Talk:Richard Durbin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Initial comments

I removed "- especially compared to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. It is likely that much of the work of communicating the Democratic message will fall to Durbin in the upcoming Congress."--where has this been speculated? I've seen nothing of it, and Reid has been nothing if not bold in speaking. Meelar (talk) 02:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

After his "non-apology," I would dare say that his comments were not misinterpreted; not only that, I'd also say that a fair number of Democrats as well as Republicans have pushed back on Durbin's comments. I'm sure the story will make the rounds on the Sunday Morning Talking Head shows.

I'm of the opinion that none of the discussion over Gitmo is of lasting importance with regard to Durbin's legacy or history as a politician and is taking up a significant portion of the article for an insignificant event.
I'd dare say that you're most likely right.

[edit] what I would have done

Currently, the section on the discussion of Durbin's Guantanamo comments ends with a reference to his statement that he doesn't know whether he would or would not have authorized torture to prevent Sept. 11. Have the Republicans made an issue of this? When you read the entire transcript, it's a lot less damning than it seems to be in the Wikipedia version (i.e., Durbin also mentions that torture isn't very useful in extracting information, and reiterates that abandoning the Geneva conventions is dangerous for American troops.) In other words, in context, it doesn't really seem inconsistent with Durbin's position on Guantanamo. If the Republicans have made an issue of this quote, then Wikipedia could mention that, as well as whatever Durbin's response is. As it is, however, the article seems to be deliberately trying to make him look like a hypocrite by taking a single sentence from an interview out of context.

If no one objects, I'm going to remove that sentence. (On the other hand, a note that the Republicans have claimed that Durbin has insulted American servicemen, or some such, would certainly be appropriate.) NoahB 19:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it several times and it keeps getting added back in. It is taken out of context. I'd just as soon see the entire Guantanamo section removed because it is overinflated in the article and not of particular importance to his career. Shsilver 19:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that the Guantanamo stuff should be removed; one of the reason people use Wikipedia is as a news summary. The controversy is very important now; whether it will be in the future is another question, but, if it's not, someone can always remove it at that point. That's just my POV, of course. NoahB 13:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also disagree, Durbin made these comments. Hiding them or revising them isn't honest. loudes13 12:50, 16 Nov 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Communion for Catholic Politicians who Disagree with Church Policy

Is this section going to be added into every Catholic politician's article? I know it was an issue for Kerry in last year's election, but there are dozens of politicians who disagree with their church's policies. If someone is going to do this, then it might make more sense to create a general article about the topic, and just link to it from the various boigraphy articles. I doubt this issue is foremost in the minds of these politician's constituents and this section seems unduly prominent for that reason. NoSeptember 22:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added this section. I live in Chicago IL, and this issue makes the news frequently, and the Catholic vote matters a lot here. I'm not sure that it could be moved easily to a separate article, but if someone wants to do that, I'm all for it. Otherwise, if people think it is inappropriate here, it could be condensed into one or two sentences, or completely deleted. Plandahl
I also live in Chicago and while I was vaguely aware of it, I hadn't noticed it making the news frequently. I'd agree that if mentioned at all, it should only be a sentence or two. Shsilver 13:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shsilver comment if is very telling. Of course it does not make the news. That is why there are blogs and wiki's so that the actual story is not distorted through the mainstream media. If the criteria for inclusion is previous publication in one of Chicago's propoganda rags, then there is really no need to have any news outside of the Suntimes and Tribune, and we should shut down this Wiki service so that corporate fatasses can feed us the news that they want us to read. --Jbpo 14:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of the "mainstream media" in relation to blogs is very telling. Wikipedia has verifiability and no original research policies, which basically cut the legs off your argument, especially through their reference to the reliable sources requirement. Of course, I've had this discussion with you before, but it seems you're still interested in changing the fundamental nature of Wikipedia. That ain't gonna work; you're not going to get anyone to agree with you that blogs are a better source of "undistorted" information that major news outlets. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durbin's Description one prisoners condition at GITMO is taken out of context!

If the media would stop taking quotes out of context and not provide a full transcript of what Sen. Durbin said on the Senate floor then they might view his comments as distasteful and controversial. When put into the context on Sen. Durbin's full speech one can clearly see that what the FBI report described about the condition of a prisoner at GITMO more closely ressembled that of inhumane regimes of the past than of what would be expected from an American run detention facility.


Um, actually foxnews.com provides a full text version of Sen. Durbin's speech, and you still pretty much get the picture. How can you say that the condition of a prisoner at Gitmo represents Hitler's or Pol Pot's regime? Are you daft? Gitmo detainees have air-conditioning, better food than I eat, toilets, tvs, etc. That's much more than I can say for the homeless and starving people around the world who haven't done anything to us. These people are trying to kill us, and we're feeding them duck l'orange. Have you ever been to a concentration camp? Do you know what it was like for those people (who were innocent, btw)? No beds, no food, no clean clothes, no prayer books, nothing. Get your facts, straight. NOTHING that Sen. Durbin said about Gitmo represents anything inhumane.

Much as I'm tempted to add my two cents here, I'll just point out that neither of the posts above suggests any changes to, or is relevant to, the writing of this article. Wikipedia isn't a message board. Also, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes (~). NoahB 15:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Considering that the controversy has re-opened with the Rove statement, I find it unfortunate that someone wanting to find out what Rove is talking about has so little here to find (any more). Why is it, after several people with opposing viewpoints hash out a fairly unbiased and fully referenced section, someone descides to chop the whole thing out and replace it with little if any content? Are we short of bytes or something?

And yet nobody has added anything about the current Karl Rove statement to the Rove page. And there was a comment and reply about editing the content here before I did it.Shsilver 19:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Durbin's comments WERE on Al-Jazeera

Despite what anyone thinks, his comments were featured on Al Jazeera and they created a lot of hype in the Middle East. It IS relevant to the controversy, and it deserves to be in there. It's NOT POV. Also, the second change I made was to fix the ambiguousness of the sentence. It doesn't make sense! I just cut it into two sentences so that it actually reads correctly.Stanselmdoc 20:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please sign comments on Talk pages with four tildes, as follows: ~~~~ . Above is from User:Stanselmdoc. Shem(talk) 20:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry! I forgot, thank you for reminding me.Stanselmdoc 20:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Now then, would you please provide a source (link) for Senator Durbin being used on Al-Jazeera for propagandistic purposes (as being on an Arabic network is not in and of itself propagandistic)? What you've inserted must be removed until it is sourced. Shem(talk) 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I added the link to Al-Jazzeera. Stanselmdoc 21:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Durbin's comments and initial apology refusal were on Al Jazeera, but there are is no record of his apology. Neglecting to publish his apology while publishing his original remarks IS propoganda. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/796AA4AC-531C-4E6F-B855-7FBC52506824.htm Barneygumble 21:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Beg your pardon, are you deliberately lying? The link Stanselmdoc used as a source currently has "U.S. senator regrets Nazi remark" [1] as one of their frontpage stories
I stand corrected. I did a search for Durbin on Al-Jazeera's site and only the original accusation came up. Cheers Barneygumble 29 June 2005 21:41 (UTC)

[2]. That a Middle Eastern network publishes a story -- just as CNN and FOX News have -- is not inherently propagandistic. Since al-Jazeera has covered both Durbin's comments and apology, I am removing the POV remarks toward al-Jazeera from the article. 23:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem changing the phrase and not using the term "propaganda". That's fine. But it IS A FACT and IT IS RELEVANT TO THE REASON THE SPEECH WAS CONTROVERSIAL, so it SHOULD BE IN THE ARTICLE. It has nothing to do with whether or not Al-Jazeera has credentials enough to cover all aspects of the story (because shoot, that could be debated for a long time). It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that that was ONE OF THE BIGGEST reasons Republicans were upset: because they were afraid it would be used to fuel anti-American hatred among Middle Eastern populations. If I really wanted to be POV, I'd write about how it really has, how soldiers are getting hate mail as a result, etc. But I don't want to be POV, I want to be THOROUGH. If you want, we could just mention that it was something Republicans were concerned about, and use it as an example, but it should be in there, because IT IS an example. Not necessarily of propaganda, you're right, but absolutely of Republican concerns. And by the way, my link takes you to Al-Jazeera's main page, NOT to any particular article, so you can see aaaaaall the articles Al-Jazeera publishes, and I don't see any "propaganda" on my part at all.Stanselmdoc 01:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to "scream" in all-caps. What I'm asking, though, is why it being covered by Arabic networks is of note right next to the "providing propaganda" claim of U.S. Republicans' concerns. Would any coverage of this by al-Arabiya or Arab News be noteworthy as well? I'm wondering how remarks on journalists doing their jobs applies, is all, without outright accusing you of (what appears to be) anti- al-Jazeera POV. Shem(talk) 01:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The claim that Stanselmdoc seems to be making now is slightly different from the one he (or she) was making before, as far as I can tell. Before the claim was that al-Jazeera covering the story was itself worthy of inclusion -- which, as Shem says, isn't very convincing, unless the fact that CBS (or whoever) covered the story is newsworthy. Now the claim seems to be that Republicans are making an issue of the fact that Durbin's comments are running on Al-Jazeera. If that's true, then it could be in the article, as far as I'm concerned, anyway. But it should be sourced -- that is, there needs to be a link to a news story stating that Republicans are making a big deal about this issue, not just a link to the Al-Jazeera sight. NoahB 17:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Noah, my argument has changed. That's the beauty of wiki! The point isn't to stand firm in your belief and argue until your head blows off, the point is to compromise. I understand the notion to source my belief that Al-Jazeera should be mentioned, because I've heard it stated by many Republicans, and not just those in office. What I don't understand is why the outrage to source things, all of a sudden. Is it just because this is a controversial issue? Why don't we ask that every fact that gets put on every article be sourced, because you can argue the validity of any fact until you see a source. The reason we don't ask to have every comment sourced on wiki is because a lot of things are universally common knowledge or commonly accepted as true. I can't source something by saying "look at my newspaper" or "I was listening to the radio and he said". You're telling me I have to find it on a website, and I'm being fair, and looking. I will refrain from putting anything up on the article until I find a "source", but I think it's dumb that I have to. Because if you haven't heard the outrage from people about the fact that it was on Al-Jazeera, then you haven't been watching or listening to the news close enough, and because people could ask for a source on a lot of things, but they don't because they realize it's acceptable. I'm actually kind of hurt by the notion that I would "deliberately lie" in order to get a point across. I'm not a Republican. I'm a wikian. And I want to present the truth. Stanselmdoc 18:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been here that long, but my understanding is that Wikipeida is trying to move more towards sourcing facts in articles in general as a way of making the encyclopedia more credible (and therefore more useful) as a source. I'm pretty sure the goal is, in fact, to source every fact that comes up, (though I must admit that I don't have the source for that comment handy.) Anyway, this comes up a lot in debates on featured articles especially. And the bar for sourcing material does go up when a topic becomes controversial -- sources help resolve disputes in a way that more (and often increasingly bitter) assertions don't. Also, note that it's convenient if you can find an internet source, but you can also reference print and even television as well. See vampire watermelon, for example, where the article is based extensively on a text (which was scanned and put online at some point by one of the articles editors, I think, but still....) NoahB 19:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh...and sorry that I my earlier comments made it seem that it had to be an internet source. I just assumed it would be easy to find online. (If you do reference a paper, you'd probably want to give the name of the paper, the name of the article, the date of the paper, and the author, if there is such a thing. That's how they tend to cite those things in print works, anyway.) And, of course, these guidelines are just my POV of how these things should work; if everybody else thinks the Durbin article should be completely unsourced, then we could do that, too. NoahB 19:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty much amazed at how many electrons are being spilled on this on the page. Of course Republicans are going to call for an apology and not except it. That's the way politics works. A better way to deal with controversies on the page is the way it is on, for instance, the Karl Rover page, where the controversies are noted without focusing on minute (and partisan, either way) details. I suggest the controversy section on Durbin's page follow the examples on the Rover page.Shsilver 19:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just goes to show that electrons are cheap. Your idea sounds good to me, at least. Why don't you edit the article in accordance with your suggestion and then people on both sides of the issue can weigh in on whether they like it or not? Or, if you'd prefer, you could write a draft, put it on the talk page, and move it to the article if everyone seems to agree that it's better than what we've got. Incidentally, the link is Karl Rove.NoahB 19:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops. The Karl Rove link was a slip of the fingers. Not a statement. I'll work up an edit and put it up a little later today.Shsilver 19:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if the comparison to the Karl Rove article is appropriate (he is not an elected politician), look at the Rick Santorum article for a better comparison of how controversies are covered - he basically did the same thing as Durbin, offended people with his statements. NoSeptember 01:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think ShSilvers's edit is reasonable, and a good way to keep the discussion from spiraling on to infinite length. If it were up to me, I think I would put in Durbin's actual quote itself, at least for now while the thing is such a hot topic. But perhaps others can weigh in.... NoahB 14:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While the section does not need to be long, the current version fails in these respects:
  1. Nothing of his speech is included and to say "various repressive 20th century regimes" leaves it all to the imagination of the reader (we are failing to inform factually here).
  2. His repeated refusal to apologize is ignored, and his eventual "apology" was not for his statement but for how others may have interpreted his meaning. The article is worded in a way that makes it appear otherwise.
  3. We should not be afraid to address controversies. This section appears to be designed to encourage the reader to ignore the controversy, whereas articles such as Rick Santorum discuss controversies that allow the reader to make up their own minds about the importance of controversial statements. It is not our job to cover things up, but to report them accurately. NoSeptember 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although I didn't include the quote, I did include the link to the actual speech, which means that the wiki article doesn't have to worry about taking the quote out of context.Shsilver 15:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The previous version to Shsilver's appears to be a better coverage of the issue, and is not all that long. Shsilver's version in too condensed and lacking of relevant facts. This is the #2 leader of the party in the Senate, his positions and opinions should be discussed openly. NoSeptember 15:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
After thinking about this a little and reading the coverage of the Santorum controversy, I think I agree with NoSeptember at this point. I understand the impulse to take the long view and assume that this will be a small blip in Durbin's career. However, the fact is that we can't predict the future, and right now anyone reading the Durbin article is going to want to know about the controversy. Even in the long view, it may well be what he's remembered for -- who knows? Maybe we should just revert to an earlier version and try to prune from that if it seems necessary....? NoahB 18:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


One of the difficulties I'm having with the article is that much of what is being added as detail is pretty much a description of the Republican line under the guise of reportage.Shsilver 18:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, look at my recent edit and see if it's any better. I put back a lot of stuff, though I agreed with you that the description of Republican response to Durbin's apology is predictable enough to be effectively pointless, so I didn't dwell on that; I also put in a reference to the fact that some people have supported him, which is true. I think the Republican accusations are important and should be included. It seemed best to go back to more full coverage, though, since that seems to be what most people wanted....NoahB 20:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'm still of the opinion that it goes into too much detail, plus your new version introduces redundancies in the paragraph I added.Shsilver 20:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] catholic section

Removed the stuff about abortion and catholicism. It isn't really an issue in Illinois or nationally. It also isn't an issue in the domestic catholic church, it's more the European ultra conservative Catolics that make an issue about this. In any case, it has nothing to do with Durbin. --(unsigned edit by User:Pdbailey , 01:26, 24 Jun 2005).

  • I think it is a gross over statement to say that the issue "has nothing to do with Durbin", particularly in light of the study he released in 2004 showing that Republican politicians vote against the Church doctrine more often than the Democrats. Whether it is an issue that rises to the level of importance to be covered in Wikipedia is another question, however. I support the deletion. If it were felt by other editors that the issue is relevant at all, I believe that the material in its prior form was far too lengthy to be added to Senator Durbin's and should be limited to a sentence or two. DS1953 01:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think perhaps a paragraph with a link to his study might be worthy of inclusion. Pdbailey 01:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was an issue in the Kerry campaign last year, what Europeans think is not relevant. If it was an issue in Durbin's campaign or career than it is valid for inclusion. I don't follow Durbin, so I don't know if this has been an issue for him, those of you in Illinois would know more. NoSeptember 02:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I wrote the catholic section, and I admit it may have been to long, compared to rest of the article. (or perhaps the article is too short for the #2 democrat in the country?) However, i think it is relevant to his political career as IL is pretty much an all republican state with the exception of chicago. The chicago political machine is now and has historically been connected to the catholic church in chicago. Durbin could be alienating the very people that got him elected. Anyhow, I think it would be worth a mention, maybe someone wants to write a sentence on it? Plandahl 03:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are knowledgeable about this issue, you should do it. Grab your text from history and condense the text as you see fit. Be bold, with subsequent edits and discussion on this page, I think we can come to a version acceptable to all (or at least most) NoSeptember 03:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "the majority of responses to Durbin's statement were negative"

I contest that. I've seen nothing from liberal commentators and blogosphere but condemnation for Durbin's apologizing [3] [4] [5] [6]. This was just another average partisan issue, with slightly more coverage from the media. Shem(talk) 21:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have a valid point, maybe we should change "majority" to "many" or something like that. NoSeptember 21:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nickname

Shouldn't the article mention Durbin's nickname? To my knowledge, he's often referred to as Dick Durbin. -Grick(talk to me!) 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I have added a mention, but perhaps it would be better to emulate other articles about politicians by having the article at Dick Durbin, the name by which he is most commonly known, and then having his full name in the lead, possibly without the nickname. NatusRoma 21:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Petition

Jbpo continues to include the following passage in to the Durbin article

In July of 2006, a campaign sponsored by the Republican Assembly of Illinois:[7] collected signatures to censure Senator Durbin[8], accusing him of "supporting our enemies in time of war".

I have several objections to its inclusion. First, it constitutes an ad hominem attack. Second the web site / petition drive makes outlandish statements accusing Durbin of sedition and aiding America's enemies. There is no support provided for these claims. Third, there is no reliable source provided. The site is sponsored by Republican organizations solely for political purposes. No third-party reported on the petition. No mainstream media would print such an accusation, which borders on libel. Fourth, the inclusion in Wikipedia is clearly done for purposes of self-promotion by groups opposing Durbin. Sixth, the petition provides no new factual information about Durbin or his political positions. It criticizes his comments about Gitmo, but that is already well covered in the Durbin article (perhaps even to the point of undue weight). Seventh, its inclusion violates Wikipedia policy on articles of living persons. I will continue to delete this dubious paragraph as many times a necessary. Based on its abusive nature, it is exempt from the 3RR. Thanks. Propol 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The online petition added by User:Jbpo to this article fails the WP:WEB test for inclusion, and very poorly. For instance, zero web pages link to the petition website. This is an easy call. (cue Jbpo rant about not being a PR man for Durbin etc etc; this type of editing is a recurring theme with Jbpo). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 15:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply reporting that there is a censure petition by no means fails any of these tests. Hacking out the reports that do not suit your opinions is the failure. The section is about controversy. It is a sure sign of controversy when the Illinois GOP is demanding the censure of the incumbent Democrat. The censure website, run by Jim Leahy, the campaign manager for Jim Oberweis, a respected political opponent of Sen Durbin, has gained around 5000 signatures, despite being blacked-out by the mainstream media in a continuing attempt to substitute PR for news. However, Wiki's are not run by corporate interests, or PR flak, rather they are community efforts to provide a legitimate source of information about many subjects. It is quite important to know that there is a very active campaign going on right now to censure Durbin, despite the media blackout. If the media blackout is extended to wiki, must other subjects distateful to Propol and Jerseyko also be blacked-out? How about showing some independence from the media combines, and letting the facts speak for themselves? There really is a campaign going on to censure Durbin. Why not let the public know about it? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbpo (talk • contribs) .

Whether Wikipedia is run by "corporate interests" has absolutely no bearing on whether a link to this petition belongs in this article. Wikipedia policy determines what can and cannot be here, whether or not you like the fact that things need to be reported in the "mainstream media" per those policies to be included here. Have you read the Wikipedia policies I've asked you to read in the past? Let me point them out again, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering WP:WL, is not editting. Just because you disagree with a viewpoint, does not mean that the factual basis of that viewpoint in not relevant. Of course it is relevant that the Illinois GOP wants to censure Durbin. I persononally do not think he should be censured, but that does not mean that it should not be published. End the media blackout. Stop wikilawyering and use a community resource as a community resource rather than repeating the mainstream media mantra "Must support incumbent-Must support incumbent". Durbin made some very bold and aggressive statements. Shouldn't he be held to account? Should we blackout the story because it makes Durbin look unpleasant? Or can we use the new media to accurately report the news rather than the corporate mantras that makes the mainstream media so sick?--Jbpo 02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why this should be included with reference to Wikipedia policy instead of using this talk page (and attempting to use this article) as a platform to denounce the "mainstream media"? Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 04:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Without Wikilawyering? This should be included because it is important to understanding the controversy. A censure petition by the opposing party is quite relevant. The fact that the Tribune, NY Times etc did not publish the same petition is irrelevant. --Jbpo 13:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is maniuplating policy to make a point. I'm not asking you for that; I'm merely asking you to point to a wikipedia policy that supports inclusion of the demonstrably non-notable website. And the fact that absolutely no media outlet has reported on it is extremely relevant. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is is perfect example of Wikilawyering

"Wikilawyering is maniuplating policy to make a point. I'm not asking you for that; I'm merely asking you to point to a wikipedia policy that supports inclusion of the demonstrably non-notable website. And the fact that absolutely no media outlet has reported on it is extremely relevant"

The editor makes unfounded assumptions about "non notable", then claims that since the conglomerate press has blacked out some information, then it must not have happened. The editor assumes the only important criteria for entry is his opinions, rather than the simple facts. --Jbpo 18:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My "unfounded assumption" about "non notable" is quite well founded, and demonstrated by the fact that zero websites link to the censuredurbin.org website. That's a fact. It's also quite simple. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Either the editor not finding links does not want to find links, or he does not read the most popular news site about Illinois politics.[9] or both. In any case, it is obviously notable that the opposing party is trying to censure the incument senator, in one of the most controversial statements ever made in the US Senate. Only the Tribune, Suntimes, New York Times, should have the gall to not report this story. The independent media shold not be chained to publishing PR Flak for Durbin, just becuase the incumbent media is. --Jbpo 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your only link is to a blog??? Blogs are explicitly mentioned as not being reliable sources. "Most popular news site about IL politics" . . . betcha can't prove that. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Pure Wikilawyering. Totally unecessary, and unproductive. If the mainstream media reported the story accurately, Illinoize would not be nearly as popular. Notice, the accuracy of the link is not challenged by the editor, only the lawyerly point that a blog, now matter how popular, violates some imagined rule. Since the editor cannot dispute the link, he then claims that the link is irrelevant because of his lawyerly stance. Totally against the community nature of a Wiki. How about posting some reasons why Durbin should not be censured, rather than trying to blackout this story? --Jbpo 03:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Jbpo, it is not Wikilawyering. What you are including is inappropriate, especially for the article of a living person. I will delete all references to the petition and will continue to do so as many times as necessary. Given the circumstances the three revert rule is not applicable. To illustrate my point, I could go to some blog and post a petition to block Jbpo from Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it notable or worthy of inclusion in an article. Thanks. Propol 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Propol it most certainly is a use of rules interpretations to block edits rather than record facts. If you worked for the GOP Assembly of Illinois, and I were a sitting Democratic Senator, then it would be perfectly legitimate for a link for censure to be included. As a bickering set of editors, we are not particularly noteworthy, nor should we be. But when a Senator, who made one of the most controversial statements of the last 4 years has some opposition, it certainly is noteworthy. You can blackout all the information you like, but remember the censor is not really a popular figure in a free society. --Jbpo 23:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is "asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express." The most basic principle expressed in Wikipedia's verifiability policy is stated in its summary at the top of the article: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." Jbpo, you have actually celebrated the fact that www.censuredurbin.org is not published in reliable and reputable sources as defined by Wikipedia policy and guideliness as it has not been covered by mainstream media outlets. Furthermore, WP:WEB explicitly states that web content must provide proof that its subject meets one of [three] criteria, which www.censuredurbin.org does not meet. Finally, your admission that you are attempting to disseminate www.censuredurbin.org to a larger audience because it has not received media coverage through placing it in this article contradicts Wikipedia's WP:NOT policy, which states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought such as opinions on current affairs. None of these are "technical interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that overrides the principles they express." These are straightforward applications of easily understandable policies and guidelines. Your accusations of "Wikilawyering" (as if that proves your point that the information should be in the article somehow) are utterly baseless. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 00:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A1, Front and Center example of Wikilawyering above. The verifiabiliy is so simple to establish, as the news story is that the censure petition exists, not that it is a good position. After you have verified its existence, it might be worth your time to list reasons for and against censure, rather than finding lawyerly reasons to blackout the story. Pure and simple, you are wrongly interpreting rules to override the principles of good editting and providing public information in a free society. --Jbpo 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How the hell is my post, a straightforward application of policy, Wikilawyering? Wikilawyering does not mean applying Wikipedia policy to a dispute. It means interpreting policy in such a technical way that it results in the policy being ignored in fact. How the hell am I "wrongly interpreting the rules?" Explain that in detail with reference to policy. Your aversion to following policy does not excuse you from complying with it, nor does it excuse your blanket accusations without detailed explanations or reference to policy. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, you seem to think the verifiability policy stops at "information on Wikipedia must be verifiable." The policy actually contains multiple sentences, the second of which I included above: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." Thus, something is not "verifiable" under the policy simply because it exists in reality. My toe exists. It is not, however, verifiable under the policy, as it has not been discussed in reliable and reputable sources. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Jbpo object to the existence of Wikipedia policies? —Tamfang 05:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamfang, yes. And I firmly believe that the facts and common sense trump the aggressive application of Wikilawyering. The toe example from Jerseyko is perfect. He asks if it is verifiable that his toe exists. If there are 5000 people signing a petition that his toe exists, it is more verified than 99.99% of the entries on Wikipedia, yet he insists that it is not verifiable until the stooge media makes a report. --24.13.84.218 12:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)--Jbpo 12:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit Jbpo -- it's verifiable in reliable sources (I even found a Washington Post article on it), it received widespread media coverage. The edit was appropriate. I'm glad you are beginning to understand how verifiability works here. Note that simplying saying something is "verifiable" does not mean "verifiable" under its dictionary defintion, but rather according to this policy. You seem to still be using the dictionary defintion of verifiable, as exemplified by your condemnation of my toe example, which was meant to show the difference between "dictionary verifiability" and "Wikipedia verifiability." And simply discussing and explaining policy is not Wikilawyering; though your constant accusations of it are incivil. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jerseyko, so what? I was close to the 3x rule, so rather than be subject to your further hectoring, just found a simple source for an old censure proposal, rather than put up the accurate information about a live petition that you would have wikilawyered away. Picking out individual rules that suit your editorial view should earn you a full condemnation for the childish censorship that you practice. The petition does not go away because you edit it. And another 500 people have signed since I posted the link to the petition. --Jbpo 03:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roommates Reversion

"16:05, 15 November 2006 Propol (Talk | contribs) (Revert - no source.== Besides Dennis Hastert and Scott Palmer would be a more contemporary example.)"

See WAPO:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/14/AR2005081401235_4.html?referrer=email NYT:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E7D81031F930A35750C0A9649C8B63

Hastert and Palmer will never be President and Vice-President—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.190.221 (talk • contribs)

I don't dispute that it's factually accurate that Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, and various other politicians are roommates, but I still have concerns. First, is this relevant to an encyclopedia article? Second, is this included for purposes of intimating a homosexual relationship (which is certainly not supported)? Including such a statement could serve partisan purposes. I don't think a Senator's living arrangements merit inclusion. I have the same concerns about the Dennis Hastert article. I don't think these should be included in either case. Your thoughts? Propol 05:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/garden/18roomies.html?em&ex=1169269200&en=165dc28768824995&ei=5070 The NYT has a feature on all 4 male roommates who share 2 bedrooms


[edit] Video Game Censorship?

I removed the catagory "Video Game Censorship" whereas the article doesn't mention it at all, and for the record, I'm not familiar with him taking a stance on the issue in general. --Nate 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalaced tag

I added an {{unbalanced}} tag to the "issues" subsection. Abortion is the only issue discussed, giving the issue undue weight in comparison to . . . anything else. · jersyko talk 12:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The name of the section could be changed to "Abortion" and that would solve the problem. It's interesting that he used to vote against abortion.--Gloriamarie 15:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Chad Durbin discrepancy

I'm pretty sure the fact about Dick being Chad Durbin's uncle is not true. Can anyone verify this?

Interestingly, the Chad Durbin page says "Contrary to popular belief Chad Durbin is not related to Richard (Dick) Durbin, the senator from Illinois." 75.67.173.178 (talk) 04:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This page states that Chad Durbin, the baseball player, is nephew to Sen. Durbin. However, Chad's page states something like "Contrary to popular belief, Chad is not related to Senator Dick Durbin." What gives? We need someone with knowledge of this situation to provide the truth. --RikkDoc (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)