Talk:Peter Roskam

This article must be edited in accordance with our policy on biographies of living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately. [1]

Archive1

Protection

The article is now protected and will remain so until such time as the contributors begin discussing the content of the article instead of ranting and accusing each other of being pro or anti Roskam advocates. Please use the talk page to discuss prospective edits for the time being. Any changes that are uncontroversial or any edits that meet the acceptance of consensus I will make to the article myself while it is locked. Gamaliel 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, a request, if you can, set up a "clean sheet" place were these discussions can take place more conveniently.Joehazelton 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC) one more thing, thanks, we now have a stationary target to talk about.Joehazelton 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune ad image

Now, to start, This picture

File:Salvi Roskam Maher.png

Peter Roskam's Law Firm (Photo: Chicago Tribune)

"LOOMS" and gives far to much weight to the fact that

Roskam's Law Firm advertises in the yellow pages and can get "RESULTS" This is a Bio not a Ad for SALIV, ROSKAM and MAHER.. it should be made much smaller

File:Salvi Roskam Maher.png

Peter Roskam's Law Firm (Photo: Chicago Tribune)

or removed and hot linked it to its sourced. Joehazelton 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton, I think reducing the picture to 120 pixels is too much of a reduction; I can't even read most of the wording at that size. I would be willing to compromise at 175 pixels - large enough to read but not too big. Please see below. Thanks. Propol 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Salvi Roskam Maher.png

Peter Roskam's Law Firm (Photo: Chicago Tribune)

I oppose the reduction of the image's size (let alone its removal — an outrageous suggestion). From the point of view of Wikipedia, it is absolutely notable, encyclopedic, informative, interesting. And a size reduction will make it illegible. Every extra click loses readers. The Illinois General Assembly shot is quite large also; have we complained about that? — goethean ॐ 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets consider this...the Rosakam's photo is 170 pix, and Propol compromises at 175pix. Propol, I would say the Yellowpage ad should not be larger and given more weight then Rosakam's photo, since this his bio and not a advertisment for his lawfirm? I would compromise at 140pix. Also, there is the link to Zorn "super" blog where it can be found in "grand scale" to examine.

File:Salvi Roskam Maher.png

Peter Roskam's Law Firm (Photo: Chicago Tribune)

For the hardworking Goethean, you're so worried that the law firm of Saliv,Roskam and Maher is going to lose clicks, they should hire you as their webmaster. Again this a bio, not an ad for a lawfirm and having this picture loom at over 1/3 of the page width is WP:NPOV#Undue weight so, your premise is flawed. Also, as mentioned above, your "would be injured parties" are one simple click away from the source of this fine bit of advertising for legal services.Joehazelton 23:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton, I will compromise at 170 pixels - the same size as the Roskam headshot. When you reduce it to 140 pixels it's hard to read. Cooperate with me on this one. If I wanted to make an issue of it, I would be justified in removing the Roskam headshot from the top of the article. Its copyright status is questionable. It's supposedly from the Illinois General Assembly, but when I follow the link provided that is not the photo displayed. Also, many people don't realize this, but we don't automatically have the right to use a photo from a state website. People mistakenly think these are automatically in the public domain, but that is only true if it were a federal government website (i.e. a Representative's official House website). So let's keep both at 170 pixels each and call it even. Please move on. Thanks. Propol 23:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Salvi Roskam Maher.png

Peter Roskam's Law Firm (Photo: Chicago Tribune)

As an update, the Roskam headshot is really found at [2], which is a blog. The copyright status could definitely be called into question. Joehazelton would you please look into finding a better source. I leave it for the meantime. Thanks. Propol 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a concept of "FAIR USE" WP:FAIR this picture also can be found here [[3]] and I'm real sure that they would have no problem with that picture on wikipedia. See this also...

Publicity photos, distributed as part of press kits by celebrities, corporations, candidates for political office, and others, may be eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use. Wikipedia:Publicity photos

I tell you what, email them and ask. I have a digital picture which I took, I will sign a release for it, put it in to public domiain and put that up.

Bringing this up border's on minutiae. Are we going to be reasonable or we're going to play this game? Put the law frim ad at 150pix (which is half way between 120 and 170), let the injured, go to the the source via a link, and we move on.Joehazelton 00:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton, I have to disagree with you; copyright status is a very important issue. Journalists could loose their jobs for not handling such things properly. I feel we should strive for the highest standard possible. I went to the page for the Roskam headshot and changed the link to point to the Cook County Republicans web site. That is more appropriate than a blog. Also, I added license (promotional) information. Details like this matter. Also, we will need to change the caption of the photo, which incorrctly attributes it to the Illinois General Assembly. As for the Salvi, Roskam and Maher photo, please do not reduce it smaller than 170 pixels. When smaller I find it difficult to read even Roskam's name. Thanks. Propol 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What I don't logically understand why your so recalcitrant to the idea that by clicking the picture you get a very nice, hi-res picture that my blind grandma could read, if one wishes. Again, this is a bio of a man not an ad for his law firm and having it such a picture, (any size)creates a powerful weight, considering we're visual creatures, a little goes a long way. The principle is WP:NPOV#Undue weight as well as WP:LIVING. That would seem simple to me.Joehazelton 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton, you keep using WP:NPOV#Undue weight as an argument for removing (or reducing to the point that it's not legible) the advertisement for Roskam's law firm. A modestly sized photo (i.e. 170 pixels) is not undue weight. The Chicago Tribune published multiple articles about the conflict between Roskam's legal practice and his stated political positions. Roskam increased the relevance and importance of the issue by choosing to make tort reform a campaign issue. This has drawn criticism from the Tammy Duckworth campaign. I have even seen Republican / conservative blogs that have been critical. Even if they agree with tort reform, they thought it was a poor campaign strategy given Roskam's background. The criticism of Roskam is not from some extremely small minority. I don't think you understand undue weight. If a group of astrologers said Roskam should be opposed due to his birth date, a position likely to be held by only a very small minority, then one could argue to reduce or even eliminate the references. Otherwise, we should strive to be as comprehensive as possible. Thanks. Propol 16:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Tribune ad is highly relevant to Roskam's biography and enlightening in regards to his positions. It should be readable. Therefore, its size should not be reduced. We should be trying to inform voters rather than trying to deceive them. It is counter to Wikipedia principles as well as to common sense to force readers to click on the image to read the headline. One wonders what size Mr. Hazelton would want the image if it were, say, an ad that Roskam took out in the Tribune identifying his position on, say, tax cuts. I venture to suggest that he would not be fighting to decrease it to unreadable proportions. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy dictates that the image be readable. — goethean ॐ 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While certainly the size of the picture can be a legitimate (if very minor) matter for debate, I don't see the point of having a picture so small that it is unreadable or one that you have to click through to see at all. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia precedent for such a circumstance. If the picture is in the article, it should be visible and readable for the average user. Gamaliel 17:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, small don't matter, its a click away from filling over 1/2 the screen on your average user's Win/TEL computer, which 1/2 run 800x600 resolution and the balance run at 1024x768, so, for the sake of augment your "average user" is running 1024x768 which for the uninformed means the width of the screen is 1024 pixs (pixels). Now lets click on the small picture and "WOW" we get a picture of (638x846). This means, on a your "average user" computer screen, the picture will fill over half of it (3/5 of to be exact). The point of html is the hot links, clicking, and the empowerment for those to chose. You assume that people don't know how to do that, but by the very act of being on wikipdia and looking at the article, implies that your "average user" is sophisticated and very well acquainted with the concept of hotlinks, clicking links and the like. I think, considering this, your argument is spurious at best. The issue is not hiding the picture, its a matter of practical column space and it's best use. Also I thought there would be "GOOD FAITH"???? but again in the end logical argument is overridden by brute force and threats (There is far more material I COULD ADD....one of our fine editors have said)

Mr. Popol Understand this, Tammy's best Buds are not pure as the driven snow either, The Suntimes, as they say in illiterate Bridgeport slang, "they gots da dirt on da boss and da caps", for a taste, (see the [trucks for hire scandal]) Now, I have lived in the Chicago area all my life, so don't try to pull this on me, don't underestimate what I know. I could load this place up with all the dirty little stunts that have been pulled by Tammy's best Buds which Roskam has stopped or tried to stopped during his time in Springfield. Now lets cut the bulldonkey, and stick with the point at hand and focus, with out these side side issues clouding the waters.Joehazelton 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not distract the issue with complaints about "butte (sic) force and threats" or with threats of your own to pack the article with anti-Duckworth material. Concentrate on the issue at hand or we will be unable to move on to any other issue.

I understand that people will be able to understand to click through to get a larger picture. That is not my concern. My concern is the format of this article, and a tiny, unreadable picture does not improve the format of this article in any way. Please show me another Wikipedia article where a small unreadable picture is intentionally inserted so people have to click through to get to see the image in a meaningful way. Since we can easily display the image in a clear readable manner, there is no reason for us not to do so. Gamaliel 00:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Now lets cut the bulldonkey, and stick with the point at hand and focus, with out these side side issues clouding the waters.Joehazelton 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)"

Why blame me for the threats of propol (so much for good faith) to turn this article in to a Anti-Roskam page? YOU people don't read, only write, so AGAIN I PASTE IT...

"Now lets cut the bulldonkey, and stick with the point at hand and focus, with out these side side issues clouding the waters."Joehazelton 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IF thats not plain enough, than what can I say. It appears to be my way or the highway again. This is getting tiresome but I will plod if thats what takes.

The readability of the fuzzy print on the jpg pix is irrelevant. The fact it's only one of three pictures there will draw great attention to it and people WILL click to it. Why is this not understood. I am not trying to hid the fact the picture is there but it gives undo weight to just one part of Roskam's bio. This is not, and I GET SO TIRED OF REPEATING MYSELF, an advertisement for his law office. YES it has relevancy as I'm not saying to remove it, BUT, again it is not the most important element of the bio. Joehazelton 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There may have been threats by Propol, but I didn't see them. I did see your comments, though. It was hard not to because you start yelling at the top of your lungs at the slightest provocation. You don't have to quote yourself, I'm sure that your intentions are to focus, but what you are actually doing is distracting. The first issue you raised is a tangental one about picture size and you don't even discuss that calmly. You have some legitimate issues to raise in regards to this article, but your manner of "debate" is distracting, disruptive, and encourages people not to take you seriously. Again I urge you to calm down and actually try to focus on the issues, as you declared that you wanted to do.

In regards to the issue at hand, the readability of the picture certainly is relevant! If the image is unclear and unreadable, you have a grey blob in the middle of the article. That serves no purpose. We don't have images to click through to other pages, we have images to illustrate the article page. That is their only purpose, and if they are unreadable they are pointless. Gamaliel 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if I added this picture too, then Joehazelton could argue that's undue weight. If I were simply trying to bias the article against Roskam, there is far more material that I could add. Joehazelton's complaints are bulldonkey, to steal his term. Propol 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. Or this one. — goethean ॐ 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy on behalf of Joehazelton (and, more to the point, reframing certain issues for discussion)

Joehazelton requested, at WP:AMA, an advocate relative to what he perceived to be biased (or, in any event, deleterious as regards encyclopedic standards) editing of this article; I undertook to assist Joe in articulating his concerns to other editors. Having previously analyzed 20 diffs for Joe, and having been apprised by Joe that several of the substantive issues were resolved on this talk page, I—as an editor—was a bit distressed to observe the edit- and revert-warring that entailed (and necessitated the protection of the page). Joe's concerns are apropos not only of the substance of the article but also of the discussions and motivations underlying such editing, and, although he continues to assume good faith, he is—not wholly unjustifiably, I think—concerned that his concerns have been given only cursory regard. Whilst the article is protected, editors might do well to attempt to resolve some of the outstanding issues, and, on Joe's behalf, I've tried to set out clearly what some of those issues are, in order that discussion might tailored thereto:

• Ought the article to include Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png, a scan of a full-page telephone book advertisement for the law firm for which Roskam works, and, if so, what size ought the image to take?
• Is an inclusion of the sundry forms of personal injury law practiced by Roskam's firm encyclopedic (per WP:NOT) and, if so, does WP:NPOV#Undue bias nevertheless militate against inclusion?
• Is the fact of Roskam's having missed a vote on Social Security reform, or the fact of the citation of that fact by a (probably) notable blog, encyclopedic, and, if so, does WP:NPOV#Undue bias nevertheless militate against inclusion?
• Is the adduction of the characterization by the Anglican Journal of the "extreme" nature of Roskam's church encyclopedic?
• Does the partial enumeration of political action committees to have contributed to the Roskam campaign, principally sourced relative to the contributions themselves rather than to criticism thereof by, inter al., the Duckworth campaign, constitute a cruftily unencyclopedic formulation or, if not, does such enumeration nevertheless improperly bias the Roskam article?

Although I act here as Joe's advocate, serving to express to others that about which he is concerned and to reconcile his concerns with policies and guidelines, in view, of course, of the advancement of the project, I hope, of course, that I might help to resolve amicably the extant problems (although it should be said that if one desires to formalize such resolution efforts, he ought to pursue dispute resolution, whether vis-à-vis article content or user conduct). I hope that those who have edit-warred here will consider addressing in specific the issues that Joe, by and through me, has raised, and, to be sure, adding—ideally in detail—those issues about which they are concerned, toward a solution that best comports with encyclopedic principles. Should Joe desire that I express any other concerns on his behalf, I will intercede, but in the alternative or meanwhile, I hope and trust that all can work civilly here. Joe 04:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I appreciate your comments. I have always attempted to work with Joehazelton, but I admit, it has been difficult. As for your questions:

• I firmly believe the article ought to include the photograph of Salvi, Roskam & Maher. The advertisement was notable enough that the Chicago Tribune wrote an article about the topic. [4] It is worth noting that there are multiple photos / advertisements that could have been included, but I included only one. The Duckworth campaign has criticized Roskam's legal advertisements and is considering a proposal on regulating such advertising. Joehazelton's complaint of undue weight seems off the mark to me. As for the size of the image to be included, I feel no less than 170 pixels is appropriate. When smaller, the text of the ad is not legible (to me anyway).

• As for a detailed listing of the types of cases handled by Roskam's law firm, let me turn this around and ask you, why would it not be appropriate to provide this information? I think someone advocating the exclusion of information has a greater burden of proof, more so than proponents of inclusion. However, I shall offer my response (even if not necessary). Detailing Roskam's career is perfectly valid for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Many law offices vary in the nature of cases that they perform. The fact that Peter Roskam is campaigning on a position of tort-reform heightens the interest in the nature of his law practice. How is Roskam able take medical malpractice cases where he advocates for multi-million dollar settlements on behalf of patients, and then turn around and seek contributions and endorsements from the medical community for promising tort-reform with caps on awards? It's an inherent conflict of interest. As an analogy, could a doctor that frequently performs elective abortions (and wishes to continue doing so) campaign as a pro-life politician? Bias does not militate against its inclusion; the source used was the web site for Salvi, Roskam & Maher. I highly doubt they misrepresent their own law firm, or choose terms that are biased against themselves.

• Social Security vote - I believe Roskam missing a key vote is valid for inclusion. It's an objective fact that can be easily verified by going to the Illinois General Assembly web site. It is also worth noting that he placed other votes on the same day, again a verifiable fact. I can't prove why Roskam missed the vote, so no mention was made of Roskam's motives. Readers are free to conclude for themselves. As for the blog, I think it would be fair to say there are people / groups calling for Roskam to clarify his position on Social Security. Does Roskam favor privatization? I think that's a fair question to ALL federal candidates. However, I wouldn't go so far as to state Roskam's motives because that's speculation.

• Calling Roskam's church "right-wing" is not the same as calling it "extreme". The Anglican Journal seems like a reasonable source to me. The AMiA prides itself on its orthodoxy. I know a pair of AMiA members and they take pride in the conservative nature of their church. I don't think there has been any malicious conspiracy to misrepresent Roskam's church. The only reason I included a brief description is so readers wouldn't confuse it with the ECUSA, to which most AMiA churches previously belonged.

• I believe a discussion of contributions received by Roskam is very notable and relevant to an encyclopedia article. Great care has been taken to use appropriate sources. The Federal Elections Commission and the Illinois State Board of Elections are highly credible. Many people take a keen interest in political fundraising and there are scores of web sites and publications devoted to the topic, such as open secrets. The contributors section does not satisfy the definition of listcruft. Where Joehazelton might have a stronger case is the partial enumeration; however, this does not justify deleting the existing content. Why not also highlight contributions which reflect in a positive manner on Roskam (i.e. from John McCain's Straight Talk America PAC).

I hope that you find my views useful and informative. Thanks. Propol 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

O'Hare Airport

Since the Peter Roskam article is currently protected, would an editor please create the following sub-section titled, O'Hare Airport within the Positions section of the Roskam article.

Roskam opposes plans to expand O'Hare International Airport, and instead favors building a third regional airport in Chicago's southern suburbs. [5] O'Hare expansion has been supported by many business groups, including the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. [6] Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, supports O'Hare expansion as does the local Republican leadership from DuPage County. [7]

I think the sources are rock-solid. This is a very important issue to the district. I can't believe the issue has been overlooked until now. Please add this at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Propol 01:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

FINISH OLD BUSINESS FIRST

Dear admin, lets finish the old business first before we embark on this burning desire of some editors to be in such a big hurry to add fresh "dirt" to the Roaskam's page. I will be ready with my response shortly and we can finish this old business. In the mean time reduce that miserable yellow page picture from the "looming tent like" 250px down to at lest 170pix ( now this is not my endorsement of this size or its value to the article, but for now, it's a starting point which all parties would seem to have agreed up till now). An aside, (This O'Hare business is not relevant to the bio, it's political hay. Shall we start a new article about the 2006 Illinois 6th congressional election? It would seem to me that some of the editors want very badly to turn Roskam's bio in a Tammy Duckworth Campaign tract. Or, are we going to focus on business at hand)?Joehazelton 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo of yellow page ad and linkage to tort reform

I have problems with the yellow pages ad for the law firm.

I believe that the ad was placed there, in my humble opinion, to imply that, since Roskam's firm is a P I firm, advertising in the yellow pages, that he's a. a ambulance chaser b. Since he is a ambulance chaser, he's a against tort reform.

Now, mentioning the fact he's a partner in a PI firm is not the problem. It's the why and how it's linked to his alleged statement that he(Roskam) is against "Tort Reform". I have simple question, one of the W's, like what, what type of "Tort reform" did Roskam voted against, or is against, or is for. What bills (at lest a summery of the bills) which Roskam allegedly voted against? When did he vote? Is there any type of Tort reform bill Roskam that he may be for? Which bill were acceptable, but did not, or could not come up in the democrately controlled Illinois general assembly so he could vote on them?

Is Roskam totally against tort reform, because he's an Ambulance chaser? These questions begs, and we are left to infer with this, with the linkage we have in the article, that Roskam is against Tort Reform because he's a partner in a law firm that advertising in the yellow pagers, or to infer, due to the context the upcoming Nov 2006 elections, that Roskam an ambulance chaser against some "nebulous" "what each reader would define in his concept of Tort Reform" as Tort reform?

I don't think, in the context of being encyclopedic, the reader should be left with this inference, with out elaboration. Until such detail is researched and verified, it should be removed.Joehazelton 06:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton, as long as everything we provide is factually accurate with proper sources and follows Wikipedia policies, then it is not our responsibility for whatever conclusions or opinions the readers form. You've essentailly argued the article is only permissible so long as it doesn't influence anyone against Roskam. How would we even determine such a thing, as all readers hold a different standard? Also in your complaint, you don't reference any Wikipedia policy. What standard is being violated? I think you know that you lack a case on a factual basis and have chosen to keep complaining simply as a stall tactic to prevent useful information (i.e. O'Hare from being added to the article). If this continues, I will report your conduct to additional administrators, who may choose to block you. I have a long list of violations by you, such as making major edits and stating "spelling" in the edit summary. Thanks. Propol 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So you say? I say False Cause it's an incorrect application of the rule. The letter of the law is correct, the sprit is not. You are trying to push an agenda, Your argument is false.Joehazelton 16:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Social Security vote

Again the question that begs for the reader, why focus on just the one vote vers all the votes Roskam participated as a member of the Illinois general assembly? Why just this one. The assumption and tenuous logic to such linkage is very thin. Since he missed the SS vote, and four days later, he Roskam declared his candidacy of the 6th house seat, then second action must have been caused by the first action. The logic so tenuous that like vapor in the morning mist. The assumption is with out merit or without any direct, hard proof of linkage, other then the word of a blogger(Mr. Markg8 a member of that blog for one year, nine weeks), with an ax to grind. Under stand, just because some ax grinding, wild eye, partisan blogger says there is fire, does it really mean there is? Did the blogger do his home work, where is his references, were can I verify is claims and assumptions. Blog article has none, ( no other records or research I can find on this blog) The bloge article cited reads like diatribe of a angry liberal not happy and wanting to lash out. In the end (irrespective of run this blog) the qualifications this bloggers is unknown, and it's just his word, a word a angry liberal coaster, which we must take on face value. A word, considering his agenda, I would consider not verifiable or encyclopedic. Joehazelton 15:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton, for a description of the resolution click here. For proof that Roskam skipped voting on the issue click here. I think we can all agree that the Illinois General Assembly web site is not a biased source. If you want to replace the reference to the blogs and use what I provided instead, I'm perfectly fine with that. In my opinion, the real issue isn't so much a missed vote, but the unanswered questions about Roskam's views on Social Security. Does he favor privatization? I wish he would spell it out on his campaign web site, then there wouldn't be much need for debate. Thanks. Propol 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue for me is not the fact, it's the pushing of two facts together, then making implied inference why they may be linked Joehazelton 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've actually called Roskam campaign headquarters asking for Roskam's stance on SS. I gave them my name, address and number. Never got a call back, even though I live in the sixth district. — goethean ॐ 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I bet you were your charming self, and they figured that your call was the most important thing on their boring schedule.Joehazelton 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, Roskam should clearly articulate his position on Social Security. In the absence of that, mentioning that he missed a vote on the issue is not out of line. Thanks. Propol 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Enumerations of Pac

The partial enumeration of the PACS, if only listed on the Roskam article, regarding the upcoming November 2006 elections is patently bias considering there is no such enumeration shown on the Duckworth page. The readers, many of whom, are residents of the 6th and it would be fair to say they will be looking at both the Duckworth and Roskam articles, would like to know that Duckworth, in fact, is, getting huge amounts of monies from the Hollywood crowd and other far left wing PACS. Those readers, again many from the 6th, would be interested in her sources of funds and were those who control those funds have residency and where their political agendas, weather implied or stated, lie. The contributions section of this article is, due to current events, closely linked to the Duckworth site. I challenge, the good faith editors that edit here on the Roskam as well as on the Duckworth articles, to start adding these enumerations, on the Duckworth site of some of the more "interesting" Pacs and noteworthy individuals (most of them outsiders to the 6th) contributions, on her page. Until then, it is my humble opinion that these enumerations, are patently bias if there are only seen on Roskams article and not on the Duckworth article and there for are unecylopeidic and should be removed. Joehazelton 16:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton, whatever is or isn't found on the Tammy Duckworth article isn't relevant to the Peter Roskam article. Each should be judged independently. In some U.S. House races, one candidate doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, so of course entries are not always comparable. However, that being said, there is no reason you can't make additions to the Duckworth article. Please use proper sources and play nicely. Thanks. Propol 01:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, for this moment in time, they are tied together, due to the upcoming, and hotly contested November 2006 elections, so such enumerations not found one and found on the other will be unfair, bias, and to make the Roskam page a Duckworth campaign tract. I would consider it not NPOV. Only in the context out side of the election your point may have weight, but in this context you are wrong. Joehazelton 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion, of course, is totally unsupported by Wikipedia policies and so is mostly irrelevant. — goethean ॐ 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dud, of course it is supported and relavent: (WP:LIVING) (WP:NPOV) (WP:NPOV#Undue weight) (WP:AWW) also see wikipedia under "Malicious editing", "One-sided argument". I forgot the old favorite [Ad Hominem]. Take a look at this (WP:NPOVT) and read. NOW, I tell you what, based on my "VALID" and "SUPPORTED" agument, the enumations should be removed on the Roskam page. Joehazelton 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton your complaint is poorly supported. You list numerous Wikipedia policies but you fail to explain how this article violates any of them. Please cite a specific concern. Some of the issues you raise seem like complete nonsense. You bring up weasel words, but I don't see any. The information on the contributions received by Roskam is from the Federal Elections Commission. The article doesn't say, "some people believe Roskam accepted funds from tobacco companies." Propol 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bulldonkey

Propol your patronizing is getting real old, I did explain and detailed the logical fallacy, but you chose to dismiss and ignore it, and continue , unrelenting on your agenda. Which, if one takes the time to review your editing histories here, as well as, on the Duckworth page, there would seem to be an apparent agenda. It is impossible to have a discussion with you, because, it would appear that there is only one point of view here, yours and the insinuations you use are clear. BullDonkey. I challenge you to put some stuff on Tammy's close and dear Budski, Rahm Emanuel and some of his run ins with campaign finance and the like? ( There is enough to make Delay look like a Girl Scout, mis-counting a few cookies)on the Duckworth page, which you are an active editor on. I will not allow you to turn the Roskam's page in to a Duckworth Campaign flyer with out a fight. Until I see some good faith editing on the Duckworth site, I would advcate removal of parts on the Roskam's page to maintain some balace.Joehazelton 05:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton, I take great exception to your comments. I stand by my previous statement that you allege numerous violations of Wikipedia policies, but you fail to provide concrete examples. In order to be most productive please provide samples. Such as:

• Sentence 1 says xxxx.
• I think sentence 1 should say yyy.

When you make too general of statements (i.e. the whole article isn't NPOV) it's hard for other editors to provide you with any constructive feedback and only adds to the frustration level.

Also, you need to watch your comments as they border on personal attacks. That is the type of behavior that you could be blocked again for. You seem to suggest that I am a Duckworth campaign operative. You have no basis to make such an allegation. I have made only one edit to the Duckworth article, and that added detail on the residency issue (not Duckworth's strongpoint). If you have an objection with the Tammy Duckworth article, go edit it yourself. I am not stopping you. The Peter Roskam talk page is not the appropriate place to bring up complaints about other articles. Quit accusing me of a partisan agenda. I am a responsible editor. I have removed information from Democrat Daniel Seals' article that was placed there by a supporter that was not of encyclopedic quality. I also helped to resolve a dispute at Republican Jerry Weller's page. I act in good faith. Besides, you have admitted that you're a Roskam supporter, so I think you're struggling to remain objective. I've never met Peter Roskam and have nothing against him. What I object to is your sanitization of the article. Propol 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of sanitization I would like to do... see example below...

Roskam's campaign manager says that Roskam supports "common-sense gun control provisions"; however, Roskam is a stronger opponent of gun control than is conservative incumbent Henry Hyde. Roskam opposes the 1994 Federal assault weapons ban, for which Henry Hyde voted and which Roskam's opponent supports. Roskam sponsored a bill in the state Senate which would have allowed retired military and police personnel to carry concealed weapons. Unlike his opponent, Roskam has not ruled out supporting measures to allow other people to carry concealed firearms with a permit .

And some more "sanitization" as you would say... see example below...

Social Security On 20 May 2005, Roskam missed a vote in the Illinois Senate on a bill to protect Social Security, although he voted on other bills that same day. This vote occurred four days after Roskam declared his candidacy for the US Congress. [30]

In this little Popol gem, we have a statement... Roskam misses the vote to protect SS. Then we have the implied assumption that because this vote "occurred four days after Roskams declared his candidacy" there is some implication that these are linked events.

The above is so unencyclopedic and illogical it's a joke.

I declare, Who voted on the bill? Roskam? What was the bill that Roskam missed? When was the bill voted on? Where was the bill voted? federal, state? was in the general assembly? How is this important? Why these unverified facts need to be linked. I guess I'm to simple to understand your logic.Joehazelton 01:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow the footnotes and read the articles. The details that you want cited are all already cited to newspaper articles. Your complaints are without merit. — goethean ॐ 14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah,the tpmcafe, An angry liberal's cry and bash -O- trash blog. Get real. This source is unacceptable for this article due to WP:LIVINGWP:RS. First off this is not the Primary source for this informaton. Second, the Blogger mostly states Opinion and is gossipy in tone and content. This is a very poor and unreliable source, as well as, the linkage and editorializing, is unencyclopedic, bias and the article cited reads like a Duckworth handbill, being distributed at the train station.Joehazelton 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down and speak in a civil tone; civility is required of Wikipedia editors. True, Joshua Marshall is a blogger and not a reliable source. However, he is a notable figure who has his own Wikipedia biography. His editorializing regarding Roskam is notable and can be covered in this article. In fact, to ignore Marshall's comments about Roskam would constitute bias in favor of Roskam. — goethean ॐ 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Place a NPOV TAG on the Peter Roskam Page ASAP PLEASE!

I am wondering if there will be any changes allowed at the Roskam page?

In the mean time, since Gamaliel had locked the Roskam article, the he or another admin add a tag to the page indicating that there is an on going NPOV dispute about this article. Let it be known that I am disputing the NPOV of the Roskam article.

Considering some of the issues I have pointed out at the [Roskam talk pages], a

tag placed on top of the Peter Roskam page would be most appropriate. The Peter Roskam article, as it sits, has to many sections, which any reasonable person could call in the question, the relevancy, accuracy and as well as the lack of poor or no citations for the pov assertions many of sections in that article make. The Roskam article appears, as I have read them, not to conform to the Wikipdia standards for living persons; is not encyclopedic in it's tone, and many of the assertions made in the article have flawed logic backing them. Until this NPOV Dispute is resolved, Please place the POV tag on this article. Thanks Joehazelton 16:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to show any bias in the article whatsoever. Your complaints above are without merit. — goethean ॐ 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I apologize for my absence from this article. I've been a bit busy and I've also been frustrated at the lack of progess on this article and my inability to facilitate any such progress. The article has been locked for a while so I'm going to try unlocking it for a bit. Please do not return to edit warring. We're actually discussing issues here and while we're not getting very far and tempers are still a bit heated, I'd like to take it as a promising sign. Remember, be specific in your complaints and your proposed solutions and avoid accusations and discussing personalities instead of issues.

In regards to the npov tag, I suggest that a {{sectnpov}} be placed on the specific sections that pose problems, or the section that you wish to address first. A blanket tagging on the whole article won't help us make any progress in addressing specific issues. Gamaliel 18:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I hope for the best as well. In good faith, I will move forward. I hope there is discussion and consensus, before "juicy stuff" is added. I am willing, but I will remove what is not agreeable and or not discussed here, among the "community" of editors" here. Call me, as you will, "a gate keeper", not THE gate keeper, but only A gate keeper. Thanks Joehazelton 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

While discussing controversial edits on the talk page first is a good idea, it is not a requirement and I ask that you please not revert edits solely on the basis of the lack of prior discussion. Gamaliel 18:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

tax cut text

The tax cut text that JoeHazelton added to the article was cut-and-pasted from Roskam's website. As such, it violates copyright policy as well as flagrantly violating NPOV. — goethean ॐ 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the offending section of text. — goethean ॐ 17:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The tax list has authentication on the Illinois General Assembly web site. Every item is attributed and can be looked up for authenticity. It's relevant, consider the precedent set with the contribution enumerations, the list does the violate NVOP because the list is true.69.220.184.129 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's copyright policy. The text that JoeHazelton added is inadmissible under this policy. — goethean ॐ 19:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

People who violate the copyright policy will be blocked. This has nothing to do with NPOV, the accuracy of the list, etc. and everything to do with US law and Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel 19:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is "Fair Use" WP:FAIR and the tax list I put up was from a [Roskam press release ] which would be covered under Fair use. If you should feel that this is policy, to remove the tax legislation information, which is attributed to Illinois General Assembly, then it would be assumed that you must apply this principle to the Phone book ad/the Tribune reprint as well. Did Zorn get permission to reprint the ad, I doubt it? It can then be construed that picture, of the phonebook ad, falls under your interpretation of the Wikipidia policy on Copywrite. Again, if Fair use applies to trib/zorn reprint, then it must apply to the tax listing. That much is clear.

Also, I am troubled by the compelling need for Goethean to make this page a Duckworth Campaign tract. I will be compelled to remove much of what Goethean has added, unless he starts justifying, in the same manner as I have to, for ever little scrap I put up. If Goethean wishes to engage in a discussion or Edit war again, it's his choice. In my humble opinion the Enumerations of contributions is Patently unfair and POV, considering that section is tied (Due to the upcoming Nov 2006 elections) to the Tammy Duckworth article and no such enumerations found on the Duckworth article. (Also don't insult the intelligences of the readers, which could be 6th district voters, that they are not tied. They are. ) Also since Goethena is a very active editor on the Duckworth article the question begs is, why is there no "Enumerations" of contributions on the Duckworth Article?

NPOV tags

24 hours after placing two sectnpov tags on the article, JoeHazelton has failed to provide substantive justification for the placement of those tags. Therefore, the tags should be removed immediately. — goethean ॐ 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please give him a little bit more time to do so. It won't hurt if they remain a day or so longer. Gamaliel 20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)