Talk:Roland Burris/Archive 1

Archive 1

appointment

While I agree that we are not the news and shouldn't write the lead or the whole article for that matter as a breaking news story, qualifying words are needed in the lead regarding the appointment to the Senate, as it is not a certainty. We surely cannot list him as Junior Senator at present. Tvoz/talk 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. I already reverted someone trying to change the infobox to say he is a Senator. But I think a more concise description of the appointment and the reasons it may not happen would be better than a long winded explanation. For instance, is it necessary to reference Jesse White in the lede when it's mentioned below? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't read what is written there at the moment closely enough. I think that's fine, although I don't know that the name of the Sec.State is necessary up there. Minor details. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that removing White's name from the lead makes sense. Tvoz/talk 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. If only most Wikipedia dealings were this easy to deal with. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha - tell me about it... Tvoz/talk 21:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Way, way too much of his life and career has been overshadowed by today's news. While the appointment itself may be noteworthy, and possibly worth another article; this man has a long political career. His life should not be reduced to a news headline. Most of the information about the appointment should go to another article. 75.1.243.30 (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been removed from this article to make room for the information about his being named to the Senate. If there is more to be said about his overall career - and I don't doubt that there is a good deal more - then the answer is to expand the rest of the article accordingly. In fact we do not say all that much about the Senate appointment, and certainly not enough at present to warrant forking it off into a sub-article. This story has brought national attention to Burris, and whether or not his appointment goes forward I would not think it will be just a minor blip in his career. So please, help improve the article by adding sourced notable information about his long political career. Tvoz/talk 10:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Secretary of state

According to this AP article, the secretary of state apparently is not legally required to certify a senate appointee. Kuralyov (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Senate rules require the appointment to be certified by a Secretary of State. It's unclear if the Secretary of State can refuse to certify a Governor's selection, but it appears it may be sent to the Senate even without his certification. But, the Senate requires that certification, and if it's not there, the Senate may use that as a justification to deny Burris a seat. I believe this will end up in the courts, and they will make the determination, so for now we should report it as undetermined. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

From the article I saw, the Secretary of State's signature is merely a "certification", which I take to mean an acknowledgement that the Governor chose the guy. The SoS basically has to sign it. The article also indicated that the U.S. Senate will likely refer the matter to committee, to stall it until Blago's status is determined. This was a very cynical move on the part of the Guv. He's daring them to refuse a black appointee. The guy is shameless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rolando Cruz case

As Illinois Attorney-General, Burris tried to uphold the death sentence of an obviously innocent man (Rolando Cruz). His Deputy Attorney-General (Kenney) resigned in protest.

Also the importance of this article should be updated, both because of his Senatorial appointment and because the Rolando Cruz case is a pivotal case in considerations of the death penalty. This case has finally convinced me that governments are too corrupt to be entrusted with the death penalty. --Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I just heard about it for the first time on MSNBC. It's absolutely relevant to this biography page, and it should be inserted with proper sourcing. I may do it; if not, someone else should. But we shouldn't show any anti-death penalty bias like the one you demonstrated (and I personally agree with). --Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Muboshgu. The section definitely does not contain any bias and maintains an impartial tone. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I did it quickly, though, and I only first heard about this an hour or two ago, so I welcome any edits, especially from people who know more about this situation. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is still a C class article. I doubt the article is intended to be biased.ConservativeLiberalLiberalConservative (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

← Since we are now including it, I am changing the header of this section to a more neutral one. I also have moved the case, with additional details about its relationship to Burris, to be integrated in the section about his Atty generalship. This is his bio, not the article about the case, so I think this is a more appropriate placement. Tvoz/talk 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Civic Activities

Too long for the article, fails to provide much usable information, could be seen as self-promoting. Honestly, way too long. Details like "Trustee, Goodwill Industries" should be saved for a more specified biographical entry, not a basic encyclopedic one. I've shaved off the ones I find inappropriate. Conchuir (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire section should be removed, with whatever important pieces of info it holds being shifted into the main sections. 24.93.19.129 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And due to the lack of an edit summary, I took those deletions to be vandalism, and reverted them. Let's get some consensus before swinging the meataxe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sec'y of State has NOW Signed & Sealed

Major Hurdle May Be Cleared for Illinois Senate Appointment I didn't want to jump in and edit a controversial article cold b/ White has now signed and sealed the appointment albeit in a separate document. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 03:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There is some misinformation on the main page regarding what was signed. Illinois Sec of State hasnt signed the doc that is supposed to be cosigned with the governor. Instead a separate doc with generated saying all documents were received and Burris is a senator. No word yet on whether this is sufficient. 69.109.239.211 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of Illinois Supreme Court opinion

I've added some content based on the Illinois Supreme Court opinion. The opinion, after saying the appointment was valid rephrased the question basically as whether Illinois was required to use the Senate's form. It said it didn't, Illinois had a different form to cover the issue. The Secretary of State then provided the form that the opinion indicated. I realize that there may a sourcing issue about what to use in a couple of details where news accounts and the opinion conflict, but the opinion itself is relatively short and clear. It appears that White did everything that Illinois required him to do -- he registered the appointment in the State's official records on December 31, and provided a certified copy of the right form when asked. Illinois law simply didn't require him to sign Senate forms, and he didn't seem inclined to offer or do anything not required. As soon as the right Illinois state form was brought to him, he signed it. --76.127.178.20 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times article characterized providing the Illinois certified copy of appointment registration form as a "compromise" by White. But the Illinois Supreme Court opinion made it quite clear he was required by Illinois law to do it. It said the Secretary of State's office is required by law to provide a certified copy of any state record to anyone willing to pay the fee, and noted that White's registration of Burris' appointment is a state record like any other.) --76.127.178.20 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Senator-designate"?

Since it appears that the Senate may refuse to seat Mr. Burris because Gov. Blagojevich appointed him, is it or isn't it appropriate to add "U.S. Senator-designate" to the infobox, as has been done for the Ted Kaufman article? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's a good idea, at least not today. This story more than many has the potential of changing dramatically very quickly, so my view is we of course report that Blagojevich announced his selection, but whether he's now the designate is unclear. And there's really not a rush as far as the infobox is concerned. Tvoz/talk 21:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:CRYSTAL, I do not think we should not give this designation to Mr. Burris. We just don't know what will happen in the near future. Blagojevich may rescind the appointment. Burris might change his mind and refuse it due to backlash. Blagojevich may resign or be impeached prior to a decision on Burris' fate. And that's all before we get to the Illinois Secretary of State and the U.S. Senate. Kaufman will likely be confirmed; there's no reason to question that. But Burris is a real wild card right now and we should proceed cautiously. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. He has been designated to be Senator by the Governor. This is a fact. He has been "U.S. Senator-designate" for some hours already. This fact will no doubt be included in subsequent versions of the article. As per WP:CRYSTAL we need not include "scheduled or expected future events", such as a statement that he will be made senator at x date. (Angst over designating someone as a U.S. Senator-designate...no wonder there is confusion.) 216.112.183.3 (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Senate rules require that the Secretary of State certify all Senate appointments and Jesse White has released a statement saying that he will not certify any Blagojevich appointments, I say it isn't appropriate to call Roland Burris a "U.S. Senator-designate" (And it's not like the Senate would seat a Blagojevich-appointee for longer than it took to expel him/her anyway.) 75.57.190.24 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is true that there are a lot of different issues within this appointment process, but I personally feel that adding Senator-designate is appropriate because (a) Burris is the Senator-designate because he has been appointed by the sitting governor (regardless of whether the Senate is willing to seat him or not; (b) it is reasonable to expect this appointment to go through and Burris to be seated since the Secretary of State does not appear to have the power to prevent Burris from being seated, nor does the Senate appear to have the ability to refuse to seat him so long as he was not involved in the Blagojevich scandal (see Powell v. McCormack); and (c) it gives first-time readers a quick idea of why this person is relevant, which is the purpose of infoboxes anyway. However, I do agree with Muboshgu; we ought to proceed cautiously due to the fast-changing nature of the story. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good points. However, I think it comes down to one thing: the infobox is for political offices, and "Senate designee" is not an office. You should either be the officeholder (or elected to that office) to have an infobox for that position. There's nothing keeping the Governor from submitting someone else. At least as far as I can tell... I wouldn't put anything past this guy. Not to mention, the Senate may never seat Burris. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why Burris is noted as a senator-designate. Designates can and have changed in the past (note: Harriet Miers or Bernard Kerik). ConservativeLiberalLiberalConservative (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. But if you look at the infoboxes for Miers and Kerik, you'll see no mention of being designated for any position. That's because you either serve in a position, or you don't. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He has much less chance of becoming Senator than Mark Teixeira has of signing with the Yankees, yet the guardians of that page won't allow the lead to say that he's tentatively agreed to a deal. So, no, it is not appropriate until it becomes official, which it isn't yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] For the record - I am opposed to including either "senator" or "senator-designate" in the infobox at the present time. I also think that the level of detail just posted about the Powell case etc is way too much for this article, as well as veering into OR. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The case has been discussed by the media, as a reminder that the courts might compel the Senate to accept Burris; and they might refer it to committee, thus stalling it until the snail's-pace Illinois legislature decides to do something about Blagojevich and/or the Senate seat. However, as you indicate, it is not our place to make inferences about other cases with respect to this one; unless it can be cited. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And the IP address is still posting that essay. Once he's done, I'm inclined to clobber it as OR and speculation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I know why Powell is relevant, but the inclusion of all of that in the intro is ridiculous and the weight he's giving it in the text is way out of line. And OR if it's still unsourced as it was a few minutes ago. So, I'm in total agreement with you on the zapping. Tvoz/talk 06:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In the body, anyway, I chopped out everything after the last citation, as it appears to be a well-intended essay but is inappropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I also truncated the intro. I invite you to improve on my meataxe approach. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He reverted me. Edit war, anyone? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They were appointee designates at the time their appointments were still pending. Similarly, Bob Livingston was referred to as speaker designate in the mainstream media before he resigned from the House 10 years ago. I will concede that after an appointment has failed, the designate label is no longer used. However, all of Barack Obama's appointees are referred to as designates currently, in spite of not knowing whether they will be confirmed or not. ConservativeLiberalLiberalConservative (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For your information, I merely placed hypothetical facts and possible actions that could come as a result of those facts in the last part. All of what is there is true, regardless of whether we like it or not. I am a resident of southern Illinois, and I despise Blagojevich, but the truth does hurt us all sometimes. For all the pain I have in stating these things, they are the truth, and the truth is all that matters in this world. This is no edit war, it is merely detail since this is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are supposed to be detailed.

P.S. You have no idea (unless you are from Illinois as I am) how much this whole affair has infuriated all of us in the southern part of the state. We would have Blagojevich out tomorrow and all of his cronies with him if we had our say. The sad thing is that Blagojevich knows all of these things, and now he's going to use all of this as a club in his impeachment hearings. We're getting fed up with the General Assembly sitting on its hands and not getting him out quickly. We're of half a mind that they all ought to be wiped out along with him. 12.215.167.103 (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would say it's appropriate to call him the designate (it is, after all, legally the case) but maybe we should avoid the blow-by-blow hypotheticals on what may or may not happen. Kelly ^hi! 06:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm of a mind that stating the hypothetical cases can help people from the other states understand what could or could not happen in this case. While I do hate admitting that all these things are very much possible, they are likelihoods. In short, I have crafted it as it is to help readers understand what Burris' recourse will likely be as events have been unfolding. Now that a special election is not in the mix, this is what we'll likely be facing. P.S. I am the IP number that posted earlier. This is my name on here now. I so wish there were such a thing as putting these politicians to a vote of their consitutents for a vote of no confidence. If we did (which would be fair), we could have gotten rid of this clown long ago. We just can't win with governors; first Ryan, and now this joker. And curiously, they've both been from the Chicago area. Not that I have anything against Chicago, fun city that it is. But they have a keen knack for installing corrupt officials and giving us all a black eye when they are found guilty. Even when our own Glenn Poshard ran for governor against Ryan years ago, it was the Chicago area Democrats that sabotaged his campaign and installed their own George Ryan (a Republican no less) into the Governor's Mansion, and we all know where he ended up. Sad thing is he got away with murder and only got 6 and a half years in prison for it (which Durbin is trying to get lessened and has infuriated all of us down here). Since Chicgao controls 42% of the state's voting power, they almost always get their way and we're all forced to go along with the people they install like Blagojevich and Ryan. Blagojevich is turning the letter of the law against itself b/c he knows his political career here is ruined and that we'll never re-elect him. So now he's doing things that morally he shouldn't do but is still technically within the law, and he knows there's not much that can be done about it b/c that ignorant Fitzgerald jumped the gun on the indictment and b/c the useless General Assembly has sat on its hands all these weeks and has not moved to remove him from office expeditiously. If they were a half-functioning body, they would have gotten off their a**es and ousted him weeks ago, when he was arrested. They've proven themselves to be a bunch of blockheads that can't agree on what to do in a crisis. And Blagojevich is just sitting back laughing because he knows there's nothing President-elect Obama can do, nothing the Senate can do (in the end), and nothing we can do b/c he's innocent until proven guilty, and at this rate they'll never prove him guilty in time for it to matter. In the meantime, our state's name is being drug through the mud by the day just because some screwball US Attorney wants another 90 days to get his act together when he should have had all his ducks in a row beforehand, back when Blagojevich was arrested. So we the people are all having to suffer just so he can get his prosecution in order, and it's not fair to us. The General Assembly is supposed to serve us, the people of the State of Illinois, not cater to some US Attorney that botched his case. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's the problem. This is a biography of Roland Burris, subject to Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living people, as well as policy and editing guidelines regarding notability, no original research, use of reliable sources, undue weight and others. Much of what has been added is unsourced speculation and original research, and while it may very well be accurate, it is not appropriate to add here because our operating rule is that material needs to be verifiable via outside reliable sources, not just truthful. And while what happens with the Senate appointment is obviously important to his whole life and career which we're supposed to be writing about, it is not clear that details of how the Powell case played out, or how the Senate works, and the like, is appropriate here. But mainly the point is that we aren't the news and we aren't supposed to be speculating on what might happen or what could happen - we write about what has been reported by reliable sources to have happened, preferably with some kind of sourced analysis that will help our readers understand events, concepts, or peoples' lives. That's why the essay-like material was and will again be removed. If you want to take a stab at significantly reducing it and including valid sources for the interpretations, and if it has appropriate weight in relation to the rest of this biography, it may be ok to re-add. But the material as it is now, in my opinion, is really not going to fly. Of course discussion here on Talk about this is welcome and encouraged, as we try to edit by consensus. But please don't just re-add it as it is now. Tvoz/talk 09:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Obama's designates don't have any known clouds hanging over them. And are the reliable sources actually calling Burris the "Senator-designate"? I would doubt it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as it can be properly sourced Burris status as Senator-designate should stand. He was appointed by the sitting governor of the state and while its certainly possible that Burris could be rejected, the Senate designate title doesn't violate WP:crystal ball. Burris has been designated by Blagojevich to represent Illinois in the Senate, and it seems appropriate to label him as such, regardless of speculation over attempts to block him. Astuishin ^(talk) 12:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Does any source actually call him "Senator-designate"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we want to call him the title or not, he technically has it by law. And while all of us may not like it (including me), Burris is the designated Senator by our state's law, and we are a country of laws. That's why we're all so infuriated here in the south of the state, because it's still within the law that Burris gets the Senate seat regardless of what any of us thinks now. Blagojevich knows this, and he knows that in the end the courts will be on the side of Burris and himself. The Illinois Supreme Court has already ruled once in his favor (rightly, but grudingly since he technically wasn't "mentally incapable" to serve as governor), and they will do so again because the letter of the law is on his side and Burris' side. And the courts are going to go by the book always, meaning that they are going to strictly interpret the Constitution, and if they do that, then they will end up ruling that there's nothing to keep Burris from the seat now by law. They're going to say that we have to abide by the written law, and it stinks but it is true. As of now, Burris is the Senator-designate of Illinois and will probably ultimately become the full Senator in due time if he takes the matter to the courts as he has stated he intends to do. Most of us down here are to the point of resigning ourselves to just letting Burris be seated and moving on so that our state's name is not drug through the mud any more than it has been. If we don't like Burris, we can get rid of him in 2010, but we're all so tired down here in the south of being on the front page of the news about our Senate seat that we're to the point of letting it go. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on thar, Baba Looey. Is there any such actual title as "Senator-designate", or is that something wikipedians made up? For example, some users were trying to push for calling Obama the "President-designate" before the "President-elect" issue was settled. There is no such title as "President-designate" in this country. So is there such a title as "Senator-designate", or is that a wikipedia invention? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It does exist, but it is rarely seen since it only comes up in the instance of an appointment. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to find valid sources that specifically call him "Senator-designate". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to find them at all buddy, it's just a known fact that it exists. If you want verification on absolutely everything, I'm afraid you're going to be hard-pressed to get it always. People aren't going to give you a source and location for absolutely everything, it's just a legal term for a Senator appointed by a state's governor. Beyond that, you're not going to get much. On the issue of what's going on though, I hate to say it, but I fear that Jesse White is going to get himself into trouble by overstepping his bounds as is the Senate itself. By the written law, the courts will not be on their side of the issue. White is the Secretary of State, but by law it's not to his discretion to refuse to sign something by the sitting governor, and for that he could get himself into trouble with the Illinois Supreme Court. Had the stupid General Assembly gotten Blagojevich out of there weeks ago, we wouldn't even have had to worry about this sort of thing, but now that everyone's trying to block Blagojevich's appointment, they want to forget about the written law, and that's all the courts go by. I hate it just as much as I hate Blagojevich, but it's the truth. By law, there really isn't anything White or the Senate can do about the Senate seat now without overstepping their bounds, for which they would then be reprimanded by the courts. Blagojevich thought all of this out, and he knew in the end the law would be on his side, otherwise he wouldn't have done this to begin with. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not much of a legal term, as I can't even find an article about it in wikipedia (unlike with President-elect). And if you can't find a source, then it's not at all evident that it's a "known fact". Also, don't think the U.S. Senate is powerless in this situation. The Powell case came about in part because Powell was elected by the people. Burris was appointed by a Governor. That might make no legal difference, but we'll see. The Senate did manage to forestall the re-seating of the infamous (and re-elected) Senator Theodore G. Bilbo in 1947. Fortunately for the Senate, he went and died on them. There are various ways the Senate could isolate Burris that are beyond the Court's jurisdiction, such as assigning him to no committees and having no seniority, as was done with Powell... or by censuring him, as was done with Tail-Gunner Joe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't find much on it because it doesn't regularly appear in many places bud, but it's still a legal term nonetheless. There's a lot of terms in law that both you and I aren't going to recognize at first glance, but I have heard of "Senator-designate" before when they were referring to a replacement for different Senators in the past. As I said, you're not going to get absolute verification on everything, but you just have to accept the fact that the term does exist and is used by law. And yes they forestalled it, but weren't able to ultimately prevent it in 1947, which is exactly my point. The Courts have the ultimate say in the matter, and they can be overruled just as they were in 1969 I'm afraid. And the 1969 case is even more current than 1947 and the plaintiff then was the subject of corruption himself, not his governor. That only makes Burris all the more difficult to deny. It's true the Senate has a lot of options open to it, but most if not all of them are subject to being overruled by the Courts if Burris takes them to court. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If it can't be sourced, especially in this circumstance, it shouldn't be used. And I don't think the Court has any jurisdiction over the way the Senate operates internally. There is no Constitutional right of the extent of power a Senator has within the Senate. That's part of the separation of powers. And as a long-time Illinoisan, I should add that I fully sympathize with your irritation with the system that brought things to this point. The Illinois legislature should have begun impeachment proceedings even before Fitzgerald made his announcement. My guess is that Blago has got the goods on a lot of those birds and they're afraid to do anything except publicly posture. Regarding Fitzgerald, what was he supposed to do? Let the pay-to-play thing fully play out, and then bust the Governor? Maybe, but then you'd have what you have right now - a disgraced Governor, and a tainted Senatorial appointment. By doing this when he did, he gave the state of Illinois a chance to do something. If they do nothing, well, there ya are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's a lot of things "unsourced" on here bud, but we can't go on a witch hunt to try to take out everything that doesn't have a source. Waste of time and energy to me. I agree with you about the Legislature, Blagojevich must have something on them otherwise they would have ousted him a lot sooner. Fitzgerald was supposed to let Blagojevich do this and then convict him when he'd actually committed the crime. As Blagojevich has said, he could talk about robbing a bank all day long, but if he doesn't actually do it, he can't be convicted of it. Fitzgerald jumped the gun on his indictment and rushed into things, and now he needs 90 days to get his ducks in a row. And we're being left hanging out to dry in the meantime. It's not fair. And if he had appointed a tainted Senator, then the Senate would have had grounds to get rid of the Senator, but now they don't. So no, he should have let it happen b/c then the Senate could have gotten rid of the Senator and then he would have had a case against Blagojevich. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Blago's claim that "just talking about it is legal" is probably bogus. You can be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime without actually committing the crime. Fitzgerald could have conducted this like a "sting" operation, and let it play all the way to the end, but he chose not to. Maybe that was a mistake, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while you and I both think it is bogus, in a court of law he can't really be convicted now of the crime just by talking about it. That's how the courts do things, it's sad but true. Yes, conspiring is one thing, but unless there's proof that he was preparing to actually do it in conjunction with those conversations, there's not much of a case against him now and he knows it. Fitzgerald jumped the gun and arrested him before he was supposed to b/c now there's not much the Senate can do to expel Blagojevich's pick now without proof of impropriety and all Fitzgerald has against Blagojevich now is a few taped conversations without proof of an actual crime being committed. Fitzgerald botched the entire thing, and his request for 90 more days proves it. And in the meantime, we're supposed to take a backseat to him? It's insane. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Fitzgerald jumped the gun. He decided it was necessary to expose Blago for what he is. And even if Hot Rod never spends a day in jail, everyone knows what he is now. Mike Royko used to say that these guys shouldn't, in fact, be sent to jail, because then the public is paying their room and board. They should simply be exposed. Whether Fitzgerald really jumped the gun or not remains to be seen. And I fully sympathize with Illinoisans being angry at just about everybody in this. But keep in mind, they elected him twice, despite the fact he's been shady from day one. The public shares in the blame for this situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he did jump the gun when you think about it. The Chicago Tribune exposed the scandal and he acted hastily to arrest Blagojevich before he was really ready due to the Tribune's outing of the scandal. And yes, now he doesn't have anything beyond those conversations from the wiretaps now unless he has an ace in the hole, which it doesn't seem he does since he's requesting another 3 months to get things ready. And now, he doesn't have a good case to convict Blagojevich of a crime because the crime was not actually committed and he doesn't seem to have any other evidence to back up conspiring charges beyond a few taped conversations. Also, now there's no grounds for the Senate to reject or expel his Senate appointment because so far it appears legitimate and still within the law. Blagojevich knows these things, that's why he stated he was confident Burris would ultimately be seated by the Senate. He knows the courts will side with him and Burris. And yes, the people of the state have elected him twice because we didn't have much of anyone to vote for to be honest. Did we want someone from George Ryan's group or did we want this guy? It's half a dozen of one, six of another. We can't win with governors either way. The entire Illinois government should be scrubbed clean and started over from scratch in our estimation. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the Tribune blew the cover on the story, so the blame is probably on them. And I say again, conspiracy to commit a crime, is also a crime, though obviously a lesser crime. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what the Tribune did, Fitzgerald should not have acted until he was ready for his prosecution to begin. In doing so, he's cut his own throat in the trial as well as the Senate appointment. If Burris goes to the Supreme Court, the US Senate would be forced to admit him by citing Powell v. McCormack. And if that happens, the Senate has no grounds upon which to expel him now because technically there's been no evidence of impropriety on his part. And as much as I'd like to agree with you on the conspiracy part, in a court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty of a crime. Talking about committing a crime, while dishonorable and disgraceful, is not enough to convict someone of that crime if it was not carried out and there's no evidence that it was in preparation to back up those conversations. Of course he could be convicted of conspiracy if there is the evidence to back up those tapes that shows he was preparing to carry out the crime, but if not, then the courts are going to say that there's not enough evidence to convict him of the actual crime and impose the full penalty of the crime. In other words, even if he is found guilty of conspiracy, he won't get near the punishment he would have gotten had he been convicted of committing the actual crime. I'm just telling you how the courts are going to view it. They go strictly by the book, by the written law. And in this case, Blagojevich does indeed have the upper hand over both Jesse White and the US Senate should they try to block Burris in the end. At this rate, they'll never have Blagojevich out of office in time for it to matter in regards to the Senate appointment. Reid and the others can try all they want to stall in committee, but if Burris takes the matter to the US Supreme Court as he's stated he intends to, then Reid could be overruled by the court and forced to seat Burris long before Blagojevich could be ousted from the governor's seat. While the Senate may think they can stall in committee for months on end, that may not be the case if Burris takes the matter to the US Supreme Court. Perhaps a month, but the High Court would hear his case long before Blagojevich could be ousted, especially if Fitzgerald delays for three more months as he's requested. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Senate could seat Burris and give him no powers or responsibilities whatsoever other than the right to vote yes or no on a bill, and the Supreme Court couldn't interfere due to the constitutional separation of powers. I think it's too early to judge Fitzgerald's actions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually yes he could sue the Democratic leadership with the Supreme Court for full powers of a Senator if they tried to impose limitations of his duties as a Senator. The only check the Legislative branch has on the Judicial branch is that they can confirm justices. Beyond that, the Judicial branch has a broad range of power over the other two, especially when conflicts like this arise. If Burris feels that he's being unfairly treated or discriminated against, he could also sue on those grounds as well. I feel Fitzgerald obviously made a mistake, otherwise he wouldn't be asking for three more months to get his act together. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation for your claim that the high court has any authority over the Senate's rules other than that the Powell case might compel the Senate to seat Burris. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, they overruled a house of Congress once already and several times in the past bud, if you read about past Supreme Court rulings and cases as I have. And there's no "might" involved here, if the Court rules in Burris' favor, they would be forced to seat Burris by the highest court in the land. That's just common sense and what you learn in government class as a senior in high school. If you want a citation, then go back to your high school governement teacher and re-study the powers of the Supreme Court and some of its past cases and decisions. Powell is just one of many. Also, if you will remember the infamous case of Marbury v. Madison, the very case that established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, which is exactly what this is. That case was the very first case involving something like what we are facing, when Marbury went to the court to sue for his appointment by President Adams despite the fact that it was made shortly before the beginning of President Jefferson's administration. As a result of that case, the Supreme Court established that it has judicial review, and it's had countless cases like it since then. That's the very first thing you learn about the Court's history in fact as a senior in high school. One thing the Court established in that case is the very thing a lot of people are forgetting in this very case concerning the Illinois Senate seat: "In deciding whether Marbury had a remedy, Marshall stated: 'The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men.'" While we may not like it that Blagojevich is the one making the appointment, we are a country of laws, and the law states that the power to appoint the Senator is his alone unfortunately until he's either removed from office, dies or resigns. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] The cases you've cited so far have strictly to do with someone's right to take the job, not with the authority he has or doesn't have once he gets that job. Also, assuming you're actually new here and not a sockpuppet, be aware that what you or I or our high school teachers think "might" happen doesn't cut any mustard on wikipedia. We go by reliable sources, and so far anything connected with Burris' possible acceptance in the Senate, beyond what you're seeing in the news, is speculation by wikipedia editors, and is not permitted in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have no more authority here than I do bud. I may be new here, but you have no more authority than I do, nor any right to control what is in this article any more than anyone else. And I think you are just mad that I have given logical and thoughtful facts about the whole case, that legally Burris' appointment is within the law and has little chance of being defeated without some sort of miracle given the facts. Understand that I don't like what's happening any more than you do, but unfortunately the situation is what it is. I'm also mad about the recent events, but I'm not foolish enough to forget the truth that we are a country of laws and what the law states. So with all due respect, you have no power to decide what goes in this article or any other article on here for that matter any more than I or anyone else. And also, rudeness is not tolerated here according to my understanding either, and you are very guilty of that right now I'm afraid. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you've been calling me "bud" for awhile now, let's hear no more lectures from you about my alleged rudeness. And you obviously don't know the wikipedia rules. We go by verifiable facts, not by what any editor (you or I or anyone) believes to be a true fact based on personal interpretation of the law or whatever subject. Actually, your tone is sounding more and more similar to that of an editor from a couple of months ago, who insisted he knew the law and that therefore his interpretation overrode everything for the article, including verifiable facts. He was wrong about that, and finally left. As far as we know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've used bud in a friendly way man, I think you're just looking for something to throw back at me. "Sockpuppet" however is a very rude example of name-calling, so I'm afraid you're the guilty one. And you obviously don't know the rules either it appears, because you have not grasped the fact that we're all equal here. And I have not been on here before I can assure you, but I will stand up to defend my views and my rights to the last breath. And you nor any administrator will deny me my basic rights as an editor. And all that I've placed before you have been verifiable facts, you just haven't wanted to admit they are. So if I were you, I'd think more carefully about what I'm saying and quit shooting my mouth off to a new editor who is trying to be civil with you. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The other guy was also making a logical argument rather than using valid citations, and was also claiming victory of some kind and fancying that I was angry at having "lost", which was not and is not the case. Also, I didn't use the term sockpuppet, you did, so it's obvious you know more about wikipedia (at least in some ways) than the typical first-day user. However, we're bumping in to the right side of the screen wall and we're also getting kind of far afield from the original question. Please continue below. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So, I say again - find a valid source that terms Burris the "Senator-designate", and for that matter, find a valid source that says there even is such a thing as "Senator-designate". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And so I say again, you find a valid source that the term does not exist by the same token. It is a legal term, and if you haven't heard of it before, go look it up yourself. Just because you've never heard it before doesn't mean the rest of us haven't and doesn't mean that it should just be jerked from an article simply because you alone haven't heard of it. But the rest of us shouldn't have to edit the article simply because you're not wanting to go see for yourself that it is a legal term used in government. It comes from the same place that "President-elect," "Senator-elect," and "Representative-elect" come from: the government. The government established these titles for people elected or appointed to office. Not everything is going to have a "source" as you say, there are just titles and rules set out that are used in government, and those are the only "sources" they come from. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The challenge, "prove it isn't", also doesn't work on wikipedia. If you make a statement, you have to provide a citation for it. I don't need to prove it isn't so, you have to prove it is so. That's a basic rule that any wikipedia editor has to learn. A logical argument is not a citation. You need to prove that Burris' title is currently "Senator-designate". There are endless citations for Obama being "President-elect". If you can't find citations that call Burris "Senator-designate", then we can't call him that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's got just as much justification as your argument bud. Actually, a basic rule you have yet to learn is that everything is not going to have a "citation" if it is a general title for something or something so typical that it's a moot point. You still have a lot to learn too as an editor I'm afraid. And for the record, what would you call this? http://www.njn.net/about/pressrelease/05archive/05dec-robertmenendez.html Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That citation demonstrates that the term "Senator-designate" has been used in the media. Now found a source that calls Burris a "Senator-designate". You can't use the NJN citation for that, because that fails the "synthesis" rule, or what I call the "logical argument" rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It proves that it's a legal term bud, sorry that you lost the argument there but it's time for you to concede that it is a legal term. Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't mean that it's not. So sorry, but I'd do my research if I were you next time you enter into a fight over something that's easily proven. Need another one? http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds220596.pdf Page 844 Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It proves that NJN used it as a term in one instance, it doesn't prove it's a legal term nor that it applies in this case, and how Australia does things has no bearing on the U.S. Senate. And you're arguing like that other guy did, using the same kind of verbiage, and you've got it wrong, too. You cannot use a logical argument for including an alleged fact. You have to find a citation for the alleged fact. And if you can't find one, it can't be in the article, no matter how "true" it seems to you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Need another one? http://clinton.senate.gov/services/assistance/ Face it bud, you're not going to win this argument, not when there's multiple uses of the term in both the media and the government, not to mention in multiple countries around the world. Like I said, do your research next time you try to enter into an argument you can't win. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

← Hero of Time, could you dial it back a bit please? Baseball Bugs is trying to explain to you that Wikipedia's standard of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Crazy, I know. But that's the way it is, so actually you're not going to win the argument the way you're going about it, and anyway, we're not supposed to be arguing, we're supposed to be attempting to reach consensus. As for research, it might be a good idea for you to follow some of the links that have been posted to Wikipedia policy and take a few minutes to read them - a good starting point is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Tvoz/talk 22:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz, this has nothing to do with wikipedia rules, this has to do with the term "Senator-designate," which is used even by current sitting Senators. And yes, in that argument, I'm afraid that I have proven my case. And why should I have to read them simply to prove that the term exists? That's a waste of time I'm afraid, time I don't have to waste. In this sense though, I'm afraid I've already won that argument in terms of the existence of the term. I do not say this to be disrespectful to you, but I am stating the obvious. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of what the above discussion is about

I think we're talking about more than one thing here, and we ought to try to get back to how we're writing the article, as opposed to what we think could, should, or will happen in the state of Illinois. I was talking about somewhat separate, although obviously related, points:

1. should the infobox list Burris as Junior Senator, Senator-designate or no reference to the Senate seat until this is resolved with his seating (or not)
   • how do reliable sources refer to Burris
2. should we go into the details of how the Secretary of State, Senate, and Supreme Court may or may not act
   • and what about the details of previous similar situations

My preference right now is to certainly not call him "Senator", and I think we should wait before adding anything to the infobox which I think is really best used for seated or past seatholders.

As for the other points, as I've said we have to keep in mind that this is a biography of Roland Burris, not an article about Blagojevich's travails or the process of Burris' appointment to the Senate - we need to refer to the former, and include a bit of the latter, but not to the extent that it overwhelms the article.

And it all must be reliably sourced, not speculative, original research - no matter how accurate. That's Wikipedia policy, and while it's not always followed as strictly as it might be, it is imperative when we are talking about a biography of a living person that we avoid innuendo or potential misinterpretation - so for example if we're going on about the accusation that Blago tried to sell the seat, we need to be crystal clear that there has been no implication that Burris was involved, unless we were to have reliable sourcing that he might have been.

So - can we try to settle these matters? Tvoz/talk 22:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Tvoz, not all of an article about a person is a biography. That's only part of an article about a person. There's much more to an article about someone than simply their biography. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, once again you're not quite getting it - this article is considered a "biography of a living person" (shortened to BLP), for obvious reasons. It's not called Roland Burris's appointment to the US Senate or Politics in Illinois. It's called Roland Burris and, sorry, it's a biography, which should be talking about Roland Burris. Biographies of course talk about more than their birth and death dates - but not speculation about what may happen in an event that the person is involved in. Is that clearer? Tvoz/talk 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting all the political discussion, the original question was whether it's appropriate to call Burris the "Senator-designate". So far, the user has demonstrated that there is such a term as "Senator-designate", but has yet to find any citation that specifically calls Burris the "Senator-designate", which is understandable since his nomination has not been legally played out yet. Instead, he's providing a logical argument. Obviously, he thinks it's OK and I don't. I would just like to hear a few opinions other than his and my own on this. There are a few others here, but I'm guessing they're actually doing something besides working on wikipedia today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the other user refuses to admit that the term is an official and legal term when examples have been given. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that the term is being used in reference to Burris. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

BB, what does it take to get it through your head that that is what the term is for a Senator appointed by a governor? I've shown you in multiple cases where the term is used and even Hillary Clinton has used it to refer to her successor. You simply refuse to accept that the term is used and in that manner. I don't have to find anyplace that refers to Burris that way because the announcement was just days ago. But by definition and by law, he is the Senator-designate of Illinois. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And since Hero wasn't interested in looking for a citation, I had to do his work for him. Most of them using the term are blogs and thus are not valid citations. However, PBS.ORG is terming Burris the Senator-designate. [1] Assuming that's a valid source, then it's good for a citation in the article, which currently lacks one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WOW! BB actually looked something up on his own because he was proven wrong on something and got a good source out of it! Well what do you know! You actually can find something when you put your mind to it now can't you? Now, enough of the squabbling BB, I do agree that the argument is becoming ridiculous, especially when it's come to a conclusion that the term does exist and that Burris is being referred to by it. I suggest we start over and try working together to make the article better rather than work against each other. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You were right, for the wrong reason. I was right all along, for the right reasons. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree there my friend, and I'm sure most rational people would agree I was right from the start that the term does exist and is in use for what I've stated it to be. You were wrong from the start to state that the term doesn't exist:

"So, I say again - find a valid source that terms Burris the "Senator-designate", and for that matter, find a valid source that says there even is such a thing as "Senator-designate". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)"

But now that we've resolved that it does exist and that Burris is being called by it, I believe it's in our best interests to start over and try working together for a change. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

← Speaking as a rational person that you referred to above: all you had to do, Hero, was go and look for a source to back up your claim, rather than arguing about it. Just some friendly advice. Tvoz/talk 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me Tvoz, but that's exactly what I did when asked. In fact I gave three different sources of where the term was in use, if you didn't read them. And I realize you are trying to help smoothe things over between me and BB, and I appreciate it very much. But with all due respect, I did precisely what you just said when the conversation shifted that direction. I was asked to prove that the term exists, and despite the fact that those who wish to know can also look things up themselves (as evidenced by BB's discovery of an example himself), I in fact found several different examples of the term in use and displayed them. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, I may have missed something but I think you gave examples of the term that were not citations of its use with Burris. Seeing as the Burris appointment is in question, as opposed to Menendez or presumably Clinton's successor (Hansard is entirely irrlevant as an Australia), you were being asked for citations that use that term for Burris. BB found one from PBS which satisfied his concern. I am still on the fence about including this in the infobox. I wasn't so much interested in smoothing things between you (although I'm glad if they've smoothed) as I am in helping you see the way things are done here and why, so you can be a more effective editor. Tvoz/talk 23:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Um yes I think you did miss something, the part where it's not about Burris, it's about the existence of the term Senator-designate. And no, I was being asked for examples of the term in use to prove that it does exist, not in respect to Burris. Had Burris been specified I would have looked for those concerning him as well, but I was only asked for general examples to prove the term exists. So I do think you missed that part. It's even in the quote from BB above, "prove there is such a term as Senator-designate." And forgive me, but I don't really need a lot of help understanding how things are done here unless I ask with a question. I do appreciate the offer of help though, it is appreciated. I may at some point ask about how sourcing though when I get a chance. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Several times I asked you for a source that used the term specifically with Burris. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you asked me to prove that the term existed at all, not specifically referring to Burris. See your previous comment I posted for the truth. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked several times for proof that the sources were calling Burris the "Senator-designate, including this one:

"are the reliable sources actually calling Burris the "Senator-designate"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)"

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I take it you are 12.215.167.103. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Hero told us that he was earlier posting as the IP - here. Tvoz/talk 00:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the both of us have had trouble finding things in this megillah. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

← [edit conflict] No, Hero - BB repeatedly asked for a citation connecting Burris and the term (in addition to questioning if it is even a legal term )- and so did I above in this section. Otherwise, it's synthesis. In many cases there's no real problem making the synthesis leap without a specific citation, but as soon as something is called into question as to whether it fits the particular circumstances in an article, you;re going to be asked for a reliable source, specifically connecting the two. That's what we have here. If we use the term "senator-designate" that some editors have questioned, we need to have a specific citation that calls Burris that. As I said, BB found one that satisfied him. I have different concerns. And there are other editors. A similar argument took place on Barack Obama when a handful of people questioned if Obama should be called "President-elect" or "presumptive President-elect" - the overwhelming preponderance of sources called Obama President-elect within nanoseconds of the reporting of the California vote - and even more once McCain conceded - even though the Electoral College had not yet voted and Congress had not yet certified, which it still has not, and the therefore "accurate" rendering would probably include "presumptive". BUT, logic prevailed as the sourcing is so overwhelmingly in favor of calling him Pres-elect that consensus (and common sense, I'd say) prevailed and he was and will be called President-elect until noon on Jan 20. (And I won't be surprised if someone jumps the gun by 30 seconds and is reverted - but I won't be watching the page at that moment.) My long-winded point is that when something is disputed, we look to citations to determine our edits. All you needed to do is to find the PBS cite that calls Burris Senator-designate, rather than spending time writing exasperated comments here or narrowly interpreting the request. I give you the Wiki policy links so you can see why we're saying this. As for your not needing help - hey, that's great. Tvoz/talk 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz, I'm going to keep it short and sweet. No, he did not specifically ask for a reference of Burris being the subject, he provoked me to prove that the term exists at all, and so I did. If you cannot see that then I don't know what else to tell you other than look back and see what we spoke about. The words speak for themselves. And if you can't accept that, then we'll have to agree to disagree. And forgive me, but the "long-winded exasperated comments" came from BB and not from me. My responses were in answer to his provocations and questions. He also resorted to name-calling as well, and I don't see you reprimanding him for that. If you are not going to be even-handed about the affair, then I suggest you steer clear of it. If you are going to apply equal standards to both of us however, your presence is most welcome. Simply because I'm newer here does not mean you have any right to give preference to an older user over a newer one. I'm not saying that you have done that, but you certainly seem to imply that you're taking sides in the matter, and bias does not speak well of one who claims to be impartial. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to waste any more time than this last post in demonstrating that you were specifically asked over and over again, to provide sources that specifically referred to Burris as Senator-designate. You may think that's not necessary, but others would disagree. The point was made over and over again - that we need to link "Burris" to "designate". (BB, Astuishin, me, at least, said so here.) Here are some of the places you were asked by BB, so please stop saying you weren't. This is not a matter of taking sides - this is a matter of fact and Wikipedia policy. As you say, the words speak for themselves:

Also, Obama's designates don't have any known clouds hanging over them. And are the reliable sources actually calling Burris the "Senator-designate"? I would doubt it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Does any source actually call him "Senator-designate"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to find valid sources that specifically call him "Senator-designate". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So, I say again - find a valid source that terms Burris the "Senator-designate", and for that matter, find a valid source that says there even is such a thing as "Senator-designate". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The challenge, "prove it isn't", also doesn't work on wikipedia. If you make a statement, you have to provide a citation for it. I don't need to prove it isn't so, you have to prove it is so. That's a basic rule that any wikipedia editor has to learn. A logical argument is not a citation. You need to prove that Burris' title is currently "Senator-designate". There are endless citations for Obama being "President-elect". If you can't find citations that call Burris "Senator-designate", then we can't call him that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That citation demonstrates that the term "Senator-designate" has been used in the media. Now found a source that calls Burris a "Senator-designate". You can't use the NJN citation for that, because that fails the "synthesis" rule, or what I call the "logical argument" rule. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's really all I plan to say on this - if you don't see what the above comments are saying to you, I don't know what to tell you. But I hope you'll take my suggestion that you get more familiar with policies - the one about verifiability rather than logical argument and truth is pretty basic. Tvoz/talk 09:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say either. Maybe there's something in the water at Carbondale. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is everything that's both right and wrong with Wikipedia: right in that demonstrates a community of active editors attempting to write accurate articles, wrong in that countless hours which could have been dedicated to research and constructive editing are wasted on hyperbole. Seriously, this above discussion is why Wikipedia gets so righteously lampooned for being host to a community of self-absorbed faux-technocrats. Conchuir (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When did he actually become "Senator-designate"?

Not that it necessarilly matters now, but Reid only just yesterday stated that Burris "is now the Senator-designate". [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro

It seems to me that the intro ought to at least mention the controversy surrounding his appointment, given that this is what he is best known for. john k (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

We should wait until Burris' is sworn in, before changing his Infobox content. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See below, concerning when Burris became Senator. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

1979–2002

The section has a template that it contradicts itself. I found no contradictions. If I'm missing something, please post here. Otherwise I'll remove the template. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

Just a heads-up...the current Commons image (File:Roland Burris of Illinois.jpg) was previously deleted in another incarnation (File:RWBphoto.jpg) because it was a private photo, not taken by a government agency. I asked an admin to take a look. However, I'm sure that Burris will soon have an official Senate portrait that we can place in this article. Kelly ^hi! 00:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tombstone

Is his tombstone really relevant? Ok, that can be viewed as some kind of a big ego but I don't think that's really needed in this article. Cassandro (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, it's not needed. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only two sentences now, both sourced and nuetrally worded, and I find it interesting. It belongs in the personal life section. Jonathunder (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When did Burris become a Senator?

We currently have December 31, 2008 (the day Blagojeivch appointed him). Yet, Burris was sworn in on January 15, 2009. Assuming we're going by swearing-in date for when a person becomes a US Senator; isn't Dec 31, 2008 incorrect? GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

His certificate of appointment was December 31, 2008. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 36, an appointed Senator begins receiving a salary as senator on the date of his or her appointment. Bioguide lists him as being appointed on Dec. 31, and taking the oath on Jan 15. Some contradictions in how the Senate has listed past terms (alternatively using Jan 3 or the swearing in date), when it comes to appointed senators, Wikipedia has used the date of appointment. Two recent examples.

• John Barrasso: Appointed June 22, 2007 sworn June 25
• Roger Wicker: Appointed Dec 31, 2007 sworn Jan 22, 2008

So we are going with Dec 31 for Burris and Jan 15 for Ted Kaufman until some other reliable source indicates otherwise.DCmacnut<> 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger Wicker was sworn in dec 31st his page says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.178.214 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the Congressional Record. 2008 Congressional Record, Vol. 154, Page S13 . It is likely that Bioguide is wrong. They originally had Burris's appointment date as Dec. 30, but then changed it to Dec. 31.DCmacnut<> 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That sure seems like crap to me. Why should Burris be listed as date of appointment but Kaufman as oath of office? Burris was not a member of the 110th United States Congress#Changes in membership. Reywas92^Talk 22:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaufman is listed in the infobox with term start Jan 15, 2009, when he was officially appointed. He took his oath of office on Jan 16, 2009. Note: all freshmen took their OoO on Jan 6, 2009 but are listed with term beginning on Jan 3, 2009. Cassandro (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This page keeps sticking with Roland Burris' becoming a U.S. Senator effective December 31, 2008. The problem with that date is that according to this very website, Burris is ranked 96th in seniority. If in fact he became a U.S. Senator on December 31, 2008, as opposed to January 15, 2009, wouldn't he outrank all of the freshman senators in the 111th Senate? He would be ranked at #87, ahead of Mark Udall. As it currently stands, he is listed as being ranked behind the entire freshman class on the rankings page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.227.46 (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources say about the rankings? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First, a senator's seniority date is not necessarily the same as the beginning date of his or her term. See, for example, John Cornyn. Also, there is a no seniority date given for Burris at Seniority in the United States Senate, and there is a note specifying that there are multiple possible seniority dates. Where Burris ranks on the seniority list ultimately is irrelevant to the question of when his term began.

Finally, we have already set out the reasons above for saying his term began on December 31. Here they are again:

2 U.S.C. § 36 provides that an appointed senator is entitled to payment from the date of his appointment. If his term didn't start until he took the oath, he could not be paid for being a senator before that date. Compare the appointed senator with the senator elected to fill a vacancy. If the Senate is in session, the elected senator's term does not begin until he takes the oath. If Congress had intended to provide that an appointed senator's term began on the date of taking the oath, it could have provided as such as it did.

Perhaps more importantly for Wikipedia purposes, Roger Wicker and John Barrasso are listed as having begun their terms on their appointment dates. -Rrius (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused personally by the US Senate's view on this. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, since we're using the standard that an appointed senator begins their term on the date of appointment instead of the date of swearing-in, Kirsten Gillibrand's page needs to be edited by someone (it is locked), because her start date is listed as January 25, 2009. She was appointed to the office today, January 23, 2009. I was advised on that page that the date is listed as January 25, 2009 because she won't be sworn in until that date. You can't apply different standards to different senators. Either both Burris and Gillibrand became senators on their appointment dates, or their swearing-in dates. If Burris date will be recorded as December 31, 2008, then Gillibrand's needs to be revised to January 23, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.227.46 (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

She wasn't appointed January 23; Paterson announced he would appoint her. Her appointment will be effective January 25, and she will likely be sworn in January 26. -Rrius (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the appointment date for Burris's and other appointed senators' 'assumed office' date is illogical. Think of it this way: had Burris died, say on January 2nd, would his Wikipedia page have maintained that he was a United States Senator from December 31 - January 2? I doubt it. Burris was sworn in by the Senate on January 15, that is the date that should be used, and that is the standard that should be used for all appointed senators.

Furthermore, consider this: the Senate Democratic leadership refused to seat Burris for days after December 31. Had Burris certainly, definitely already been a United States Senator by then, taking such a stance would not only have been illogical, but irrelevant, as he would already have been a Senator regardless. Are we really implying that Harry Reid et al don't know when appointees become senators? Kelestar (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To the extent I can understand the first paragraph at all, I would responding by suggesting a re-reading of the first response to the fist post of this thread. To the point about "definitely" being a senator, you don't understand how it works. A person is a senator from the moment of election or appointment. The Senate can reject someone attempting to be seated on the grounds that the election or appointment was invalid. In that case, the Senate is ruling that the election or appointment of the person was void from the beginning, that a valid election for or appointment of that person never happened. Your point about the Senate leadership not knowing "when appointees become senators" just doesn't make sense. No one said or implied any such thing, and such conclusion does not follow from any of our arguments. The Senate had, in essence, two arguments. The first was that the Governor's early attempt to sell the seat so tainted any subsequent appointment that the appointment was invalid. The second was that all senators must present credential substantially in the recommended form under Rule II before taking the oath of office. Neither argument was actually very good because they were pretexts for trying to keep Burris out. It is actually not out of the realm of possibility that Reid and the leadership don't know when a senator becomes a senator. Lyndon Johnson did when he was Majority Leader, but they don't make Senate leaders like they used to. -Rrius (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Kelestar. You've asked the logical questions "Had Burris died on Jan. 2nd, would his page here maintain that he was a US Senator from Dec 31st to Jan 2nd?" and "Are we implying that Harry Reid et al don't know when appointees become senators?" I believe the answer to the first question is yes, in the eyes of the constitution Burris would still have been an appointed senator for three days, despite how incredulous that may seem. With regards to your second question, no one is implying Reid and the others don't know what they are doing, but you might want to consider that perhaps you are confusing the rules and customs of the Senate (that impact the right to meet with other senators, participate in congress, and cast votes) with what is constitutionally required for someone to actually legally "become" a senator (election by a state's people, or appointment by its governor). Take note of the State Supreme Court ruling: "no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution". "Burris v. White, [[Illinois Supreme Court]], No. 107816" (PDF). January 9, 2009. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help) AzureCitizen (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Term Start Compromise

Per the U.S. Senate website of appointed Senators, Burris's term is described as being "appointed on December 31, 2008, but credentials were not in order until January 12, 2009." The infobox has been updated with the January date, with a reference and footnote describing wny the appointed date is different. Similar to Kirsten Gillibrand, who's appointment preceded her term starting by 3 days (because she was still a member of the House), Burris term was similarly delayed. Note: I'm not the one who made the switch to January 12, but I did add the explanatory footnotes. I am open to discussion, but it appears that Jan. 12 may be a reasonable compromise for now.DCmacnut<> 14:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Need to rethink his fight to be seated

Wikipedia editors need to rethink how to write the fight to seat the Senator. The way it looks like now is that the signature was the main issue. That is a bit deceptive. The real reason is that there were those in the Senate did not want to look like they were supporting Governor Blago so they refused to seat his appointment. Eventually, they backtracked. This is not really controversial (the part that Reid or others didn't want a Blago appointee seated).

Surely, there are reliable sources to state this. The secretary of the senate was simply a pawn and a bureaucrat and the signature issue was a formality. For WP to say that the Secretary of the Senate was the reason is just a technical excuse but not the big picture of the situation.

Note that this discussion is not pro or anti Burris. There are many ways to re-write this. I am not suggesting a certain way. Chergles (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it is difficult to find a source for the proposition that the signature was a pretext. We have sources saying the reason for the rejection was the tainted process, and we have sources saying the Secretary rejected his credentials because of the signature. The problem is finding a way to use the first to contradict the second without violating wp:synth. -Rrius (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a way to write it. Find the many sources available there about how Reid was opposed. There are no sources that say that the Secretary of the Senate was involved until Burris actually came to Washington. I will leave the writing to you. Another way is to look for editorial page comments. But if so, you also have to look for editorials that say the opposite, which I guess don't exist. That's because nobody in their right mind thought that the politicians really wanted to seat him but just needed a signature. Chergles (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see an easy way to write it. No one disputes that Reid was opposed because of Blagojevich. The problem is finding a source for the proposition that the signature was a pretext. If you want to look for some editorials saying so, have at it. -Rrius (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The short Biography section -- the mausoleum and negative judgment of a man's life

Consider the short Biography section. How many words are about the mausoleum -- and worse, the negative judgment of the man's life (an opinion, not news, whatever the source) are there? I.E., Disproportionate. And unbalanced. (And wrong section, since this is a comment on the appointment issue.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Good -- the opinion quotation re the mausoleum has been removed. What is left may still be out of proportion for the section. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why even try

I see there is no point in trying to improve the ridiculous structure of this article. Lets just add a bunch of stupid lists to the article, why require our readers, you know, actually read. Kiss my ass.--IvoShandor (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are actually peeved about the committee assignment situation. What you don't realize is that these committee assignment lists are standards across the pages for all current members of Congress. Once subcommittee lists are finalized, the list will look more like the one that follows:

• Committee on Environment and Public Works
  • Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
  • Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection
  • Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
• Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
  • Subcommittee on Energy
  • Subcommittee on National Parks
  • Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
• Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
  • Subcommittee on Children and Families
  • Subcommittee on Retirement and Aging
• Committee on Veterans' Affairs
• Committee on the Budget

If you have a problem with these lists generally, I suggest taking it to a more central location, such as WP:WikiProject U.S. Congress. So long as it is standard to include these lists, the one at this article will keep re-appearing. -Rrius (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Burris photo

People, including me, have tried adding the photo currently being used at Burris's Congressional Bio page and on the Senate site assuming that it is a free image. After the second or third time this flared up, I asked the Senate Photo Historian about it. Here is what I received:

I know that the image was obtained (by another office ) from Burris’s office directly before he was sworn in as senator, but I don’t know the original origin of the image, and neither does Burris’s office! I’ll call them to see if his new official photo has been taken yet.

I’ll be back in touch.
Heather Moore
Photo Historian

U.S. Senate Historical Office

Clearly there is no basis for saying it is a free image. If nothing else, this may spur the taking and posting of the official portrait. -Rrius (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite interesting because there is this site which states that the picture is in courtesy of Roland Burris. Cassandro (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That means at most that Burris gave that site permission to use it. As to why his office doesn't know where it came from, I'm guessing they aren't bothering the Senator with issue. He probably does know it's from, though. Frankly, he probably owns the copyright and probably wouldn't care, (I'm sure he'd prefer a professional portrait of a younger version of himself to the grainy thing from Midway, but we can't work off maybe.) Obviously, I'm not addressing your comments anymore, so I'll just stop rambling. -Rrius (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

response to Fillupyourheart's edits to lead (lede)

NOTE: I have undone two (no edit summary) edits by Fillupyourheart ...

1. [3] Removing mention of sole African American in the Senate (note: source highlights this in second sentence)
2. [4] Dem by Dem appointment. (Fine to make sure this is clear, but should not get too verbose -- e.g., we could also add Democratic qualifier for Obama).

THE ISSUE: Surely a world where not classifying someone by race is he norm would be preferable, but race was highlighted during the campaign, and during this appointment. If you want to edit it out, provide an edit summary explaining your deletion -- and see if it sticks.

NOTE: The issue of emphasizing Dem by Dem for a Dem held seat ... does not seem "too necessary" ... but, since an editor has indicated that it is not clear enough, I have added "Democratic" in front of the governor. That can be handled other ways. Consider them. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Elaborating the lead (lede)-- and a "good" introduction

NOTE: Although my recent edit may appear too detailed (tabloid?), let us remember that the Introduction should summarize what follows. He was not simply appointed. He was appointed amidst scandal that called into question the appointment. Does that need to be alluded to in the introduction? Yes, I know this has surely been argued before ... but let's ponder one more time what a "good" introduction ought to me. (And yes, I know I went too far.:) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

re: "The rest is in the article" and WP:LEAD

I strongly suggest a reading of what an introduction is. (See WP:LEAD) What it is most certainly NOT, is a stripping to the minimum that can possibly be said. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is pointless to say that Burris was appointed by a Democrat and doubly so to say he is a "fellow-Democrat". It is just silly to point out that the appointment occurred before Blagojevich was removed. Is someone going to think he made the appointment after leaving office? The facts surrounding appointment are in the article, and saying that the appointment was made before the removal does not summarize those circumstances. I have read WP:LEAD, and it says nothing about adding useless qualifying statements as a substitute for actually summarizing the body of the article. -Rrius (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

re: does not summarize those circumstances -- The parenthetical you removed was not of my construction. My version included "scandal-scarred" and "soon to be impeached" before Governor :) ... But we have just begun to compose an elegant compression of the events.

NOTE: A bland "was appointed" ... does not reflect the significance of the subject -- who was not just appointed ... but refused to be denied ... amidst scandal ... rules ... public screaming ... OF COURSE, that must be compressed. But it should be there ... in the lede. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And what is with everyone saying things like "I strongly suggest a reading of what an introduction is. (See WP:LEAD)"? If you want to make a point about a policy guideline, make the point. If someone is not familiar with the guideline, they can follow the link to read more. It seems to me it is impolite to assume others are not familiar with guidelines—especially when you are responding to an edit summary, which is a forum in which it is difficult to say exactly what you mean, so many of us do not put too much effort into trying. -Rrius (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

“ WP:LEAD Begins:

The lead section, lead (sometimes lede), or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. ...

”

Let us begin there. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you obviously got nothing out of what was said. Yep. Must a Wikipedia talk page discussion. I'll try one more time:

1. It isn't especially important to note that Blagojevich is a Democrat in the lead. It is not especially important to the article and contributed to a glut of needless information. Of perhaps twenty words in a row, only two were necessary. If it is so important to you note the Governor's party, have at it.
2. It isn't necessary to note that the appointment occurred before Blagojevich left office. Only an idiot would think he appointed Burris after leaving office. It in no way summarized the troubles surrounding Blagojevich or cloud around the appointment. It merely states parenthetically that the appointment occurred before the removal from office. I am not arguing that no mention of the oddness surrounding the appointment should be mentioned. What I am arguing is that the point that after Burris's appointment occurred chronologically before the removal of Blagojevich is not important, and can be left to body of the article if it needs to be expressly made at all.
3. It is condescending and generally impolite to refer others to Wikipedia guidelines with the assumption that they haven't read it before. Far better would be to make your point and cite to the guideline. Other editors can then click through to the guideline either to read it for a first time or compare your assertion to it. Quoting the thing was completely unnecessary as I had already told you that I have read it. I have to question why, when I stated that a certain piece of text does not summarize anything, your response was to quote the opening at WP:LEAD and say that is where we should begin. In fact, I made it quite clear that I understand completely that the lead is supposed to be a summary.

For some reason you seem to think I deleted something that summarizes the article. What in that quote do you think says that "(before he was removed from office)" should be part of the lead? -Rrius (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What I am waving my warms around in the air about .. is that what appears to be true is that the introduction currently is nothing like:

“ "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. ”

... and that the trajectory of cutting out everything (quote) unnecessary (unquote) does not seem to lead toward reaching the lush and welcoming home planet described above ... but rather a forced landing on a tiny, frigid asteroid ... which no would wish to visit. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want the lead to be a proper summarizing lead, then write one. The things I removed were not things that tended to make it a more proper lead. As I have already said, if you want to say something about the Blagojevich problems, have at it. The phrase "(before he was removed from office)" did not do that. As I have also said, all it did was explain something that only a person too stupid to breathe would need explained, that is, that Blagojevich appointed him while Blagojevich was governor, not after. -Rrius (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not my parenthetical. Good riddance. ;) However ... the removal of "Governor" ... seemed to clearly set course for the tiny frigid planet (TFA) version—floating in the void, stripped of all "unnecessary" words. To wit:)

“ Roland Wallace Burris was born August 3, 1937. See photo (right), and more (below). ”

' (Sorry, couldn't resist.) But now it seems we may have accord — that the ever-so-rudely-thrust-forward (for which I will strive to apologize for, some day) guidelines of WP:LEAD ... may be something we can imagine following ... to the warm, lush, planet (WLP) we seek. :) See duty roster on the wall. Cheers!

Yet, coming down to earth, the META issue ... is that the accomplishment of such a mission is a rare feat ... for which there may be no precedent. :) Still, let us be inspired by the leadership of our new, young, (and, his word) "mutt" of a president–who is also without precedent... and thereby accept the duty of excellence. ;) Can I have an A-men? Proofreader77 (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reforming the Lede

I've added a bit about Burris currently being investigated by two different bodies for perjury. The Lede is not just an introduction but a summary of the article. That means the article isn't a puff piece. BLP is protected, as the sources we are using are reliable, veriiable and neutral. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are responding to someone, would you explain? -Rrius (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just stating the obvious. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)