Talk:Mike Bost

The always objective editors of Wikipedia
I see someone removed the line "in typical Republican crybaby fashion." This is why Wikipedia is utterly useless on the topic of politics and "hot-button" issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.211.10 (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: The always objective editors of Wikipedia
Are you mad they didn't leave it in.......? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.166.213 (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why this NRA mouthpiece from a district where the guy with a 2002 f100 pickup is king, and who's 15 minutes of fame is a psycho rant warrants a Wikipedia page? I'm not sure how one goes about nominating a page for removal, but IMO this page is a prime candidate Cosand (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight?
I'm skeptical about the appropriateness of including these two paragraphs in the article:

In 1986, after a neighbour's dog bit Bost's 4-year-old daughter resulting in 19 stitches on her face, Bost drove to the owner's home and shot the dog to death while it was penned in an enclosure. Bost was charged with criminal damage to property and reckless misconduct, but found not guilty.

In 2006, a revolver belonging to Bost was stolen from his gun safe. According to police records, he didn't know about the theft until police informed him that the gun had been used to threaten another man's life. Bost took police to the safe, and found the gun was missing. How the gun was stolen is unknown.

In neither case was Bost found guilty of any crime. The Chicago Sun-Times post is just a re-hashing of the HuffPo article. These seem an awful lot like Democratic campaign talking points that are rehashing the past to try to paint the candidate in a particular light. Does anyone have arguments for why this info should be included in its current form? Is it encyclopedic enough, given appropriate weight, and reliably sourced enough for its inclusion in current form? Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything back from anyone, so I'm going to remove this material. Champaign Supernova (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Mitt Romney article (a featured article), mentions him putting a dog on the roof of a car. There were no charges involved with that incident, so why neglect to mention the dog incident where Bost was charged and found not guilty? If you search for Bost's name in google news, most of the top articles are about this incident.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything back from anyone, so I'm going to put back the material relating to the dog, but not the stolen gun.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think Mitt Romney's article is a relevant precedent here, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. As for a Google News search, that's not a great test of notability per WP:NOTNEWS. This incident is probably coming up in Google News because it's been the recent focus of ads by Bost's opponent. I don't think it's enduring or particularly encyclopedic. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This content is trite, and is rightly removed. Don't compare this to Mitt Romney's dog, which for a while was a national attraction. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The rationale above suggests these facts should not be included because he was found not guilty, because someone felt it was Democratic talking points, and because of an unrelated comparison to Mitt Romney's dog.

There are no shortage of examples of pages discussing past criminal activity who have been found not guilty or acquitted (OJ Simpson  and Bill Clinton could clean up their pages, for examples). Further, he was actually acquitted, not found not guilty.

Retracting content because it could be perceived by one group as negative is actually another group putting their interests ahead. Readers should be able to find data and facts on Wikipedia for their own analysis and conclusions.

It's interesting to compare with the Mitt Romney dog incident since that is documented on his Wikipedia page, and also because the attention it provoked in the media shows how much our public cares about incidents involving pets and animals.

I believe including the factual points about the charges is more responsible than removing it because of bias or the legal outcome of the incident. Otherbrotherdarryl (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You say "There are no shortage of examples of pages discussing past criminal activity", and you're right. But I don't see any evidence that Bost was charged with any crime in this "dog incident." You've also added a very unreliable source. See WP:RS for more information. The way you've written the text is also not neutral and makes it seem as if you're blaming a four year old for getting bitten by a dog, blaming the child's father for not preventing the dog bite, then blaming the child's father for addressing the dog bite by killing the dog. This is not encyclopedic writing. Marquardtika (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and the references about writing guidelines. I am new to this and will learn more as I go. Regarding the evidence of charges, page 88 of the PDF of the court documents does list the formal charges filed by the state prosecutor. Otherbrotherdarryl (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mike Bost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thetelegraph.com/news/news/50101521/Illinois-Chamber-endorses-Bost-for-representative?template=art_smartphone

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Did not work. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)