Sect C" does this and that, without comment by Roskam, then its not relevant and sticking on the Roskam's article is only inflammatory and totally not NPOV. Second, where was the article by Tom Roeser? The only part I edited out was this...
...It is led by a bishop from Rwanda and aims to be an alternative to the Episcopal Church [2]. It has been described by the Anglican Journal as a "right-wing faction" of the Anglican Church [3]. The church opposes the ordination of women as priests or bishops, but supports ordaining women as deacons, and allows women ordained before the church decision to continue serving as priests. [4]....
Show me the Tom Roeser source? Its not any where to be found??? Besides any hay to be made with this Church should be done on the Anglican Church article and not on Roskam's article
--Joehazelton 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Tom Roeser was cited as a source. Please look above; I think you missed it. Also, I firmly believe that the religious faith of a politician is relevant since religion and politics influence one another. If Roskam were in some other field (i.e. business leader, author, etc.), I wouldn't think it would be relevant unless there was something exceptional. Propol 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that contradicts the article. I think the dubious tag should be deleted unless you can establish (with a source) that there is a factual error with the description. Also, the FEC investigation of the 1998 campaign clearly states the FEC did not conclude that the Roskam Campaign was at fault or complicit in CWF's error. There is a very solid source - the FEC. I think the dubious tag should be deleted. Lastly, I deleted the dubious tag for the article by Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn about Roskam. You may disagree with the premise or the conclusions of the article, but that doesn't mean you can exclude it. It is an objective fact that the Chicago Tribune, a respected newspaper with a Conservative editorial allegiance, chose to publish Zorn's article. Joehazelton - please save the dubious tag for documented factual errors, or highly questionable sources (i.e. John Doe's blog), and the like. I can tell you're passionate about this; that's okay, but lets work together. Thanks. Propol 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

PropolIt should be noted your presumption that the Tribune is a "Newspaper with "conservative Editorial Allegiance" on based on what the Tribune was in historical context ie... when The old Col. Robert R. McCormick ran the show there a long time ago... But the col is gone and Tribune is not that "Conservative" and more... quick proof of that is The Tribune consistent endorsements of Democratic Candidates for office as for example Barack Obama for US senator to Illinois was endorsed by the Tribune. --Joehazelton 21:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Joehazelton I agree with you that the political leanings of a newspaper can change over time, but I think it's still fair to say the Chicago Tribune is conservative. (It's Wikipedia article even says so.) Endorsing Barack Obama over Alan Keyes wasn't a shocker. Did any mainstream publication endorse Keyes? I'm not aware of any. Personally, I think the Sun Times has shifted to the right with columnists such as Robert Nowak, etc. The Sun Times even endorsed George W. Bush over Al Gore. I think that is far more of a shift. Propol 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any open issues regarding disputed items. (I want to add-back some of the discussion of Roskam's religious affiliation, but we can save that for another day.) In the mean time I plan to delete the POV tag from the article unless someone objects. Thanks. Propol 16:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


PLAYING NICE, a new low

70.230.67.190 with malice decided to publish a real name associated with an Ip account, with out consent, on the internet, which is, in my humble opinion reckless and with out scruples and physically endangers this person. ADMIN take it off--207.67.146.179 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what's going on here but I'm going to err on the side of caution and I've deleted that edit from the edit history. I've also temporarily blocked this article from anon editing. Gamaliel 16:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Your err on the side of caution

is appreciated, thank you.--69.220.184.129 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

BY who's opinion we use to define a "far right Religion "?

Any details pertaining to Roskam's Church, in which Roskam does not make public statments and have have direct and reliable corroboration of said statements, in a mainstream publication should not be seen on this article.

IF those, who wish, to make hay as you will, about the Anglican Mission in Americacan do so with entrys in that article and those who wish to learn can very easly click the link and learn all about it

Also what is "A Far RIGHT WING (bwt by who's definitions is "right wing" will we use?? the Catholic?, The Lutherans? or TheHare Krishnas?... My definion? Yours? BinLadin's?) religion". Those, again can easily click the link and read to his/hers heart desires.

But, to have this on this article is just Begging the question and trying to create a red herring with the false assumtion that "If I was Catholic then I must be against Abortion". The argument is unsound and this, in addition skews the NPOV of this article. ...Who wishes to make windows into men's souls some famous Queen once said and this thought applies here as well. --Joehazelton 15:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments, as usual, are without merit. Roskam is a member of a breakaway group from the Anglican church. The Episcopelian Church, under whose authority fall all American Anglicans, has condemned this group as divisive and causing a church crisis. Before you deleted the text, this article quoted the Anglican Journal's description of the group. In your quest to turn this article into a part of Roskam's political campaign, you are deleting information that is relevant to Roskam's biography. Our readres are entitled to a description of this rather odd group that Roskam is a member of. The most appropriate source is the Anglican Journal. Now, what were you saying about Hare Krishnas? — goethean ॐ 15:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's another example. Let's pretend that a political candidate is a member of the Liberal Catholic Church. Now, the Liberal Catholic Church is not a Roman Catholic Church, nor is it associated with the pope. It is actually a Theosophical organization. An article would be absolutely within its rights to specify exactly what type of church it is. To do otherwise would be to deceive our readers. To say "they can click on the link" misses the point. Why would they click on the link, when the article implies that the candidate is Catholic? Similarly, it is absolutely appropriate to specify that Roskam's religious group is not your typical Anglican or Episcopelian church. It is a breakaway group that is threatening the authority of the Episcopal Church of America. When Roskam joined this organization, he made common cause with this agenda. That's an interesting biographical fact! You have made it clear that you want to keep our readers from knowing this fact. I submit that we should hold the interest of our readers over the interests of the Roskam political campaign. I can't think of any reason other than a fear of potential voters' reactions why you would want to delete this well-sourced, relevent information. — goethean ॐ 15:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Again I love your retort "With out merit" and unilaterally engage in this slow edit war. But, I'm not a reasonable guy, but I have a real problem with the term "right wing". The term invokes images of witch burnings and pilorries, and has the same inflammatory effect as "Far RIGHT RADICAL" in the political context. The question is "Term of use" in these two far diffrent worlds. Now if you would have taken the time to read the article Anglican Mission in America you will see this said in that article...

...Most AMiA clergy are former Episcopal priests who seek to promote traditional Anglicanism through establishing new parishes in the United States....

So, my humble question is by who's term we define "right wing" In terms of Quakerism? or in terms of Methodist thinking? The terms meaning in context of religious doctrine is very fluid indeed? Now in the political context it has a different meaning. So the terms and what they mean are different are the not? Its in these two different worlds, the religious one and the politic one that the word has diffent meanings. Now if we must add this, by you argument, but maintain NPOV, I say we will translate the term in to its political equivalent, "Conservative".

Considering the nature of the disagreement between The Episcopal Church of America and the Anglican Church.. The best word to describe that disagreement is "Conservative" so I have changed that word... Now if you got a problem with this well, I guess you should read. BTW, in terms of Catholicism if you read the Catholic Encyclopedia, the entry about Lutherism is that of a Radial left wing upstart church. So if you are going to quote Religious publication, those publications are a bit slanted and misleading in secular political terms that are commonly understood by the "Man in the street". You would love to turn this page in a discussion on Episcopal controversy. I think it has no pace here on a bio for a political candidate --Joehazelton 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You would love to turn this page in a discussion on Episcopal controversy.
You are fighting the inclusion of half of one sentence about Roskam's religious affiliation. Please get a grip. — goethean ॐ 17:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
goethean name calling is not Good faith so I say to you... "You are fighting the inclusion of half of one sentence about Roskam's religious affiliation. Please get a grip"....
We can agree to disagree and continue this slow edit war or we can compromise.
My compromise is that you do not use an "interfaith" publication that is to close to this controversy in the Episcopal churches... You may add information, but not from the Anglican Journal. Its to bias's to left and too allied with the liberal branch of that Church and not a true NPOV source of information on the "Episcopal Church Crisis" for this Bio page.--Joehazelton 17:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't falsely accuse me of name-calling.
You may add information, but not from the Anglican Journal.
I don't need your permission to add relevant information to the article from any reputable source, including the Anglican Journal. I am open to a compromise, but your proposed text does not accompish this. Your proposed text is irrelevant to Roskam's biography. As such, I will revert your edit. If you find a quotation from Chistianity Today — a conservative, not a neutral source — about the AIMA, I will consider it. — goethean ॐ 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Today is far from the ultra-conservative rag you paint. Relative to other Protestant Churches, that publication is mainstream and well respected in the Christian community. It is my humble opinion that you are way off base on this and do not have good knowledge of that publication.--Joehazelton 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

IF the shoe fits wear it my dad used to say.... And FYI how is you little quip in the context of of very sectarain rag have any thing to do with Roskam???

Also, Why is the ultra liberal Anglican Journal, beholding to only the liberal branch of the Anglican Church a NPOV? I feel that quote from the "MAINSTREAM" orthodox Christianity Today it more relevant. With all due respect your opinion is full of bulldonkey. It's you point of view and you are refusing to compromise on this. So the edit war goes on...--Joehazelton 20:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Relative to other Protestant Churches, that publication is mainstream and well respected in the Christian community.
You mean it's moderate compared to fundamentalism. That's almost the definition of conservative.
It is my humble opinion that you are way off base on this and do not have good knowledge of that publication
Your opinion regarding my knowledge base is irrelevant.
as is yours....--Joehazelton 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
the ultra liberal Anglican Journal, beholding to only the liberal branch of the Anglican Church a NPOV
...by which you simply mean the Anglican church and the Episcopelian Church in America. — goethean ॐ 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
By which means - they only speak for on branch of that Church and the most liberal branch of that church which is extremely critical of the AMia.... their term "Right Wing" would mean in mainstream Church speak to be Middle of the road. The Term of Art and it's usage in that Church and what it means in the political context is different and out of context with this article. Allowing this over others is only for the purpose of its Inflamatory effect and deceptive conanations of usage out side the church community.--Joehazelton 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Goethean How far are you willing to go with this ????--Joehazelton 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The text that you are subsatituting is completely off-topic. It has nothing to do with Roskam's biography. Your repeated additions of this text consitutes vandalism. — goethean ॐ 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Playing nicely part 2

Okay this has gone on long enough. This edit war is not going to stop unless people start cooperating, and that's not going to happen until the tempers stop flaring. So instead of asking people to start being civil, I'm going to tell them. The next person to label another editor a vandal gets a time out block. The next person to otherwise insult another editor gets a time out block. This is your only warning. Once the name calling stops I'm hoping people will calm down and then we can start addressing the content issues constructively. Gamaliel 18:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I was calling "vandalism" the removal of sourced relevant information from the article and substitution of off-topic text. In my experience, that's not all that controversial. User:JoeHazelton rejects the Anglican Journal as a source to describe the Anglican Mission in America. He has not, of course, provided any evidence that the Anglican Journal is an unreliable source on the Anglican Mission in America. The text read:
...which has been described by the Anglican Journal as a "right-wing faction" of the Anglican Church [6].
He has found some text from Christianity Today that he would like to substitute for the description. But the proposed text is inappropriate:
Christianity Today states "American conservatives now see churches and prelates in Africa and Asia, where Anglicanism is growing rapidly, as allies in their fight against the Episcopal Church's liberalism"
He has not provided any connecting text that would make this digression into Anglican current issues relevant to the article. And any such text would make the section too long. For these reasons, as well as reasons of accuracy and neutrality, User:JoeHazelton's proposed text must be rejected.
I would support a compromise. But Joe's proposal is unacceptable for a variety of reasons. — goethean ॐ 19:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

goethean Please read the Christianity Today article, the link and it's relevancy and the nature of the differences between the two churches is self evident. These Two churches, are fighting a Ideological fight. The more liberal sect is calling the more conservative one "Right Wing". The big problem I have is that Goethean is using this term "Right Wing" that is being applied in a religious context and using it to apply in a political context. This linkage is unfair and misleading and Inflammatory not NPOV. The Christianity Today article out lines the true nature of the disagreement, from a more NPOV and with out the sectarian bias that the Anglican Journal would have is such a sectarian fight.

Now my comprise is to use a more neutral source to describe the doctrinal differences between the two, hence the Christianity Today publication. A middle of the road with out an sectarian ax to grind rather than total remove any description of the church on this political page, which Goethean insists on having. Because feel strongly this is correct, I will contiue to fight Goethean's edit war.--Joehazelton 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How is this "ideological fight" relevant to this article? It doesn't appear to be "self-evident" to other editors. Either context should be provided showing how this is relevant or this material belongs in a different article. Gamaliel 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute Malicious editing

Using the Roskams religion to paint him to be something he's not, in the political context, is misleading,inflammatory. I would like to know why quoting from the worst, most prejudicial part of the most bias sources is not "Self-Evident"? The Ideological fight in Roskam's church and term of use by the more liberal part of that church to describe the more conservative one as "Right Wing" is patently unfair, and out of context. The general understanding of "Right Wing" is different in a religious context then what it means in a political context. That's is "self-evident" and I can read to can see why it included to label Roskam with out explanation what that LABEL really means is very malicious. IF you INSIST on noting that Roakams Religion is "RIGHT WING" I INSIST that you describe that religion, with out the weasle words Ideologues love to use to bork a Republican. Describe it in a NPOV or LEAVE IT OUT...as it is surly not NPOV and borders on religious bigotry. NOW don't give me holier than thou condescension, I CAN READ and I can see the intended effect and bias in its present form.--Joehazelton 04:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That is quite enough. You need to calm down. I understand that tempers are flaring on both sides and no one here is blameless in this dispute, but right now I'm talking to you and I'm telling you that you need to stop this nonsense. Your accusations of vandalism and bias and malicious intent and religious biogtry are rude, uncivil, and blatant violations of Wikipedia policies. You have helped unnecessarily prolong what should have been a simple dispute and helped turn it into an edit war.
Now let's talk about your edit. You wish to insert information about a ideological fight and do nothing to explain why you are mentioning it or what this has to do with Roskam. This material most certainly is not "self-evident", it is puzzling. Forget about scoring points in an edit war, think about the end product, what should be a clear article for the reader. I'm certainly not endorsing Goethean's edits or behavior here, but frankly, I'm not sure why you are so upset about this description of Goethean's sect as "right-wing". Are not American religious conservatives generally right-wing? Are they not generally proud of this? And "The general understanding of "Right Wing" is different in a religious context then what it means in a political context." Is it? I have no idea what that sentence means and it certainly isn't "self-evident" to me. Perhaps if you calmly explained why such a description is "bias" instead of angrily denouncing everyone it would be clear. Gamaliel 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This edit summary constitutes a personal attack. — goethean ॐ 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Nevermind. it was before the ceasefire. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Goethenan, don't start again by putting up more partisan junk and try to palm off a wild eyed,ax grinding, blogger as a legit source of journalist excellence and with a NPOV, less I start going up on the web and start doing the same???? Get real and play nice. Make me believe you don't work for "Rahmbo" and be more NPOV????

This observation is not "VIOLATING" any WikiRule to point out that the honorable Goethenan insists on putting up junk like this. I love Goethenan, but HATE his agenda

For Goethenan again... we discuss this then we put up, or I excise my wiki privilege as a good faith editor and remove it and remove it again until you make real case why its npov and not more minutia with a twist--Joehazelton 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Joehazelton's claim that I work for Rahm Emmanuel is a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith. He should be punished for repeatedly and flagrantly violating Wikipedia policy after having been warned by an administrator. — goethean ॐ 16:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason for this outburst. You could have easily challenged the neutrality of that passage by starting a polite and civil dialogue about it here. Your behavior is unnecessarily escalating what should be a minor dispute. Gamaliel 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"removing paragraph. article is an editorial opinion piece, not a piece of reporting. it is opinion, not fact.)"... Remember this Goethena... your standard... I removeded the "LEFT WING bloggers" "trash and bash page" again using YOUR standard its not NPOV - it works both ways as they say. I will remove the Zorn blogger link because, again by this precedent YOU now have set, it should be removed as well for it's just an "Opinion" work of a very aggressive left wing writer who has historical "hatred" for Dupage County elected office holder that was Republican. Advocacy journalism--Joehazelton 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that links in the external links section be NPOV. Gamaliel 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the deletion of your edit, I didn't make anything up. It is commonly accepted that editorials are a different genre of writing than newspaper articles. Opinion-editorial pieces are not considered to be a reliable source. The op-ed wasn't even signed. Who wrote it? — goethean ॐ

My queston is by this standard is the Zorn "stuff" allowed to stay up?... His pieces are opinion-editorial pieces as well, are they not?? The suburban life pieces are subject to editorial review as Zorns pieces are, are they not???? Then, why is then Zorn Opinions/Tribune more acceptable then the Suburban life articles???--Joehazelton 02:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote the editorial? If it is anonymous, to whom are we going to attribute the opinions? — goethean ॐ 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't matter, the article is subject to "editorial review" by the board of editors of Suburban Life (A REAL NEWS PAPER thats been publishing for very very long time) and as such the "Anonymous" writer is subject to the same type of review as Mr. Zorn and the Tribune and it's "Anonymous" editorials. Again I am trying to be nice but to call my edits "Malicious" gets me real "hopped up". How about this, I say yours are "Malicious". So, cut the bulldonkey and really read what I write and do tell me why, again, the Suburban Life newspaper article is not any better then the yellow page wonder Mr. Zorn and the Trib's editorial board. If you apply this standard Suburban Life, then Why don't it apply all the negative Trib blogger pieces you have put up as well.--Joehazelton 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The Trib pieces are signed, and signed by notable journalist Eric Zorn. Is the author of your anonymous editorial notable?
Nobody called your edit malicious. Illiterate, perhaps, but not malicious. The Suburban Life editorial is not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia. Go ask an administrator – any administrator. Please. — goethean ॐ 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Joehazelton I do not think the editorial article from the Suburban Life newspaper belongs in the Peter Roskam article for several reasons. First the topic was primarily Roskam's opponent Tammy Duckworth. The article provided no new information about Peter Roskam or his positions. Second, a quote from a candidate about his opponent is typically not appropriate for an encyclopedia. We could easily find quotes where Duckworth called Roskam a radical who does not represent mainstream views, but that wouldn't be appropriate for inclusion either. Third, the article was entirely subjective. It states Duckworth has been wise to avoid small settings. There is no possible way to verify such a statement. Opinion pieces can be quoted or referred to in an encyclopedia article, but only to the extent that there are objective facts that can be verified. For instance, the Chicago Tribune article by Eric Zorn notes Roskam's income as a personal injury trail lawyer. That's fact, not Zorn's opinion. It also notes contributions Roskam received, which again is a verifiable fact even though it was published in an editorial article. I hope you see there really is a difference. Thanks. Propol 17:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Propol But it's not an editorial, Jessica Young reported as a staff writer
for Suburban life newspaper this "FACT". The statment is "Verified" and was subject to "Editorial Review" from the editor of that newspaper. Now, are we operating a double standard or what? Now you can go and contact the reporter at jyoung@libertysuburban.com Jessica's email address and find out for your self.--Joehazelton 01:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Joehazelton the first link you had used was this one, which was an editorial article with few (if any) verifiable statements. That article would not be appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you revised your source to this one, which is certainly more acceptable. However, I think the article should be used as a source for objective facts, not self-serving quotes from Roskam. I will leave your source and make edits as appropriate. Thanks, Propol 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding my edit, which you have deleted, Josh Marshall is a notable enough blogger to have an article on Wikipedia about him. He is holding a nationwide contest that specifically mentions Peter Roskam's name. Your claim, I assume, is that this fact is not significant enough to be included in this article. This claim is absurd. My edit should be restored. — goethean ॐ 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the mayor of Addision Illinois is not relevent? explain why not? --69.220.184.129 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Mayor of Addison's opinion does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Besides, a Republican mayor is almost certain to support a Republican Congressional candidate. Why not include Democrat Rahm Emanuel's opinion of Roskam? Neither one adds any objective facts about Roskam. Why not include my opinion? Because this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Thanks. Propol 04:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


This...

....Currently ComEd is seeking a controversial rate hike, which is opposed by local governments and groups including the Citizens Utility Board. [5]

... has nothing to do with the Roskam's Biograghy and is unencyclopedic information It's also inflamatory and need to be removed... again what does this have to do with anything on the Roskams page? The linkage is Slippery slope With that I will remove it...if you which to add...then discuss --Joehazelton 21:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton you deleted more than just ComEd information and made no mention of it. That's taboo. I'll assume that was an honest mistake. Also providing brief context on contributors is appropriate. There are proper and reliable sources cited, such as the FEC and the Illinois State Board of Elections. Roskam has chosen to accept donations from controversial sources (i.e. tobacco companies), when he could easily have declined it. The behavior of contributors reflects upon Roskam, since he chose to accept their support. There is a direct relationship. Your slippery slope argument is rather lacking. One could add a general description of every donor if they wanted. That might get a little lengthy, but there is nothing invalid about it. In order for the slippery slope argument to be meaningful, one has to establish that if the argument were extended it somehow loses its meaning or becomes incorrect. You have failed to establish this. I am going to revert your deletions. Rather than simply deleting information that others have added because you feel it does not reflect well upon Roskam, why not find information that does? Who is a contributor that Roskam can be proud of? Why? What is a major Roskam accomplishment? (The hard part is answering these questions with facts and not opinion.) The best way to balance an article is not to delete information you perceive to be negative (unless it's false or without a proper source), but to also add positive information that is well sourced. You will find other editors rarely object to this type of information. Thanks. Propol 21:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute The unencyclopedic tone of Roskam's page

PropolFirst off, it don't belong, [1] it's not NPOV or encyclopedic in tone and implies Guilt by association. Second, these additions are controversial, and adding many instances of these controversial additions, at one time, then forcing me to dispute these while these controversial additions are allowed to remain on the page by brute force of your reversions is not fair and does not allow proper discussion. I don't agree that is fair.

Also I am going to ask if this article can be reviewed by more neutral parties. So in the mean time I am going to stick a NPOV in Dispute tag on the article. Thank you --Joehazelton 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton's deletions

Joehazelton I am highly concerned with your deletions from the article. You removed several items from the article that you felt reflected poorly upon Peter Roskam, despite there being reliable sources provided. Let me be specific:

  • You deleted a description of Roskam's law firm. The source cited was the law firm's own website. The description is certainly not biased against Roskam. Describing a candidate's outside employment is very common. Please go read articles for other politicians as an example.
  • You deleted the fact that Roskam was investigated by the Illinois Attorney General and later by the Internal Revenue Service for improper use of information from a not-for-profit organization. Readers may not consider this behavior "minutiae".
  • You deleted the mention that Henry Hyde (the incumbent & Roskam's mentor) supports the assault weapons ban, which Roskam opposes. Comparing / contrasting Roskam's views with those of Hyde is appropriate and helps to inform voters. I think the views of both were represented fairly and accurately. No words were twisted, the language was very clear.
  • You deleted a picture showing an advertisement for Salvi Roskam & Maher. Nobody has disputed the authenticity of the picture. I fear you wish to suppress this information because it is difficult to reconcile with Roskam's stated position on tort reform.
  • You deleted the entire section on social security. Roskam missed a key vote on the issue - that's a fact. How people interpret what that means is up to them. The article did not speculate. There is no reason for deletion.
  • You deleted detail about Grover Norquist's support for Roskam. There was a very reliable source - the Washington Post.
  • You deleted a paragraph about Tom DeLay hosting a fundraiser for Roskam. Never mind the fact the Sun Times, The Hill, and several other respected publications have made mention of this.
  • You deleted the vast majority of the section on contributors. There were very reliable sources provided such as the Federal Elections Commission and the Illinois State Board of Elections.

Joehazelton you did not appropriately discuss these deletions on the talk page. You complained about the contributors section and that was it. You didn't propose any solutions. What should the section say? You said you were going to seek a review from an independent party. What happened to that? I think almost any experienced Wikipedia editor would be concerned with your deletions. If you've got a useful suggestion or interesting addition to the article, I welcome it, but I am tiring of your perpetual deletions. You have already been blocked once and if necessary, you can be blocked again. I realize you're a Roskam supporter (you even acknowledged it) but that doesn't give you license to delete anything you find uncomfortable. You complain saying the article lacks a NPOV, but really you seem to be seeking a POV article that is Pro-Roskam. All of your deletions will be reverted. I will be watching to ensure that you do not violate the 3RR by again deleting properly sourced information. Do you realize that you are harming Roskam? Every time you delete negative information it only adds to the appearance that Roskam has something to hide. Your deletions only increase the interest of other editors and readers about this article. Maybe I should encourage you to keep deleting. Thanks. Propol 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, we will have a discussion on each and every one of my edits for which I disagree and feel, IMHO to need to be discussed.

Now, if you insist on keeping what I have deleted on, I will insist on a tag be placed on this article to indicate that, IMHO, this article to be a non-Encyclopedic work.

The condescending tone is not how we are going to play this game, Yes? Now read what I have wrote and understand that you urgency to get the "Good stuff up fast" is not consistant with wiki policy WP:LIVING on how a biography of a living person will be handled. how we are going to get to a consensus and a NPOV here if you have the attuide of "my way or the highway"? --69.220.184.129 06:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton - thank you for not deleting the content I added back. I really do wish to avoid an edit war. I suspect you still have some concerns about the article. What are they? Please be as specific as possible. Please provide examples whenever you can. If you simply say the article lacks a NPOV, it's harder for me to provide a well-reasoned response. If you think there's some language that should be reworded, you can write draft sentences here on the talk page and we can discuss. I really will work with you. Just so you know, I've never met Roskam and don't have anything against him personally. However, I am deeply worried that some users are editing the page to remove any facts that are not helpful for the Roskam campaign. I hope that you would agree that we don't want Wikipedia to end up simply as a campaign website. Why put out the effort to create a duplicate site. Let's find the information that's difficult to obtain elsewhere (good & bad) and write a high-quality article. Thanks. Propol 07:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)



Now, this first...

  • You deleted a description of Roskam's law firm. The source cited was the law firm's own website. The description is certainly not biased against Roskam. Describing a candidate's outside employment is very common. Please go read articles for other politicians as an example.

This now appears to be ok... as far as the dog bit referance is concerned.

  • You deleted the fact that Roskam was investigated by the Illinois Attorney General and later by the Internal Revenue Service for improper use of information from a not-for-profit organization. Readers may not consider this behavior "minutiae".

Well, I was investigated by the IRS once too. what happened was some one was using my SS number and my account had accumulated about 50,000 in back taxes. Now that was cleared up. So is it fair to say that JoeHazelton was investigated by the IRS with out elaboration on whether I was convicted of or in violation of law if this was on my bio??? My contention is if you are to add such a nugget, then there should be research as to the results of said "investigation". We must assume innocent, unless found at fault. This, as it sits unjustifiably implies guilt.

  • You deleted the mention that Henry Hyde (the incumbent & Roskam's mentor) supports the assault weapons ban, which Roskam opposes. Comparing / contrasting Roskam's views with those of Hyde is appropriate and helps to inform voters. I think the views of both were represented fairly and accurately. No words were twisted, the language was very clear.

Admittly, I was to broad in my editing here but I have real problem with this statement in the article

*Unlike his opponent, Roskam has not ruled out supporting measures to allow other people to carry concealed firearms with a permit.

I have a problem here due to fact that the question begs, which opponent??? Duckworth? Biggert?. Also, the section has no citations and as such is unverified.

  • You deleted a picture showing an advertisement for Salvi Roskam & Maher. Nobody has disputed the authenticity of the picture. I fear you wish to suppress this information because it is difficult to reconcile with Roskam's stated position on tort reform.

I have a problem with the picture because it dominates the article and give undo weight to the fact Roskam is partner in a PI firm and that firm advertises in the yellow pages. This article is a bio on Roskam not an advertisment for his PI firm. This in unencyclpedic and should be handled with a link to that picture. [WP:NPOV#Undue_weight]

  • You deleted the entire section on social security. Roskam missed a key vote on the issue - that's a fact. How people interpret what that means is up to them. The article did not speculate. There is no reason for deletion.

Why is this in here, I'm sure that all legislators miss votes... There are overlaps schedules in a voting and committee work and some times they miss vote for reasons that may be good, or bad. But this section, which I removed, implies bad because it infers linkage and the bloger that you cite, again implies a reason with out any verifiable sources. Therefore this is unencyclopedic Also, I looked up you source on this and found this at that site..

(TPMCafe was launched as a companion site to TPM on May 31st, 2005 to provide a forum for commentary, discussion, collaborative journalism and activism.)WP:BLP

Activism from a site that has axes to grind and may be a little loose with the facts, and strong in very partisan editorial comment is again not encyclopedic This is section should be removed.

  • You deleted detail about Grover Norquist's support for Roskam. There was a very reliable source - the Washington Post.

I deleated this because it implies, again [guilt by association] this should real instead...

Roskam held a media event with and received support from Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

and a link the Gorver Norquist to his article

Again just because a bad man A give support to man B then man B is bad. It's not logical or encyclopeidic .

  • You deleted a paragraph about Tom DeLay hosting a fundraiser for Roskam. Never mind the fact the Sun Times, The Hill, and several other respected publications have made mention of this.

The citations are flaws...they attributed the Roskams comment to some partisan BLOGGER Mr. Marchell says that this Roskam comment was reported by the Chicago Suntimes...well???? where is that Citation??? Someone could say, I saw it in the suntimes that Britany Spears is really a bad mother? I would like to know were in the suntimes I can find so that I can read it myself. It infers that Roskam lied, and this should have better source in order to comply with wiki policy on bios of living persons.

  • You deleted the vast majority of the section on contributors. There were very reliable sources provided such as the Federal Elections Commission and the Illinois State Board of Elections.

The FEC files are interesting... I wonder who, and what pacs have given to Duckworth??? don't see any of the more controversial PAC listings there. (A look at the list of pacs that have given to Duckworth would surely reveal some nice "whoppers" I bet) Why is that???

Add some "whooper" PAC contributions over there,

Any rate, the cherry picking of the more controversial PAC contributions for the 2006 electons give undue weight to the contributions and turns this article in to a study of pac contributions and impilied negative impressions and guilt by association with some of the more controversial lobby groups and is not encyclopedic for this article.

I will be looking that the article now and rather label the whole aticle NPOV... I will go though it and place tag on the parts that would seem to me to need be removed or change and reworded for more NPOV and Encyclopedic tone and content.--Joehazelton 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

AND one more thing, How do you "Swift boat" a genuine war hero, when as I understand the usage, to "Swift boat" a person, that person must have served in the military and would have to have done something questionable during their service to have any kind of dirt to stick??

I would doubt very much that Duckworth has that kind of "DIRT" and would make a Swiftboating of her impossible. Such an attempt would backfire badly on Roskam if done. The Swift boat listing on the Duckworth article unverified speculation, that is badly cited and implies guilt for something that has not even be done and surly not by the Republicans and defies common sense logic. But one war at a time so I will leave it alone,for now --Joehazelton 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe, Are you under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia is an outlet for Republican public relations? It is not. It is not a faith-based community. It is a fact-based and reality-based community. Here we believe in things like science and verifiable facts. The fact that there are things about your candidate that you seem to be embarrassed or ashamed of is no reason to abuse this article by littering it with your half-literate, confused ramblings and misplaced templates. We have worked very hard to attribute every single statement in this article to a verifiable source. You are not going to undo our work with your partisan advocacy. You have not pointed out a single statement in the article that is not cited to a verifiable source. Every one of the templates that you inserted amounts to nothing but a disingenuous ploy to make the article reflect your POV. POV editing is not allowed by Wikipedia policies. I am reverting your changes. — goethean ॐ 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV DISPUTE - GOETHEAN'S POV

goethean you don't read me so well, so read this....[Fallacy] here are some of the old favoites now playing on Roskam's page.

Also, lets not forget the Wikipidia OFFICAL policy about Bios for living persons WP:LIVING I will provide the HARD WORKING Goethean The link here so that he may not have to work so hard.

[Biographies of living persons]

I quote from that page this...

Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one.(italic mine) If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.(italic mine)

When I get time in the next day or so, I will go over the article bit, by painful bit and show were some of the above list apply. IS THIS SCIENTIFIC ENOUGH FOR YOU???? With this the edit war is on. Since, I write at a 6 grade level or as you have so eloquently and kindly have stated "half-literate", I will make it simple and clear to the hard working, Goethean why there are parts in this article that are Bulldonkey.

BTW, do you live in the sixth? and are you a Democrat? just curious? I make no apologies for what I am why hide yours when I have shown you mine?

Also, I WILL REVERT ANY NEW "STUFF" IN THE MEAN TIME UNTIL I CAN FORMULATE MY RESPONSE TO THE HARDWORKING GOETHEAN.

So,you have nice day and chill.Joehazelton 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)