Talk:Peter Roskam/Archive2

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

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

I agree that astroturfing and other political editing is unacceptable, plain and simple. Of course, I don't expect others to agree with me on this; I am a bit of an idealist. That being said, I am not sure whether it is acceptable whether to include policy positions of political candidates that are not SPECIFICALLY stated by the candidate. This means not allowing statements by campaign managers to be used, unless they have historical reference. If someone wants to create an entry for the campaign manager, then, that person's statements could be included, but heresay about a candidate's stance is not directly connected to the candidate **unless the candidate actually says those precise words and can be cited as having said them.**

By filtering out via the editing process the statements of other people (be they political action groups, campaign managers or the DNC/RNC) "on behalf" of the candidate, we avoid the appearance, if not the practice of impropriety.

There is a lot of anti-Roskam bias in this article. If you are going to lock it from editing, you should either remove the bias or remove the article all together. Locking an article that is filled with bias and not doing anything about it is foolish.

Chicago Tribune ad image
Now, to start, This picture "LOOMS" and gives far to much weight to the fact that Roskam's Law Firm advertises in the yellow pages and can get "RESULTS" This is a Bio not a Ad for SALVI, ROSKAM and MAHER.. it should be made much smaller or removed and hot linked it to its sourced. Joehazelton 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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




 * I oppose the reduction of the image's size (let alone its removal &mdash; an outrageous suggestion). From the point of view of Wikipedia, it is absolutely notable, encyclopedic, informative, interesting. And a size reduction will make it illegible. Every extra click loses readers. The Illinois General Assembly shot is quite large also; have we complained about that? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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



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

There is a concept of "FAIR USE" WP:FAIR this picture also can be found here [] and I'm real sure that they would have no problem with that picture on wikipedia. See this also... Publicity photos, distributed as part of press kits by celebrities, corporations, candidates for political office, and others, may be eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use. Publicity photos

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

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


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

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


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


 * The Tribune ad is highly relevant to Roskam's biography and enlightening in regards to his positions. It should be readable. Therefore, its size should not be reduced. We should be trying to inform voters rather than trying to deceive them. It is counter to Wikipedia principles as well as to common sense to force readers to click on the image to read the headline. One wonders what size Mr. Hazelton would want the image if it were, say, an ad that Roskam took out in the Tribune identifying his position on, say, tax cuts. I venture to suggest that he would not be fighting to decrease it to unreadable proportions. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy dictates that the image be readable. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


 * "Now lets cut the bulldonkey, and stick with the point at hand and focus, with out these side side issues clouding the waters.Joehazelton 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)"
 * Why blame me for the threats of propol (so much for good faith) to turn this article in to a Anti-Roskam page? YOU people don't read, only write, so AGAIN I PASTE IT...

"'Now lets cut the bulldonkey, and stick with the point at hand and focus, with out these side side issues clouding the waters.'Joehazelton 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)"
 * IF thats not plain enough, than what can I say. It appears to be my way or the highway again. This is getting tiresome but I will plod if thats what takes.


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


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


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


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


 * Yeah, exactly. Or this one. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, why not just link the image to the originating site? I am not sure of the benefit of including a yellow pages ad for the law firm. Whether allowed in its current size of made smaller, it is inappropriate in that the ad's inclusion seems like a negative maneuver. Include a link, and be done with it. Stop turning the argument into something it isn't. Keep the partisan politics and opinion out of it. Proper wntries are not a negotiation; they are observational ONLY. Pete 04:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Advocacy on behalf of Joehazelton (and, more to the point, reframing certain issues for discussion)
Joehazelton requested, at WP:AMA, an advocate relative to what he perceived to be biased (or, in any event, deleterious as regards encyclopedic standards) editing of this article; I undertook to assist Joe in articulating his concerns to other editors. Having previously analyzed 20 diffs for Joe, and having been apprised by Joe that several of the substantive issues were resolved on this talk page, I&mdash;as an editor&mdash;was a bit distressed to observe the edit- and revert-warring that entailed (and necessitated the protection of the page). Joe's concerns are apropos not only of the substance of the article but also of the discussions and motivations underlying such editing, and, although he continues to assume good faith, he is&mdash;not wholly unjustifiably, I think&mdash;concerned that his concerns have been given only cursory regard. Whilst the article is protected, editors might do well to attempt to resolve some of the outstanding issues, and, on Joe's behalf, I've tried to set out clearly what some of those issues are, in order that discussion might tailored thereto: Although I act here as Joe's advocate, serving to e:xpress to others that about which he is concerned and to reconcile his concerns with policies and guidelines, in view, of course, of the advancement of the project, I hope, of course, that I might help to resolve amicably the extant problems (although it should be said that if one desires to formalize such resolution efforts, he ought to pursue dispute resolution, whether vis-à-vis article content or user conduct). I hope that those who have edit-warred here will consider addressing in specific the issues that Joe, by and through me, has raised, and, to be sure, adding&mdash;ideally in detail&mdash;those issues about which they are concerned, toward a solution that best comports with encyclopedic principles. Should Joe desire that I express any other concerns on his behalf, I will intercede, but in the alternative or meanwhile, I hope and trust that all can work civilly here. Joe 04:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ought the article to include Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png, a scan of a full-page telephone book advertisement for the law firm for which Roskam works, and, if so, what size ought the image to take?
 * Is an inclusion of the sundry forms of personal injury law practiced by Roskam's firm encyclopedic (per WP:NOT) and, if so, does WP:NPOV nevertheless militate against inclusion?
 * Is the fact of Roskam's having missed a vote on Social Security reform, or the fact of the citation of that fact by a (probably) notable blog, encyclopedic, and, if so, does WP:NPOV nevertheless militate against inclusion?
 * Is the adduction of the characterization by the Anglican Journal of the "extreme" nature of Roskam's church encyclopedic?
 * Does the partial enumeration of political action committees to have contributed to the Roskam campaign, principally sourced relative to the contributions themselves rather than to criticism thereof by, inter al., the Duckworth campaign, constitute a cruftily unencyclopedic formulation or, if not, does such enumeration nevertheless improperly bias the Roskam article?


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


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


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


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


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


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

I hope that you find my views useful and informative. Thanks. Propol 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my response is juuuust a bit late and not particularly useful (although I'll write about other possible remedies below). In any event, I suppose I'd dispose of the each of the issues by concluding that the sections for the preservation of which you argue are principally cruft, such that, though verifiable and reliably sourced, they are precisely what Wikipedia is not, viz., indiscriminate collections of information.


 * The fact of Roskam's working for a personal injury firm is notable and encyclopedic; a recitation of the specific types of cases the firm takes&mdash;even where such recitation is found in the firm's ads&mdash;is unnecessarily precise and serves only to clutter an article (of course, those who think WP:NOT improperly to limit the scope of our editing and who believe that all verifiable facts should be included in mainspace will object, but I am confident that WP:NOT continues to command the support of the community). If Roskam is criticized for handling medical malpractice cases whilst advocating for tort reform, the fact of such criticism is likely notable, and if such criticism contains a recitation of specific sorts of cases on which Roskam's firm works, that's probably fine; the recitation in its present context is, IMHO, unencyclopedic.  As to, for example, the case of a candidate qua doctor performing abortions and qua candidate supporting government intrusion into personal health decisions, the fact of that candidate's vocation is notable, but a recitation of the methods of abortion and other obstetrics-related procedures would be unencyclopedic.  Notably, the project does not exist to convey information in such a fashion as to cause readers to think critically&mdash;to be sure, a candidate's supporting tort reform whilst practicing medical malpractice law is likely unseemly, but it's not for us to imply such unseemly quality.


 * Likewise, Roskam's missing a vote about an issue on which he has yet to state his position is unencyclopedic, even as such vote-missing is verifiable (although ostensibly principally by a primary source); again, if such vote-missing is adduced toward some broader proposition by a notable publication or individual, such criticism might be notable.


 * On the Anglican Journal issue, you're probably right; I didn't consider the Journal as a notable publication, such that its appraisal of any given church was, IMHO, no more encyclopedic than one I might give, but I rather gather I underestimated its currency and breadth (although we still haven't an article apropos of it). It should be said, though, that we don't necessarily disambiguate terms within articles lest readers should be confused.


 * Many people take a keen interest in political fundraising and there are scores of web sites and publications devoted to the topic. This is certainly true, and a partial enumeration of contributing PACs is probably fine (although, once more, even where such listing is undertaken by a source external to, for example, the FEC, primary source objections nevertheless entail where the listing is presented simply as an aggregation of information with no other substantive conduct; I'm not particularly persuaded by such objections, inasmuch as I think that we ought to permit primary sources in certain situations [almost exclusively with respect to publications of governments], but I don't pretend that a consensus exists for the implementation of my views). I am a bit concerned that the many people formulations means to suggest that, where information is likely to prove interesting and "helpful" to readers, we ought to include it; whilst many do take that position and argue quite forcefully for its nature as encyclopedically superior to WP:NOT, I think it plain (from a perusal of AfD, for example) that such position is not the dominant one here.


 * I can't imagine that there's anything about which I'd agree with Roskam, but I nevertheless want to represent JoeHazelton's position, at least insofar as I think it to be congruent with overarching encyclopedic principles, and I do think the extant article to have some deficiencies. Joe 03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not being here for all the fireworks, it looks like this has less to do with Peter Roskam, and more to deal with a couple of editors mixing it up. Do we still need this here, or can it be deleted? It's rather off-putting to new editors, and takes up unnecessary space.Arcayne 08:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Photo of yellow page ad and linkage to tort reform
I have problems with the yellow pages ad for the law firm.

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

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

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

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


 * Joehazelton, as long as everything we provide is factually accurate with proper sources and follows Wikipedia policies, then it is not our responsibility for whatever conclusions or opinions the readers form. You've essentailly argued the article is only permissible so long as it doesn't influence anyone against Roskam. How would we even determine such a thing, as all readers hold a different standard? Also in your complaint, you don't reference any Wikipedia policy. What standard is being violated? I think you know that you lack a case on a factual basis and have chosen to keep complaining simply as a stall tactic to prevent useful information (i.e. O'Hare from being added to the article). If this continues, I will report your conduct to additional administrators, who may choose to block you. I have a long list of violations by you, such as making major edits and stating "spelling" in the edit summary. Thanks. Propol 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So you say? I say False Cause it's an incorrect application of the rule.  The letter of the law is correct, the sprit is not. You are trying to push an agenda,  Your argument is false.Joehazelton 16:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * I've actually called Roskam campaign headquarters asking for Roskam's stance on SS. I gave them my name, address and number. Never got a call back, even though I live in the sixth district. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I bet you were your charming self, and they figured that your call was the most important thing on their boring schedule.Joehazelton 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


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

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


 * Joehazelton, whatever is or isn't found on the Tammy Duckworth article isn't relevant to the Peter Roskam article. Each should be judged independently. In some U.S. House races, one candidate doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, so of course entries are not always comparable. However, that being said, there is no reason you can't make additions to the Duckworth article. Please use proper sources and play nicely. Thanks. Propol 01:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, for this moment in time, they are tied together, due to the upcoming, and hotly contested November 2006 elections, so such enumerations not found one and found on the other will be unfair, bias, and to make the Roskam page a Duckworth campaign tract. I would consider it not NPOV. Only in the context out side of the election your point may have weight, but in this context you are wrong. Joehazelton 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your opinion, of course, is totally unsupported by Wikipedia policies and so is mostly irrelevant. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Dud, of course it is supported and relavent: (WP:LIVING) (WP:NPOV) (WP:NPOV) (WP:AWW) also see wikipedia under "Malicious editing", "One-sided argument". I forgot the old favorite [Ad Hominem]. Take a look at this (WP:NPOVT) and read. NOW, I tell you what, based on my "VALID" and "SUPPORTED" agument, the enumations should be removed on the Roskam page. Joehazelton 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Place a NPOV TAG on the Peter Roskam Page ASAP PLEASE!
I am wondering if there will be any changes allowed at the Roskam page?

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

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


 * You have failed to show any bias in the article whatsoever. Your complaints above are without merit. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

tax cut text
The tax cut text that JoeHazelton added to the article was cut-and-pasted from Roskam's website. As such, it violates copyright policy as well as flagrantly violating NPOV. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the offending section of text. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Please review Wikipedia's copyright policy. The text that JoeHazelton added is inadmissible under this policy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

People who violate the copyright policy will be blocked. This has nothing to do with NPOV, the accuracy of the list, etc. and everything to do with US law and Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel 19:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is "Fair Use" WP:FAIR and the tax list I put up was from a [Roskam press release] which would be covered under Fair use. If you should feel that this is policy, to remove the tax legislation information, which is attributed to Illinois General Assembly, then it would be assumed that you must apply this principle to the Phone book ad/the Tribune reprint as well. Did Zorn get permission to reprint the ad, I doubt it?  It can then be construed that picture, of the phonebook ad, falls under your interpretation of the Wikipidia policy on Copywrite.  Again, if Fair use applies to trib/zorn reprint, then it must apply to the tax listing. That much is clear.


 * Also, I am troubled by the compelling need for Goethean to make this page a Duckworth Campaign tract. I will be compelled to remove much of what Goethean has added, unless he starts justifying, in the same manner as I have to, for ever little scrap I put up.  If Goethean wishes to engage in a discussion or Edit war again, it's his choice.  In my humble opinion the Enumerations of contributions is Patently unfair and POV, considering that section is tied (Due to the upcoming Nov 2006 elections) to the Tammy Duckworth  article and no such enumerations found on the Duckworth article. (Also don't insult the intelligences of the readers, which could be 6th district voters, that they are not tied. They are. )  Also since Goethena is a very active editor on the Duckworth article  the question  begs is, why is there no "Enumerations" of contributions on the Duckworth Article?69.220.184.129 15:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not copy large sections of text directly from other websites. If you don't like it, argue your point at Wikipedia talk:Copyright. I don't see any other substantive points in your comments. I see personal attacks, false accusations, threats, irrelevancies, and disregard for Wikipedia policy. Please consider obtaining a Wikipedia username and familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My patience for this sort of behavior is at an end. Gamaliel 16:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The condescending tone and patronizing is very very old, anything I have justified with logical argument and example is just dismissed out of hand, and I'm sick that. I want this article to be put up for RFC, now or reverted back and we start over.  If what I have said about Goethean is untrue, then you are right, but if it is true, then Goethenan's complaints are with out merit.  The truth is a click way in the edit histories on the Duckworth and Roskams articles and truth is my protection. OR I may step back and watch how this article turns in to a Duckworth campaign flyer and let the blatant bias speak for it self as an example of Wikipidia Neutral Point of View. Joehazelton 17:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your arguments might be more respected if you didn't accuse the people you are trying to convince of bias at every opportunity. You are the reason that almost no progress has been made on this article and while you have some valid points to make you continually sabotage yourself by indulging in this juvenile behavior.  You have been given a great deal of leeway and at every turn you have attacked other editors. I have done everything I can think of but get down on my knees and beg you to stop this, but nothing seems to get through to you.  At this point I can think of nothing else to say, so I'm going to start enforcing Wikipedia policy through blocks for policy violations. I have been very reluctant to do this in regards to this article but I can see no other way of getting you to stop attacking other editors. Gamaliel 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I Disagree with your assessment Mr. Gamaliel. MY VALID points have been. at every stage of this discussion dismissed, ridiculed and completely Ignored.  Now if I am getting a bit testy, then you will understand.  The insult  "Juvenile" is pretty nasty I would say.  How DARE, I should question, lest be smacked down. How dare I should point out the truth.Joehazelton 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And it is your own behavior that has contributed to their being dismissed. You have every right to question the validity of the material in the article but you do not have the right to continually harrass other editors by accusing them of bias and sinister motives. Gamaliel 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. as long the rules apply to all equally and the ancient rules of logical construct and Logical fallacy are respected.Joehazelton 07:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its time someone had a nice cup of tea and a sit down. (Is it always this vehement here?)Arcayne 06:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One editor, User:Joehazelton, was unable to discuss the article calmly and has since been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia due to personal attacks. He has since reappeared occasionally using various usernames and IP addresses. His dysliterate prose is easily recognizable. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tags
24 hours after placing two sectnpov tags on the article, JoeHazelton has failed to provide substantive justification for the placement of those tags. Therefore, the tags should be removed immediately. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


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

Make up your mind
This is truly hilarious. JoeHazelton claims that this article cannot mention Tammy Duckworth even as "Roskam's opponent", and yet he wants use her in order to neutralize Roskam's embarrassing campaign contributions. Make up your mind, would you? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's exactly what he's saying in the first edit. It appears that he doesn't want to use the article to contrast the positions of the two candidates, which is a defensible position given that this is an article on only one of them. But you are right when you say that it isn't a consistent position, as it seems to be contradicted by the second edit you mention, contrasting the donations to both candidates.  Gamaliel 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that I've looked at that edit more closely, it appears that the language comparing the two candidates was already in the article and JH simply moved it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck
Well, look and see the edits of the editors, on this article and tell me, you, the unspoken masses that read this minutia, who's the one with an agenda? Now, you boys have no logic in your policies, god forbid, we should try to have a NPOV article here. But so be it.

Now to answer Mr Gamaliel questions is simply this. In the section about the 2006 campaign, I feel what Roskam answers to questions,is very very relevant to the positions that Mr Roskam have on issues, as well as, to answer some the charges Duckworth makes, which though the use of clever placement of material by some of the editors seem to dovetail nicely with her published statements in the news. The statements by Roskam, in the section about November 2006 campaign are for balance and NPOV.Joehazelton 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove Roskam quotes then remove this
FEC disclosures show Roskam has received financial support from Americans for a Republican Majority, a PAC formed by Tom DeLay, who is facing criminal charges. Roskam was quoted as saying, "Knowing what I know now about what Tom DeLay's been accused of, my attitude would be to support him." The Hill reported that Tom DeLay hosted a fundraiser for Roskam's congressional campaign in 2005.

"Quotes by Roskam about his opponent don't belong in an encyclopedia article. What factual information do they provide about Roskam? This is not the Duckworth article." This was written by Propol, My question is; based on this standard, why should the qoutes by Roskam be removed by Popol? If he insists on removing them, then the "stuff" I listed above must be removed if we are going to be consistant? yes? ::OR reword like this FEC disclosures show Roskam has received financial support from Americans for a Republican Majority, a PAC formed by Tom DeLay 69.220.184.129 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Are you claiming that the above statement is untrue or poorly sourced? Why should it be removed? User:ProPol has given his reasons why the Roskam quotations should be removed &mdash; he says that they are unencyclopedic. What is your reasoning for removing the above? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have given my reasons, so why are you confessed and make statement that it is poorly sourced? The Statements are cited. Is the Suntimes, one of the two largests newspapers in Illinois, is poorly source of this?  The statment is true.Joehazelton 15:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Joehazelton, just because something is true and it has a source (i.e. Sun Times) does not automatically mean it should be included in an encyclopedia article. I'm sure that a quote from Tammy Duckworth criticizing Roskam can also be found in a major newspaper, but it does not belong in the article either. Quotes from any politician about their opponent have an inherent bias and should be rarely included. Furthermore, the quotes which you continue to include offer no information about Roskam or his political positions. They are simply attacks on his opponent (Duckworth). One of the quotes is a severe abuse of Wikipedia policies on living persons. Attempting to link Duckworth to the hired truck political scandal is egregious because there is no relationship. How does a private citizen from Hoffman Estates affect hiring practices in the City of Chicago? It borders on the absurd. I will continue to delete these abusive quotes, which are exempt from the 3RR. I will, however, report you to an administrator for a potential block, should you choose to revert the deletion. Propol 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * She is linked (read and see Rahm linkage, as well the linkage with Da machine, Duckworths best buddies, to the Hired truck scandel) and she's not a private citizen, she's fair game and her mentors and best supports are in that scandel, thick. In the same way you are linking Roskam to DeLay with your additions?  yes?
 * Your argument is flawed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander I say.  It's an issue of balance and fairness.  "...just because something is true and it has a source... "  HOW true, which means I will start removing parts on the article that meets your stated criteria. Also, the threats and bullying is getting old.  I'm ole school. I don't scare easy. Give it you best shot bud. What a jokeJoehazelton 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the question of whether or not the quote belongs in an article, I don't think inserting a quote from a politician is something that violates WP:BLP and warrants immediate and/or 3RR exempt removal. The quote can be inserted or removed on its own merits and we can discuss that here, I don't see a need to escalate the matter at this point. Gamaliel 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "I don't think inserting a quote from a politician" Well, MR. Roskam is a "politician" yes.  The article is about MR. Roskam, yes. The November 2006 Campaign section,is were the quotation from Mr. Roskam, is located.? yes. So the logic is sound and the placement is correct and with in Wikipedia policy, as I read them.  So, what's the problem? Unless, you have other, underlining issues and agendas?  So, your premise of WP:BLP is flawed.


 * Also, stop blaming me because for others that are bias and intractable violators of 3RR. The 3RR violation should be applied with equal vigor to the other violators - Popol, and Gethena.Joehazelton 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * She is linked (read and see Rahm linkage, as well the linkage with Da machine, Duckworths best buddies, to the Hired truck scandel) and she's not a private citizen, she's fair game and her mentors and best supports are in that scandel, thick. In the same way you are linking Roskam to DeLay with your additions? yes? 


 * But what does this alleged link have to do with Roskam? Why would it be in an article about Roskam? What light does it shed on the subject of this article (other than his penchant for free association)? None. That's why it should not be included. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats right.. so the Roskam deLay Emblisments less the facts sjould be removed. Also don't MESS with what I write again or I will file a formal complaint. IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH. Joehazelton 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe, a few things:


 * In your comments regarding WP:BLP, you say that "my premise" is "flawed", but I seem to agree with you that the quote is not a violation of WP:BLP. So which is it?  Did I misread your comments or did you misread mine?  Or were you replying to another editor?  Please make your comments more clear in the future.
 * Before you file a "formal complaint" that will be laughed off, removing a header is not a federal case nor a matter for administrative intervention.
 * All 3RR violators on this article will be dealt with appropriately. If you wish to report a 3RR violation, please do not denounce the violator on this page. Please contact me on my talk page with links to the violating edits and I will deal with the matter. If this is not satisfactory, you can file a report at WP:AN/3RR.
 * Yet again you have personally attacked another editor, this time implying that I have "underlying issues and agendas". And this for the crime of agreeing with you.  Why do I have to remind you over and over and over again that attacking the motives of other editors is a violation of Wikipedia policies and poisons the collaborative atmosphere on this page?  How many times do you expect to get away with this before you get blocked?  Will you then complain you are being persecuted even though you've received half a dozen or so warnings?  You feel that your contributions are being ignored by other editors on this page, but I cannot force or demand other editors listen to and collaborate with someone who is attacking them at every turn.   I realize that i am not the most diplomatic of persons at times but I have been doing my best to get everyone to work together on this article.  I cannot succeed and we cannot begin to address any of the issues with this article or with your interations with other editors until you first stop attacking at every opportunity.  What is it going to take to get through to you?  I do not want to have to explain this again to you.  Please reply to this message and indicate that you understand what is going on here.  Unless you immediately stop attacking other editors and implying sinister motives in every act and every edit, you will be blocked.  At this point I cannot think of another solution to this problem. Gamaliel 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Then stop the concept of "My way or highway". Also, I'm getting tired of being labeled by the other editors for things and behaviors that they engage in kind. There is a hypocrisy here and it is very distasteful to me and that has to stop.

What you have at work here, my friend is this; me and my agenda which I don't try to hide, and the agenda of the two editors, whose agenda, unpublished, is very much self evident in the way they edit on this article and others. Considering what is at stake, (I live in the 6th)compromise will not be possible, until the other editors are warned and threaten as you are threatening me and understand I will not allow this article be turned in to a Duckworth campaign tract by them. Until then, compromise is not going to happen.

The stakes are to high. Block me and I will appeal. Evil and Bad men always fear the light of day. or I will collaborative, if they (Popol, Gethean)chose to collaborate as well. Understand this, this is not "Their article" but a collaboration. Regrettably, all I see is their insistence, time and time again to shove two facts together to get an allegation (implied wrongdoing) AKA ad hominem and guilt by association attack and then proceed to freeze out my comments and complaints with ad hominem attacks on me and name calling ( "juvenile" is my favorite)and brute force revert backs, with out discussion. This has to stop. It is not Encyclopedic or NPOV and this is what posions me to this process.

(example: Roskam take money from the evil Tom DeLay, since Mr Delay is under investigation, it is then implying that if Roskam takes money from evil man(A fellow Republican), then  Roskam May? be evil too).

Its very unencyclopedic, with false logic backing the unsupported arugment, and I wonder why you don't even try to stop it. What you have here is my fellow editors engaging in a game of ["Non Causa Pro Causa"].

Lets look as some examples like this....

"FEC disclosures show Roskam has received financial support from Americans for a Republican Majority, a PAC formed by Tom DeLay, who is facing criminal charges. Roskam was quoted as saying, 'Knowing what I know now about what Tom DeLay's been accused of, my attitude would be to support him.' The Hill reported that Tom DeLay hosted a fundraiser for Roskam's congressional campaign in 2005."

So, with this priciple in mind, lets extent the logic to Ms. Duckworth... I take money from Chicago democrats: Many Chicago Democrats are involved with [Hired Truck scandal]. Since my fiends are involved with this scandal and since I take money from these friends, then I must be involved in scandal too???

Instead the above statement should be this.

"FEC disclosures show Roskam has received financial support from Americans for a Republican Majority, a PAC formed by Tom DeLay,"

Your readers then can click to Tom Delay and read on in "Glorious" detail about his problems, his problems are not Roskams problems. Yes?

Or...

what the hell is this?

On August 20th, 2006, conservative political commentator Robert Novak reported:

It's just one quote from one commentator? This manner of formatting gives far to much weight to it. It should be in this formatted like this

On August 20th, 2006, conservative political commentator Robert Novak reported: National Republican strategists are deeply concerned about the possible loss of the [Sixth] district and have brought in an ace political operative to try to save the campaign...Jason Roe, chief of staff to Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida and an experienced campaign manager, has been brought in to buck up Roskam's flagging effort.|&quot;Dodd's Last Hurrah?&quot; OR this..

"Roskam held a media event with and received support from Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist has been criticized for aiding convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff as a financial conduit."

should be this...

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

Again this about Roskam not the problems some of his friends are having.. this is a blatant example of the principle of [Non Causa Pro Causa].

Shall I continue??? there is more

This gem...

FEC filings show that Roskam received $10,000 from Exelon Corporation's PAC. Donations were also received from the CEO, John W. Rowe, and numerous officers directly. Exelon is the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, the electric utility serving Roskam's district. Currently ComEd is seeking a controversial rate hike, which is opposed by local governments and groups including the Citizens Utility Board. I give you an augment... I take Exelon money, then I must be for a "controversial" rate hike? So, inorder to be Encyclopedic, this is what the Exelon entry should say...

"FEC filings show that Roskam received $10,000 from Exelon Corporation's PAC . Donations were also received from the CEO, John W. Rowe, and numerous officers directly. Exelon is the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, the electric utility serving Roskam's district"

Advocacy journalism as no place, IMHO in this article,WP:LIVING if I am to understand Wikipdia policy Yet, My follow editor would seem to engage it with a certain "gusto" which I find distressing. They would do well to read this... "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." I found this in WP:LIVING.

I can cite more, but in a nut shell these are some of the problems I have with the article and the agenda of the two editors. I'm tired and will let this sit for now.

P.S... I don't like my my writings reformanted  on this discussion page which Gothean likes to do. It's very rude and voilates policy as I undestand it, as well as, a direct and blatant insult to me. I want that stopped. Joehazelton 08:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You have posted a lengthy reply but you haven't addressed the problems with your behavior at all. So I don't see the point of posting my own lengthy reply to all of your points and I'm not going to debate this with you any longer. Declaring that "compromise is not going to happen" and "Evil and Bad men always fear the light of day" makes it clear that you view this as an adversarial process instead of a collaborative one and I fear that you have no genuine interest in collaborating. Gamaliel 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My Behavior? I like how its unilateral, with the declaration of "your (me) behavior" and "I'm not going to debate any longer" Nice. Why bother to bandy words any longer?   I am going to have this article RFC and thrown in to arbitration (mediation) or what ever there "might" exist in Wikipdia, to address the fact that, in my humble and "juvenile" opinion, the Peter Roskam article is a first class flame job. So much for rulez and so much for logic, and so much for any opinion I may have, less I violate some one's agenda.


 * In the mean time, I am slapping a NPOV tag on the article. Until there is there independent and non partisan review by some other editors and admins, it will remain.Joehazelton 21:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it. The article may very well be "a first class flame job", as you say, but that does not give you license to attack other editors. I have been trying to get you to calm down and play nicely with others so we could address those issues you keep complaining about, but your behavior has been what has stood in the way of that, as it distracts from those issues and makes other editors unwilling to work with you.  I encourage your efforts to seek further input on this article, perhaps one of those other editors will be able to explain to you that you cannot ignore Wikipedia's rules of behavior. Gamaliel 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is "I do get it" I've lived to long, and understand to well whats in play here. I will withdraw from this for now, and evaluate what I'm going to do next, which will be in a few days. Mr. Propol Mr. goethean - have at it, but In the mean time, considering what is happening, the tag will remain until this article can be reviewed by less partisan editors and admin.

I will respect (really I will) the opinion of those that don't have political agendas and axes to grind. (As it is not proper, but true - see the edit histories, I, consider Propol and goethean agenda self evident and Pro Duckworth as well as myself Joehazelton which is Pro Roskam.).Joehazelton 22:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I told you that I don't like when people add to what I write. I stand on what I write and say. I did not try to hid my agenda or who I am, unlike others that frain NPOV. Now that said, you boys have at it, enjoy. Joehazelton 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding disputes
As the AMA advocate for Joehazelton, I tried several days ago to set out for Joe those which I understood to be his principal concerns, and I am quite happy that a discussion ensued here (even as I apologize for my having disappeared after writing). I think it's quite clear, though, that things have not gone particularly well here. Joe likely has commented on other editors rather than on the contributions of those editors (perhaps most untowardly imputing malign motive to other editors where other less pernicious explanations exist).

Nevertheless, I understand his feeling fatigued and angry at what he&mdash;rightly or wrongly&mdash;perceives to be a concerted effort to frustrate his good-faith attempts to improve the article. I recognize that Propol and Goethean may&mdash;rightly or wrongly&madash;think there to remain no substantive issues on which disagreement remains, but I, both as an editor offering a third/fourth opinion and as Joe's advocate, think there some areas on which discussion might serve to better the article, and so, in view of the recent devolution of the situation into one of edit-warring and personal attacks (in neither case, I suppose, particularly disruptive) and a prolonged protection (one that was justified and was intended, I think, by Gamaliel to promote talk page discussion in pursuit of consensus), I wonder if mediation (of the cabal, as against of the committee, variety), rather than a user conduct RfC or a content RfC (to which few editors are likely to contribute) might be pursued.

If those most involved in the discussions here would accede to mediation, I understand Joe would be altogether willing to initiate a medcab request, after which a third-party would contact all involved. In essence, medcab serves to provide an outside view where one is necessary apropos of some specific areas of disagreement. At worst, the process will serve to make plain those areas over which disagreements remain and to provide succinct descriptions of the positions underlying such disagreements, such that another user happening by might well and quickly understand the issues and offer his opinions (this appears, unfortunately, to be a rather poorly-trafficked page, and the occasional editor reading the talk page surely won't participate in an exceedingly complex debate). Would others be interested? Joe 04:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Debate schedule
The article talks about a possible "future" August 19 debate. Does anyone know whether this ever actually happened? NatusRoma | Talk 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that it did not. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Alleged plagiarism and BLP
User:Joehazelton has raised some questions about the material he removed in this edit. He claims it is a WP:BLP violation and raised concerns here, but did so in an uncivil manner so I removed his post. Still his concerns should be addressed. BLP requires that the material be solidly sourced. A source was provided, but it would be preferable that the original AP article be used as a citation if this material is to remain in the article. Other areas of concern that should be addressed are the appropriate section header, whether or not this matter is important enough for its own section, and whether or not this matter is important enough to be in the article at all. Gamaliel 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The AP article is here: . NatusRoma | Talk 03:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Can people working on this article please add an edit summary to every edit? On a contentious article like this one, it's all the more important. Gamaliel 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why bother to put summeries, any thing which "they" put up, most will be protected and remain. It's indicative of the attitude of "ownership" the two other players for the Peter Roskam article.

Under Wikirulz, A sunny day is dark and black, Lake Michigan is dry desert, and the Pope is not catholic. Truth is unimportant, only consenses and the wiki rulzs.

BTW Gamaliel, at lest your making attempt. Thanks. Joehazelton 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC) please note Halon razor...01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Joehazelton

Roskam's open letter to Duckworth
I have a problem with our coverage of Roskam's Open Letter to Duckworth. Roskam's letter is a contentious diatribe filled with innuendos and false accusations, which I can enumerate if necessary. For example: Roskam says that he agrees with Duckworth on Iraq, while Duckworth has scathingly attacked the Bush administration's failures. The letter's release was completely ignored by the media. User:JoeHazelton's coverage of the letter was typically partisan and unacceptably creative. I have cleaned up the most egregious errors, but our coverage of the letter still constitutes advocacy. It doesn't make sense to mention this letter without mentioning the NRCC's extremely negative direct mail campaign that generated Duckworth's mailing. I can write up a summary, but I feel that that would be too much like original research. I suggest removal of the paragraph until a media outlet covers the incident. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * goethean, I'm in agreement with you. I think any quote (open letter, etc.) from a political candidate is suspect for inclusion. Unless it's a revolutionary statement or speech (i.e. the Gettysburg Address) it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. User:Joehazelton seems to like including quotes from Roskam or his surrogates (i.e. the Addison mayor) that are negative towards Duckworth. They are out of place. I don't think User:Joehazelton would even want to argue that they belong, because if they did, then any quote from Duckworth about Roskam would also be admissable. I will support you if you choose to delete the entire section. And User:Joehazelton this is for your benefit too. Thanks. Propol 22:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well,on one hand, it's ok for Duckworth to call Peter a liar and its not ok for Mr. Roskam response not to see the light of day on Wikipedia?


 * It would seem to be a matter of fair play and common sense, and with precedent being set on the Ms. Tammy Duckworth Wikipedia Article, (The Duckworth article which you two ( goethean, Propol) lovingly protect from absolutly any "negative" insertions and damaging Cruft.) so I invoke this little bit of policy WP:SENSE.


 * BTW, it's funny there is no such listing of Duckworth's more notable campaign contributors like BABS and Baldwin (It was Baldwin who wanted to hurt [Mr. Hyde, during the Clinton enpeachment trials] There were a "LOT" of people here, in the 6th, that didn't "cotton" to well to Mr Baldwin and would not cotton to Tammy's outsider friends very well if such information became more "public knowlege" of the contributions made by Mr Baldwin and his east and west coast "limo librals", which are the lions share of Duckworth contributions and are "TOTAL OUTSIDERS" to the 6th as well as Duckworth too.


 * It is this, as well as the general tone of Duckworth article, which reads like a "STORY" or Campaign Tract and in light of this, as well as being armed with precedents that you two "good faith" editors goethean, Propol have set, I will "lovingly" protect Roskams article in the same "Loving way" as you two protect the [Duckworth article], and as per this policy WP:SENSE or in other words. Whats fair is fair, whats good for the Duckworth article, is good for the Roskam article. Common sense rulez. Do zobaczenia Joehazelton 03:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Joehazelton, I always try to be fair. I don't think the Duckworth campaign calling Roskam a liar is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but let me point out that you're the one who added this point. Here's your edit. Reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Again, let me reiterate, I don't think quotes from either candidate are appropriate for inclusion unless they are of extraordinary nature. Thanks. Propol 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am fair, fair is fair I say. Lets see some donor listings on the Tammy Duckworth article???

I make a bet, I will list Baldwin and Babs Contributions on the Duckworth page..I bet that those entries, similar to the entries of donor contributions on the Roskam page, will last about 2 hours before they are gone...Fair is Fair.Joehazelton 04:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur  Also Tit for tat Joehazelton 04:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

DCCC link
The linking of Democratic Web site, is clearly partisan and does not contribute to the encyclopedic tone of the article.

Furthermore, The allegations, insinuations, and charges of wrongdoing, as stated on that web site, have no editorial review and clearly should not be consider a accurate and credible source of damaging partisan information WP:RS. Also, Wikipolicy, in regards to Blogs, which the DCCC site is a Blog, a very partisan blog run by the DCCC, again this site has no editorial review and should be consider very unreliable source information. This link must be remove under the following policies WP:BLP ; WP:RS ; WP:NPOV .Fisherking 17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please. Your complaint is completely without merit. The DCCC link merely points out that Roskam has $1000 of Tom DeLay's money. This information is publicly available from a variety of sources, including here and here. Wikipedia's policy is not that each link needs to be neutral, but rather that the variety of links provided should be a balanced selection. Which it is. Furthermore, several Wikipedians have replaced the link numerous times. Thus, the consensus of the editors of the article is that the link should stay. Therefore, I am replacing the link. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been watching this for some time now, and find goethean arguments to be strained at best. In viewing the link, which Goethean want to place on the page, I find the information unreliable, due to the fact that, it's a political blog. Also, just because, others buy in to a bad link, don't necessarily means it is right, See the live cycle of the lemming.  As I can see, I think the language you use "YOU COMPLAINT is with out merit" to be contentious and inflaming the discussion.  You should show more civility as per WP:CIVIL and not to use such language in discussions of this nature. Considering your talk page User_talk:Goethean is full of such complaints and blocks for 3RR violations, you should try to excersie more good faith in how you present your comments.


 * In light of the what would seem to be apparent bias editing on this political article and the danger that political operatives are running amuck, I have placed this article for peer review, in hope that we can have a better cross section of editors to review and make the required changes to bring this article more in line with Wikpedia standards for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV Thank you. Chitownflyer 15:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Goethean's comments have have been a bit brusque, but he restricted himself to comments about article content and did not attack another contributor. Your comments about his talk page and "bias editing" and "political operatives" have crossed the line into commenting/attacking other editors, a problem (caused at various times by people on both sides of the debate) which has plagued this article and inhibited progress here. Please restrict your comments to article content to avoid contributing to this problem so we can progress with dealing with issues of article content.  Thank you. Gamaliel 15:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How are my comments of "political operatives" attacking any one? I am suggesting, though, that this article has bias, and in need for a peer review. That is not an attack, as you suggest, of a good faith editor.  I can, however, quote many newspaper articles which point out the problems of "political operatives" using wikipedia for furthering political agendas, shall I quote of few, or will they be censored, due to the critical comments they make about Wikipedia?  Just give the word, and I can show at lest a dozen articles backing that statement up. Now considering that this is a hotly contested race, with the stakes for both sides high, the possibility of "Political Operatives" is there. Yes?  Now I would suggest, you ask Mr. Goethean that he must behave and be more polite in his discussions which by factual inspection of his User_talk:Goethean  talk pages, would indicate a contrary history.  Furthermore, my suggesting of bias are not directed at MR. Goethean or and particular editor, but again, to the general quality or lack of it in way the Roskam article as been edited. For me to point out the factual history of Mr. Goethean, for that matter, any editor or administrator, is not a breach good faith as you know under WP:AGF considering the nature of this Biography of a living person, and the high standards of editing and administrating Wikipeida seems to be asking for said Biographies?  WP:BLP.


 * The article, is substandard and need better editing. To begin, The DCCC link is not per wikitpedia standards of WB:BLP and WP:NPOV. The website link [dccc.org] standards of verifying information which by it's political POV, would be lacking and untrustworthy.  The information is, in the end just an opinion and commentary and blog, and is not appropriate for this article and is un-encyclopedic and unreliable.  Goethean's arguments are flawed, and his insistence to put this link, in question, up with out even discussing it, is again a historic problem of his when you look at the factual talk history of this editor. Chitownflyer 18:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So you complain about Goethean's history, then you make general comments about bias and political operative immediately afterwards, and you expect no one to make a connection there? If you intended no such connection, you should be more careful in your discussion of other editors that no such connection is perceived.  We should be wary of political operatives, of course, but that warning is not relevant to the current question of whether or not we should include the link, nor is Goethean's history relevant to the current question of whether or not we should include the link.  If  Goethean left today, the question would still remain, as would the other editors who also advocate including the link. For this discussion to be civil, productive, and relevant, I insist you limit your remarks to article content.  If you find the history of an editor to be troublesome, start an RFC or file a complaint on the administrator noticeboard.  This space is for discussing article content.


 * Regarding your citation of wikipedia policies, NPOV does not apply to the content of every external link, it only requires that the article itself be neutral and the sources used reliable. NPOV also requires that all significant viewpoints be represented, and the Democratic party certainly represents a significant viewpoint, so the policy you cite would seem to require the inclusion of this information in some form, whether it be this link or something else, not the exclusion of it. Gamaliel 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will keep that in mind to submit complaints about editors to administrator. noticeboard


 * The DCCC "HOUSE OF SCANDLE" link is totally inappropriate. It's not just a viewpoint but near libelous acuastions of wrong doing, loaded, wall to wall, with brutal attacks though guilt by association, and screaming sensationalism; of which represents an extreme political bias and viewpoint and is very plainly, just plain shill propaganda, on a level, of which, could be copy for another Duckworth Campaign flyer.  This link is totally out of line with the goals of encyclopedic content and simply, the link don't belong.  Also, the points that are trying be made on that web blog, (Tom DeLay, etc... are  already noted and represented in the article and would constitute just be more of the same Ad nauseam.  Now, your opinion, regarding this issue, which your logic "Represents a significant viewpoint" fails to take in account all the points that have been made. Put simply, its a Blog put up by the democrats for propaganda and guilt by associations attacks, an online campagin flyer, and extreme democratic campaign propoganda is not a pont of veiw that should be on a Biography of a living person.  Base on the above aguments, your opinion is not logical or consistent with policy.Chitownflyer 08:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Policy does not require the removal of critical links and many Wikipedia articles contain them. Check the external links of Michael Moore for an example.  You could try to make a case that this particular link is inappropriate or unnecessary or any number of things, but my interest is in the misapplication of policy and the appropriateness of this link is something you'll have to discuss with the other editors on this page. Now that the discussion is back on to article content, I leave you to it. Gamaliel 17:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"libelous entry removed"
With the edit summary "libelous entry removed", User:Fisherking reverted all of my many edits to the article. First, linking to a DCCC page is not libel under even the most imaginative schemes. Second, Wikipedia administrator User:Gamaliel has explained to you that the inclusion of the DCCC link is appropriate under Wikipedia's external links policy. Third, do not use deceptive edit summaries. This is the mark of a troll. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words considering WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in edit summary

"(reverting many changes that were made by user:fisherking under a deceptive edit summary; this is a violation of wikipedia policy. also reverting the removal of image; see image talk page.) The accusations that I'm a troll also would seem to be a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and hope the admin will intervene, as aggressively as he as with others, regarding your unfounded charges. You seem to lose sight of the goal and I will consider reporting you next time to WP:PAIN.

Enough said, The reason for my removal of the image of Rosakam's law firm is simply, has permission been granted by Roskam's law firm or The Tribune to use said picture. It is my guess the Roskam's law firm or the Tribune has not. Thank you. Fisherking 20:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer you for my reasons why I have removed the link is simply because I think it needs to be, based on the augments putforth by others. In the end, you opinion is with out cause.Fisherking 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting response. Most people would deny that they were being deceptive. Instead, you threaten to report me to the authorities for attacking you personally, when in fact I did no such thing. Rather than calling the cops, I suggest that in the future you provide an accurate edit summary. &mdash; goethean &#2384;
 * Considering what is written on your user User_talk:Goethean page, I would not be so quick to play that game my friend. Thank you Fisherking 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that when you have no response, you introduce irrelevancies. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)