Talk:Peter Roskam/Archive5

Silly me, I put his Congressional votes in the wrong section
My mistake, gentlemen. I apologize. The problem wasn't that I was putting in Roskam's votes in Congress. The problem was that I put them in the wrong place. Other editors have been putting Roskam's Congressional record under the "Political positions" section. So it's obvious that this is where they belong. See? We can have an amicable solution after all.

''IMHO there's way too much stuff on the campaign. The campaign is over.''

Agreed, the WP:BIO/N folks seem to think the article is much, much too long for the importance of its subject.

I couldn't agree more. Most of the nasty accusations that were made against Roskam by the Tammy Duckworth campaign and the DCCC during the campaign, and dutifully shoveled in here, have now been removed. Dino 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dean, please, what you are doing is not very civil and not very constructive. I mean, you know all of this is just going to be reverted by some editor here because you didn't discuss it at all, right?  Collaboration is not an adversarial process, but when you edit to make a point, you turn it into one.  That isn't your goal is it?  Please discuss edits first if you think they will be controversial, as I did with my idea for how to pull in his complete record without puffing it up.  Okay?  Thanks.  --BenBurch 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dean, please, what you are doing is not very civil and not very constructive.


 * It's called "being bold," sir. I'm trying very, very hard to be civil and if you'll look at the resulting consensus below, it's been constructive as well. Dino 15:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean, you know all of this is just going to be reverted by some editor here because you didn't discuss it at all, right?


 * What are you talking about? The two of you just proposed it, and I agreed: there was way too much stuff hanging around from the campaign. Like I said, I couldn't agree more. And the votes in Congress were obviously in the wrong place, since other Roskam votes in Congress had been put in the "Political positions" section. I'm just an inexperienced newbie and I thought they belonged in a new section. Boy, was I ever wrong! There was already a place for them, and the previous edits by Goethean showed me the error of my ways. Dino 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not believe this article is too long, considering that Roskam had a previous career in the state legislature that was notable on its own merits, and that this was one of the most closely watched House races of the 2006 campaign. But if you think we should cut even more to improve this to Good Article status, where do you think we should start? With the positive material or the negative material? (Do I really need to ask?) Dino 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with FAAFA that it is too long. If you compare it to other members of the Illinois delegation (except Hastert), as Dino has done, you will see that it is much longer than those.  If you compare it to a controversial and 12 term congressman in my state, Dan Burton, you will see that Roskam's is much longer that Burton.  Has Roskam done more noteworthy things than these colleagues?  Not in my opinion.  --rogerd 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything Duckworth, her friends in the news media, and the DCCC have ever had to say about Roskam that was negative has found its way into this article. Let's continue cutting, Roger. Dino 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've just cut it down to 2,994 words. No Ben, I have not removed all of the criticism and controversy. Perhaps there isn't enough for your tastes since he's a George Bush Republican but it's under 3,000 words for the first time in about a year. (By the way, there were about 120 edits in the week ending November 7.) Also for the first time in about a year, the percentage of the article devoted to criticism resembles the Melissa Bean article. Savor the moment.


 * Here is one of about two dozen versions that appeared on Election Day. It has 6,389 words. The new version is much better, wouldn't you agree Roger? (And one other thing: Dan Burton has 650 words.) Dino 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Some observations

 * 1) . Using weasel words to colour his stance on tort reform is not acceptable.  "However" is not encyclopedic and introduces judgement.  Also, the only  source for this is an editorial by a Roskam critic.  Not particularly well sourced for such a blatant hypocrisy solouring.
 * 2) . People being angry at the VFW for supporting Roskam is not particularly relevant to his Bio. People are mad at every endorsement.  The VFW's endorsement is relevant.  The connection to the person recommending the endorsement is relevant.  That certain VFW members disagreed with it, is not relevant.  Not every union member agrees with union endorsements and that is a given.  Bringing criticism of the VFW to Roskam's bio is false light libel.  The disagreement is between VFW and it's members, not Roskam.
 * 3) . Using weasel words to take away from or diminsh McCain's endorsement of Roskam is POV.  It needs to be reworded without the "although" and I'm not sure a disagreement over a single issue is noteworthy but it can neutrally reworded.   It's a Poisoning the well argument style that is unencylcopedic.
 * 4) . Roskam proposed eliminating some books that parents objected to from the library. that was exxagerated by his opponents campaign.  Both of those facts are notable if any of them are notable.  The exageration is from factcheck.org . --Tbeatty 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a couple of edits based on your concerns. On the VFW issue, Roskam is a party to the dispute. VFW members are upset with Roskam too, not just VFW leadership. Roskam acknowledged his involvement in the process; he even claims to have planned the timing of the announcement. Propol 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, Propol. Please forgive me for my earlier doubts about your NPOV approach. I went through this article last night with a chainsaw, and then you and Tbeatty went over it with a scalpel and a pair of tweezers. The result is excellent. I would like to ask for a review of the "Good Article" decision. Maybe the three of us should work together like that more often. There are a lot of articles about political figures and political organizations that need a lot of work. Dino 12:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we had better remove the NPOV tag before we think about "Good Article" status. Does anyone object to removing the NPOV tag? Propol 15:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No objection. Dino 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I'm the one who put it there in the first place; and I've just taken it down. Dino 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review
I have asked for a review of the denial of Good Article status. I get the sense that it was a unilateral fit of pique by Goethean after most of the criticism was removed. "I removed this article from the Good Article nominations because it is highly unstable and, in its current Freeper-ized state, highly POV." diff As long as the current consensus holds and the DU representatives here don't start an edit war, the stability problem is resolved. I'd like a few "fresh pairs of eyes" to determine whether there is a "Freeper-ized" "highly POV" problem. Even if we blow it, we'll get some constructive criticism from someone with a fresh perspective. Dino 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that it will be found that the article still falls short of GA, but it will be interesting to see what some fresh eyes find.   --rogerd 15:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't been around long enough to know how it will go. Thanks for your input, Roger. Last night you made one comment and it really did me a lot of good. It just gave me the sense that I'm not alone in this. Dino 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope it passes. I made some improvements that I think will help.  --BenBurch 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: The article was quickly renominated for Good Article status; since Goethean was heavily involved in editing this article, it was decided that he wasn't qualified to make a decision on the merits. They have rules about that sort of thing. Dino 18:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The review is still going on, something any GA reviewer might want to keep in mind. Homestarmy 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'book ban' issue
The series of textbooks that Roskam sought to remove was the "Impressions" series for grades K-6 (5-year-olds to 11-year-olds). Published by Holt, Rinehart & Winston of Canada. Distributed by Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. The textbook series uses the "whole language" approach to language skills. Opposition to this textbook series centers on themes of violence, the occult, and disrespect for parental authority contained in these books.

For those interested in the controversy, I found this source which appears to be biased against the protesting parent groups: not suitable for inclusion in this article, but it provides some information that may lead us elsewhere to a reliable source. Dino 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I'd like to discuss the sentence, "Opponents have maintained that the legislation would force the removal of classics like Romeo and Juliet, Little House on the Prairie, and It's a Wonderful Life from classrooms." This has been included from Esquire magazine. While I do not subscribe to Esquire, I've located an online cached copy of the article. It looks like scanned copies of the magazine pages so it seems like a reliable cache to me.


 * All three of the books that were mentioned contain characters who commit or contemplate suicide, but they do not "expressly counsel" suicide, so IMHO the criticism is a bit of a stretch. But I'm prepared to leave it in the article if the original source of the criticism can be attributed properly, and if this person is notable: one person named Joshua Green, who may be either a staff writer or freelance writer for Esquire magazine. What are your thoughts? How notable is Joshua Green? Dino 19:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi! Refreshing to discuss matters isn't it? I think that the Reliable Source in this case is Esquire. Magazines and reporters often go to sources that they do not identify, and that is a large part of the reason we require a reliable source that is under editorial review, to ensure that there were indeed sources.

On the issue of the characterization of the material, since the books were only alleged to contain that content (and not everybody agrees that it was there) I qualified your sentence about that. Okay? --BenBurch 19:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the Reliable Source in this case is Esquire.


 * The question is not, "Is it reliable?" The question is, "Is it notable?" Who is it that's claiming Roskam wanted to remove Romeo and Juliet, Little House on the Prairie, and It's a Wonderful Life from classrooms? I've looked at several sources in the past hour or so, and nobody seems to identify these "opponents" by name. If it's in the Wikipedia article, don't you feel that the criticism should come from a notable source, rather than an anonymous blog entry, for example?


 * On the issue of the characterization of the material, since the books were only alleged to contain that content ...


 * Well, IIRC there's at least one reliable source stating that a character in one of the books says, "I wish I could beat up my mom and dad!" And there are a couple of stories about witches, and the "Frog In a Fig Tree" poem that FAAFA went on about. If there is a reliable source claiming that the material isn't there, do you have a link? Dino 20:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been five days, and no one has stepped forward to defend this claim. I'm deleting it. If it came from a notable source, an education professional who can state with authority that such classics would have been removed from public schools by this legislation, then I'll be happy to put it back in myself. Dino 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetization
I hope nobody minds that I alphabetized the positions category? Seemed more orderly and good-article-like that way. --BenBurch 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Somehow when this section was alphabetized, the "alternative fuels and fiscal responsibility" quote from Roskam lost its way. I've restored it. I'm sure it was an unintentional oversight on your part. Dino 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed it was, thanks. --BenBurch 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Alternative Energy Puffery
Roskam wasn't even one of the bill's 15 co-sponsors. He added a MINOR amendment, like what happens numerous times to EVERY bill. His website and now this article have had glowing descriptions of the bill, like Roskam had some MAJOR involvement in crafting it. He didn't. Two of the links have NO mention of Roskam. The other one is to Roskam's own site. OF COURSE it will upsell and overstate his involvement in the bill. All politicians play that game. Unless a nonpartisan MSM news source documents Roskam's 'important contributions' to this bill, we shouldn't either. Wiki is not part of Roskam's PR spin-machine, nor part of his 08 re-election campaign, even though one editor who claimed to have 'helped elect' Roskam in 06 wants it to be. I deleted this puffery and it should remain deleted until Roskam's involvement is sourced by an INDEPENDENT non-partisan secondary source. - FAAFA 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Roskam voted AGAINST the 'Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act.' WTF!  This looks like a no brainer from its cursory description.pascal1947 :: Roskam on Long-Term Energy Alternatives -The House passed H.R. 6, to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy.But 163 Representatives, all Republican, including our own Peter Roskam, found something objectionable about the bill (HR 6).Since it plays well to the voters to be in favor of alternative energy technology, its not hard to find where Roskam takes such a position." This is a blog, so not inclusionable - link I'll look for RS V sources on Roskam's vote against this energy bill. (and contributions to Roskam's campaign from the energy sector) - FAAFA 23:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * His voting record is all on that washington post link I have under his congressional career header. --BenBurch 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Vote 40: H R 6: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act No
 * Vote 39: H R 6: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act No
 * Vote 38: H R 6: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act Yes
 * Vote 37: H R 6: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act No
 * Vote 36: H RES 66:Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act No
 * Vote 35: H RES 66: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act No
 * 1 yes vote and 5 no votes. Quite a record of being 'green' and standing up to 'big oil', huh ? LOL ! The truth comes out. - FAAFA 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the truth comes out. All of these votes are on the same bill: the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act. He voted against bad versions of the bill and in favor of the only good version. When creating new laws, bad laws are worse than none at all. Evidently the congressman was right: he was joined by 399 congressmen while only three opposed them, and only one version passed.

"PrairieStateBlue.com" is another "BlueState.com" propaganda machine with lots of left-wing spin. It's an even smaller version of APJ, but perhaps not quite as mean-spirited and libelous. Their spin, as expected, is bogus: Roskam and a nearly unanimous Republican Party eventually voted in favor of the bill once it contained provisions making it fiscally responsible. The Roskam quote is right on the mark: alternative energy development and fiscal responsibility are not mutually exclusive. If you're concerned that the press release from Roskam's office is false, I encourage you to read WP:BLP. The material from the press release is verifiable and satisfies NPOV requirements:


 * 2/8/2007 12:40pm: H.AMDT.8 Amendment (A007) offered by Mr. Roskam. (consideration: CR H1365-1368; text: CR H1365) An amendment to amend section 6 of the bill to make authorization of appropriations subject to pay as you go provisions. 2/8/2007 12:57pm: H.AMDT.8 On agreeing to the Roskam amendment (A007) Agreed to by voice vote.

It was all there, and it was always there, in an independent, non-partisan secondary source: the third link out of the three links I provided at the end of the paragraph. You just needed to scroll about one-third of the way down the page and read it, sir. I'm replacing the paragraph you deleted. Your references to "puffery" and other elements of this latest episode were less than completely civil, sir. I wonder whether Gamaliel will have anything to say about it. Dino 12:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted it. Unless a MSM NEWS source documented his ' important contribution' Wiki shouldn't either. This article is not part of the Roskam PR spin machine, or campaign 08. - FAAFA 12:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That source is the Library of Congress, sir. Identified by "Thomas.LOC.gov" sir, and the word "Thomas" doesn't refer to some right-wing congressman from Alabama. It refers to Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Library of Congress. The page I've linked is a publication by the LOC of the Congressional Record. It doesn't get any more mainstream or non-partisan than that. Dino 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * DeanHinnen: I am deleting it again. Thomas documents EVERY bill. Unless a non partisan non invloved RS V NEWS source (not Roskams site) found Roskam's participation in this legislation notable enough to document, we shouldn't either. Remember, Wiki is a 'no spin zone'. Roskams PR spin is not encyclopedic, nor NPOV. - FaAfA 21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pyke, Marni. "How the Midwest Figures Into Global Warming." Chicago Daily Herald, February 8, 2007, Page 4. I'm reverting you. This paragraph now has  FOUR  reliable sources, when one should be enough. I hope that you find the Chicago Daily Herald to be a sufficiently "RS V NEWS" source; after all, it's been used to support many of the criticisms of Roskam that have bloated this article for so long. Dino 03:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

--

"Maybe Roskam's campaign finance reports on fec.gov could give us a clue." $1000 from AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE; THE (GASPAC) $5000 from BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000 from EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXXONMOBIL PAC) $2000 from CONOCOPHILLIPS SPIRIT PAC (he ain't no Greenpeace member - that's for sure!) - FAAFA 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Even so, he did introduce the amendment and it is documented within a verifiable source. Therefore it would be better to keep it. It is still fact, even if he has apparently conflicting interests. Stui 13:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care -- really, I don't -- whom he took money from or why, what his motivations are, whether he's Jimmy Stewart or a mustache-twirling villian, or any of that: I care that that it's a grossly trivial factoid that -- based upon the past contributions of the editor trying to insert it -- intended to provide good PR for the Congressman (he originally included a paragraph about the guy's public visit to a local school (also documented from a reliable source). Once he and his mortal enemies cease their proxy war on these pages -- forced to by ArbCom, if necessary -- someone can go in and take a chainsaw to much of its tedious detail, but right now I'm focussing on the most ludicrous ones. -- Calton | Talk 14:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair dos - I wont revert then, it just seems a bit one sided, thats all Stui 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

{post from sock removed}


 * Thank you, Chicagostyledog. It appears that FAAFA has triggered the latest round of revert warring. No surprises there. If Calton feels that authoring and introducing an amendment to legislation that passed 400-3 should be removed, then every legislative vote the man ever cast should be removed from this article, and the entire article should be gutted because everything the man ever did consists of "grossly trivial factoids."


 * After all, it's not the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It's not the Bill of Rights, or the GI Bill, or the declaration of war against Japan. It's ordinary, everyday, nuts and bolts legislation.


 * I will gently remind Calton that this article was over 6,300 words on Election Day, and that I've gone through it with a chainsaw already to get it under 3,000. However, Calton and FAAFA have failed miserably at the one thing upon which Wikipedia depends most of all: gaining consensus. For that reason, the material should stay. Dino 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * {post from sock removed}
 * It appears that FAAFA has triggered the latest round of revert warring. No surprises there. And a brand-new user jumps in with his very first edits being in support of you -- no surprises THERE, either.
 * If Calton feels that authoring and introducing an amendment to legislation that passed 400-3 should be removed, then every legislative vote the man ever cast should be removed from this article, and the entire article should be gutted because everything the man ever did consists of "grossly trivial factoids."
 * Careful, all that straw in your strawmen can be pretty flammable. If you're ready to make a reality-based counter-argument based on what's actually been said instead of what's inside your head, I'll be waiting. --Calton | Talk 02:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

picture removal
The Roskam headshot previously in the article has been deleted as it was deemed "replaceable fair use", i.e. a fair use image that could be easily replaced by a public domain image. This is part of an ongoing campaign to reduce Wikipedia's reliance upon fair use images. Now that Roskam is an elected federal official, it should be easy to find a public domain image to place in the article. Gamaliel 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been charged that the removal of the picture was politically motivated. As the replacement of fair use pictures with public domain ones is an ongoing project across all Wikipedia articles, not just political ones, I seriously doubt the editor who removed the picture was motiviated by partisan politics. It has also been charged that this article was singled out for special attention and other headshots remain in the articles of other politicians, particularly Melissa Bean. You'll note that Image:BeanMelissa.jpg is clearly marked as public domain and thus acceptable under Wikipedia rules, while the Roskam headshot here was not public domain. The solution here is not to imagine paranoid fantasies of partisan image maintenance, but to find a public domain picture of Peter Roskam. Gamaliel 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that the deleted photo was the congressman's official US Government portrait, and therefore in the public domain. The person who deleted it didn't bother to replace it with another. I've replaced it with the original. I'll start looking on his federal government website, and when I find another image that is a federal government image beyond any shadow of a doubt, I'll replace it again. Dino 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the source provided for the original image was not a US government website and we cannot assume this picture is in the public domain. Until we can be sure that it is, it is best to keep the photo out or replace it with a picture that is undeniably public domain. Gamaliel 20:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, sixty seconds: that's vigilance. So we're not allowed to use it on a fair use basis until we find a replacement? Who made that decision? Can you provide a link to the relevant Wikipedia policy? Thanks. Dino 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the particulars of the debates regarding image policy are something that bore the hell out of me and are something I am not as familiar with as I should be. Sorry, you'll have to research the particulars yourself. But once an image has been deleted on the basis of copyright concerns, you can't simply restore it and slap an entirely new tag and pass it off as fresh merchandise. Gamaliel 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about public domain law in Illinois, but possibly this image qualifies?--RWR8189 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's from the web site of the Illinois General Assembly. Works of state governments are not automatically public domain like works of the US Government. Surely there must be some pictures on his US House home page by now. Gamaliel 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I really couldn't find any pictures suited for this article on his congressional website.--RWR8189 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: When you do get a PD image for this article, instead of downloading it to English Wikipedia, download it to Wikimedia Commons and add it to commons:Category:Members of the House of Representatives from Illinois. That way the image will be available for all editions of wikipedia, not just English.  In fact, Image:BeanMelissa.jpg and other PD images of Members of Congress should be moved there, too. Thanks. --rogerd 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, while we are talking about fair use images in this article, what about Image:Salvi_Roskam_Maher.png? I know this has been discussed before, but I feel that a fair use criteria hasn't been properly established.  Critical commentary means not criticism  of Roskam, but of the image itself.  Also, I still assert that the copyright is not held by the Tribune, but by Roskam's former law firm.  --rogerd 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's fair use, not in the public domain, so it's out of here. Right, Gamaliel? Dino 04:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Read the discussion again. Fair use images are acceptable. But when a fair use image can be easily replaced by a public domain image, the public domain image is always preferred. The headshot of a US politician is something where a public domain image can generally be easily provided. Gamaliel 05:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't find anything that's in the public domain, sir, except the photo that you keep deleting. It's in the public domain, sir. Since he's been in Congress for one month, he hasn't had his official congressional portrait photo taken yet. He's been too busy with substantive legislative matters, like drafting an amendment to an alternative energy bill. If I prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that the photo you keep deleting is in the public domain, as I said when I posted it, are you going to delete it again? Or will you apologize?


 * Alternatively, if no one can find anything that can be proven with proof as solid as depleted uranium to be in the public domain, will you accept continued use of the disputed photo under fair use (since it can't be "easily replaced") until a congressional portrait is published? Dino 11:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why on earth should I apologize for enforcing Wikipedia policy? If you want to dispute the deletion of the photo, take it to Deletion Review like everyone else does on Wikipedia.  If you can prove that the photo is in fact legally in the public domain, then prove it. Complaining here accomplishes nothing and just wastes our time. Gamaliel 18:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

'Puffery'?
The solution here is not to imagine paranoid fantasies of partisan image maintenance, but to find a public domain picture of Peter Roskam.

I just find it remarkable that each and every pixel that doesn't make Peter Roskam look like the Antichrist, including his photo, requires sourcing that is more solid than depleted uranium; but every scrap of abysmally sourced propaganda and political theater from the DCCC and the Duckworth campaign found its way in here without a whisper of opposition.

Do you have any comment about FAAFA's opposition to the paragraph about alternative fuels legislation? Dino 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't belong. Anything else? --Calton | Talk 04:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? Four reliable sources, including the Library of Congress and a mainstream news source, the Daily Herald? Pardon me sir, but that very same newspaper is the only sourcing for a substantial amount of the criticism that has graced this article. I've gone through the article and deleted every paragraph that had less than five reliable sources, except for the "bare bones" that one usually finds in an article about a freshman Congressman. Everything else was "puffery," don't you agree? As Jimbo Wales says, no information at all is preferable to poorly sourced information in an article about a living person. And if four reliable sources isn't good enough, then it was time to fire up the chainsaw again. Dino 04:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pull the edges of your tinfoil hat off of your ears and listen up Dino. I didn't delete the image intially, the image was deleted by someone who is not a regular contributor here and was doing the same thing with a number of other similar articles. If you want to imagine this regular Wikipedia practice of gradually decreasing reliance on fair use images is due to "left-wing bias", you can, but polish your paranoia on your own time and stop wasting ours. Whether or not we agree with this decision, we are left to either contest it via Deletion review or find a public domain replacement. In the time you have spent whining about this you could have found public domain pictures for about thirty articles. So go find a damn picture already, because if you continue to troll this talk page and throw out bullshit accusations against volunteers doing routine acts as part of their Wikipedia responsibilities, I will block you. Gamaliel 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse anyone of anything, sir. I just want to know why each and every pixel that doesn't make Peter Roskam look like the Antichrist, including but certainly not limited to his photo, requires sourcing that is more solid than depleted uranium; but every scrap of abysmally sourced propaganda and political theater from the DCCC and the Duckworth campaign found its way in here without a whisper of opposition. "Left-wing bias" was a question, not an accusation, and I removed it almost immediately. It's just one possible explanation for this phenomenal disparity in sourcing requirements, sir.


 * The photo in question is just one example, sir. It's just another brick in the wall. Every word that's ever been added to this article, whether it's been kept or deleted, is another example. If it's criticism, somebody's fighting like hell to keep it; if it isn't, the same somebodies are fighting like hell to get rid of it. I will again cordially direct your attention to WP:BLP, particularly the section about using the subject as a source, and WP:NPOV. If there is some other possible explanation for the cumulative effect of all these editing decisions besides left-wing bias, I'd like to hear it. I am in fact eager to hear it, sir. Tell me about your alternative explanation.


 * Four reliable sources, including the very same RS V daily newspaper that has been used all by itself to support much of the mountain of anti-Roskam political theater that has graced this article during your supervision of the editing process, Gamaliel, and one paragraph about the Roskam amendment to alternative fuels legislation still doesn't pass muster here. Can you explain that, sir? Dino 12:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The photo is an example of nothing except your own paranoia. I'm sorry that you have been unable to persuade other editors to accept your edits regarding this ammendment, but that is no excuse to lash out at normal image mainentance procedures and imagine they are part of some left-wing anti-Roskam conspiracy.  Perhaps the manner in which you deal with other editors is to blame or perhaps you have not mustered enough evidence to show that this is in fact noteworthy enough to mention in an encyclopedia.  Four reliable sources, as you say, is an excellent job of research but has nothing to do with the point at hand - is this significant enough to include here?  I could come up with four reliable sources for a car accident that happened around the corner, but that doesn't mean that there should be an encyclopedia article about it. You should spend more time addressing the questions of notability and less time imagining "left-wing bias". Gamaliel 19:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is a portrait of Peter Roskam. Each individual brushstroke may be eminently defensible. In fact, each individual brushstroke might even be a masterpiece in its own right. But the cumulative result on February 5 was a portrait of Peter Roskam with a neatly-trimmed mustache and a swastika armband. That's why I started working on it. Dino 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See what I mean? And you wonder why you don't get along with other editors! You insult the motives and efforts of other editors you are trying to work with, and when you are unable to get along with them, to you it only "proves" your underlying paranoid thesis of "left-wing bias"! Gamaliel 19:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WHERE'S The text of the article???? - FaAfA 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's at the public library, sir. They still have paper copies of the February 8 edition. You don't have to figure out the microfilm projector yet, sir. Of course, you'd have to get out of your chair and step away from the computer for a little while ... But before you go to all that trouble, sir, I will again cordially direct your attention to WP:BLP, specifically the section about using the subject as a source. The Roskam news release, as verified by the Congressional Record at the Library of Congress, should be sufficient [offensive remarks removed]. Dino 11:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That last crack was unnecessary. Keep it civil. If you have the text of the article, provide it as a courtesy to other editors. If you don't, say you don't, and keep it at that. Gamaliel 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the text of the article in front of me. It's a newspaper; since I live in the area, I get the newspaper. However, no one will believe me if they can't click on a Daily Herald link (without paying one cent) and see it with their own eyes. The article is available from the Herald archives online, but you'd need a credit card and it will cost $2.98. Anyone want to spend $2.98? Dino 19:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't you just say "I read it in the newspaper, but the article is not accessible for free online"? Why is that so hard? Gamaliel 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the one claiming that the article says something about the energy bill in question. The title is about Global Warming. Since youre claiming it mentions the energy bill, you must have a copy, so post the relevent text. Go for it, and we'll judge. Maybe it's one sentence, like "Roskam who has taken $133,765 from energy companies has voted for only one energy bill, and thinks Global Warming is a hoax" $133,765 See the Oscars last Hinnen? AL GORE !- FaAfA 12:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will again cordially direct your attention to WP:BLP, specifically the section about using the subject as a source. The Roskam news release, as verified by the Congressional Record at the Library of Congress, [offensive remarks removed]. The Daily Herald article is overkill if we follow Wikipedia policy. And the Oscar for Best Documentary was more political theater, sir, just like Michael Moore's a few years ago. They are not documentaries. They're propaganda films, like Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." Dino 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're been here 2 months and you have NO idea about how Wiki works? WE don't judge notability for inclusion based on a politicos website, and thomas includes every bill in existance. If a RS V NEWS source mentions Roskam's particpation, THAT makes it notable. Where is Roskams name mentioned in the other article used as a ref? I couldn't find it at ALL. Get with the program Hinnen. Post the text of the Global Warming article. - FaAfA 12:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * [offensive comment removed] FaAfA 12:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That was way out of line. Don't do it again. Gamaliel 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This entire exchange was unnecessary and could have been handled in two sentences if either party had been more interested in civility than scoring cheap points. If this happens again, some people are getting time outs. Gamaliel 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming article text?
DeanHinnen - this article "Pyke, Marni. "How the Midwest Figures Into Global Warming." Chicago Daily Herald, February 8, 2007" is no longer on their site. Could you post the part that describes Roskam's participation in the energy bill in question? Thanks. - FaAfA 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the full text of the article and I will send it to anyone who emails me. "In terms of emissions, Rep. Peter Roskam of Wheaton said Congress should consider the issue. But he wanted assurances no manufacturing jobs would be lost as a result of any policy changes." That's all the article appears to say about Roskam. Gamaliel 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just found it too. How the Midwest Figures Into Global Warming It says NOTHING about Roskam's participation with that energy bill, and in  NO WAY supports DeanHinnen's claims. - FaAfA 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Assuming there is consensus here for any edits needed, post edit protected here to flag it for an admin to make the edits. Thatcher131 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS BAIS AND SHOULD HAVE NPOV TAG WHILE ITS LOCKED
Thatcher131 in typical left biased administrators who think Wikipedia is the sword of the DCCC, then locks the Peter Roskam biography down because he does not agree with the edits and he unilaterally revert back without discussion, reason, or justification. Again I charge the administrators particularly Gamaliel with allowing biased, non-encyclopedia, puffery which over the last nine months read like a Tammy Duckworth political flier yet any positive entries on this article is removed within a minutes and forced to argue argued, ad nauseam, with the participants who have been opposing the apparent left political agenda (see duck test) are personally ridiculed, diminished, and threatened with banning, in order to quash any fair and reasonable argument and substituted with allusion Faux argument through revisionist editing, as well as, to be insulting and demeaning to those who cannot respond back to said comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.172.201.80 (talk • contribs)


 * That was an interesting rant, most of which I have deleted. Your assumptions about my political leanings are amusing; I expect FAAFA would disagree with you, and you would both be wrong.  But that is not the point.  If you wish to have any edits made to this article you can state them here and post {{edit protected]] on the page, which will alert admins to the request.  Controversial requests will probably not be approved without consensus.  You may also contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly via email; you can find their address under the link Contact us on the left had side of the page. Thatcher131 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I would ;-) I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. If you would like to to prove to me that you are fair (not that you have to) you could spend an hour over at Zombietime which is 75% blog-sourced and OR. I listed it at RfC, but all it got was a tag. - FaAfA 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the photo
The portrait photo in question was first distributed by the Roskam for Congress campaign. It was released into the public domain about a year ago. I suppose we will all wait until there is bulletproof confirmation of that. In the meantime, is there any objection to moving the Roskam/Cheney photo to the top of the page? Dino 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a photo on his official site Image:Peter Roskam 02 cropped.png that is cropped from a group photo and loaded it to commons. After cropping, it isn't the greatest resolution, but hopefully he will have his official portrait on his site soon, and we'll grab that.  --rogerd 19:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work, Roger. There are five group photos, and I was hesitant about using them but I'm still fairly new here. You appear to have chosen the best of the group photos. I'm aware that even a snapshot by a congressional staff member is undeniably public domain. But I don't care to run afoul of any of those "secret rules" again, since I'm being watched so carefully. Thanks. Dino 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that you can't be bothered to read the rules or the discussion here about them doesn't make them "secret rules". It's not that complicated, you are the one chosing to make it so. Gamaliel 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Roger understands what I'm talking about, sir. I guess it's an inside joke. Dino 21:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your jokes and allusions. How 'bout some more about Nazis? - FaAfA 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that User:DeanHinnen has provided proof that the original headshot is in fact in the public domain, it is acceptable to use here. He has uploaded it at Image:PRoskamheadshot.jpg. Gamaliel 04:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the alternative energy amendment
You appear to believe that the mainstream news media are the sole arbiters of what constitutes "notability." If that were true, half of the articles at Wikipedia would not exist and many of the other half would be gutted. "Notable" means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." We have entire articles devoted to Pokemon characters, for crying out loud. We have articles devoted to supporting characters in "Spongebob Squarepants."

Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on the law. Presidential candidates, long-standing senators, and socially sensitive legislation (such as the Partial Birth Abortion Act) are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, lesser legislative efforts by freshman representatives can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring more famous or important officials, or more socially sensitive legislation.

All of Peter Roskam's legislative votes and positions on such socially sensitive issues as abortion and gay rights have been very, very thoroughly explored here because they have been documented by the news media. I believe that development of alternative fuels is important. I also happen to believe that fiscal responsibility is equally important. The inclusion of a key amendment serving both of these goals in Roskam's Wikipedia article should not be dependent upon Eric Zorn's judgment about what is notable, and what is not. Dino 15:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that Peter Roskam is so non-notable that only Zorn cares about what he does - and that's because of a personal grudge? By the way. What happened to your global warming source? Why'd you add that as a ref when it said NOTHING about the energy bill? Mystifying! The 'culture of corruption' runs strong and deep. Here's a recent article on a local street project that mentions Roskam. link That's pretty trivial compared to a alternative energy bill - which proves that Roskams participation in the energy bill was so trivial that it didn't even merit a sentence. Don't worry, sooner or later he'll do something worth writing about. FaAfA (yap) 04:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to engage you in a serious, constructive discussion here about notability. I would appreciate a direct answer in the same spirit, without the sarcasm and without the tangential remarks. Why are you deferring all decisions about notability to the mainstream news media? Why are they the sole arbiters of what constitutes "notability"? Can't we make decisions like that ourselves?


 * The Roskam amendment forces fiscal responsibility. It requires the EPA to take the $10 million out of existing general funds that were unspent, rather than using the unspent funds for bureaucratic perks (as past practice would indicate) and adding the $10 million to next year's budget. This is a small thing in the overall scheme of the federal budget, but it is symbolic regarding fiscal responsibility; and I'm sure you fully understand the importance of symbolism. Dino 15:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone can offer a good argument supporting this claim that we should allow Eric Zorn and the rest of the mainstream news media to decide what's notable enough for Wikipedia, I would like to hear it. Dino 02:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone can offer proof that anyone has claimed that Eric Zorn and the rest of the mainstream news media are deciding what's notable enough for Wikipedia, I would like to hear it. --Calton | Talk 02:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On this article, items sourced in the mainstream news media are kept; those that are not sourced in the mainstream media, despite very solid and reliable sourcing elsewhere, are immediately deleted. FAAFA has openly stated that mainstream news sourcing is his personal threshold for notability. Dino 03:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, gentlemen? Are we going to continue to allow Eric Zorn (and Eric Krol) to decide what belongs in this article, and what should be left out? Or do we have minds of our own? Dino 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Typical associative assumption
Typical of those with agenda and bias we have this little gem to analyze...

"Earlier this month, Roskam brought in the conservative National Rifle Association to knock on doors for him. The district is moderate enough that even conservative icon Hyde voted in favor of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban...." Which it is justified with a typical Eric (the troll) Krol  article dated Friday, July 28, 2006.

in this article I will quote an excerpt which would appear to be the relevant one which justifies the gem above....


 * "Earlier this month, Roskam brought in the conservative National Rifle Association to knock on doors for him. The district is moderate enough that even conservative icon Hyde voted in favor of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban"

What's really distressing is the false logic and assumptions that are made here and put up the gem on the Roskam Bio, this assumption is

A. Roskam brought in the NRA to knock on doors for him. ( even though it may have or have not been asked by Roskam for the help.)

B. Because the NRA is against the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons ( even though the definition what is an assault weapon is dubious and vague which would entail and include sporting shotguns but be that as it may)

C. Henry Hyde voted in favor of the 1994 federal ban.

So, wonderfully we draw the conclusion from this short little blurb in (Eric the troll) article that

D. Mr. Roskam is in not in favor of the 1994 federal ban on " assault rifles". It should be noted that Mr. Roskam did not hold federal office in 1994 so the inclusion and the assumption is moot and illogical.

If you are going to put positions and assume they are somebodies political philosophy it would behoove the editors to get better and more reliable sources, as well as sources, (it has been said here in the cooperative atmosphere, we have on this article a minimum 4)corroborating said positions on political philosophy.

It should be noted that there are many more gems as the one shown here that need to be cleaned up before this article could be even considered encyclopedic without spin or political tomfoolery.

It has been said that if a reasonable person read this he can infer that the writer of this article did not have a political agenda, bias or point of view. Using this test, it is in my humble opinion this article on a Republican officeholder fails miserably and should be rewritten, hopefully by people who do not political agenda and goals in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.44.216 (talk • contribs)


 * I respectfully disagree, and am reverting your edits as they appear to come from a single purpose account. --BenBurch 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the reference, too and nothing is said to substantiate Roskam's alleged position on the assault weapons ban. --rogerd 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In our first three or four edits, most of us appeared to be "single purpose accounts." Give the newbie a chance to spread his wings. Dino 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When evaluating anonymous comments, please keep in mind that for the past six to nine months, we have been plagued on a daily or weekly basis by an indefinitely blocked user who uses anonymized IP addresses to post personal attacks and partisan rants about the "agenda and bias" of the editors of this article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So when it comes to newbies on this article, have we adopted a "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policy? Or have we only adopted that policy regarding the ones who allege bias? Generally speaking, the best policy to adopt when someone wants to rant is to let him rant. Let him get it out of his system. Somewhere in there, he may have a valid complaint. Dino 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference for Roskam's assault weapons stand
I see that someone found a different reference to back up Roskam's assault weapons ban stance. This op-ed piece, not a news article has one line about Roskam: "Banning assault weapons isn't a real issue, Rep. Peter Roskam said during the campaign last fall, because there isn't any real incidence of their use in Illinois." The rest of the op-ed talks about Daley and Blagojevich. Yes, he is supported by the NRA, but so what? We can't just have what someone thinks his position is. I think that we need a reference that clearly states his stance on the issue. --rogerd 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Roger. Anyone else? Would someone please provide a reliable source that shows Roskam's position on assault weapons? Dino 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

guilt by association... assumptions not justified in print
“Banning assault weapons isn't a real issue, Rep. Peter Roskam said”

From this statement in the Suntimes Op-ed, dated January 10, 2007 

We are to infer from this one statement the complete position Peter Roskam takes regarding gun control specifically, 1994 federal ban on assault weapons.

First, be noted, that Mr. Roskam did not hold federal office in 1994 so he could not vote or be against this law.

Second, this article cited is not applicable in identifying Mr. Roskam's views on the issue of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons.

“…Well, tell that to Denise Reed, an Englewood resident whose 14-year-old daughter was killed by a stray bullet from an AK-47 while looking out her window. And tell that to other victims -- inadvertent or otherwise -- of gang violence involving these decidedly non-sporting firearms…”

Also, associative guilt by inferring that Mr. Roskam was the cause of death and misuse of the AK-47 by a gang banger using this, in all likelihood, a stolen and illegal weapon, it is a stretch that is disingenuous, insulting, as well as indicative of bias and guilt by association which characterizes character assassination which, many here, seem to be interested in doing to this Republican officeholder.

So, based on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV  and WP:Undue weight  as well as the false assumption that Mr. Roskam voted against and is against the assault ban law or is against this is spurious logic, without merit and is misleading as to his true position on this subject.

If you insist on loading this biography with controversial and salacious information at the least have the respect and common decency as well as courtesy to research the subject better and to show more respect for a living subject of a biography.128.241.45.61 09:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions for GA nomination

 * Intro should be expanded to 2-3 paragraphs that better fleshes out the material in the main article.
 * The advertisement of his lawfirm should be placed at the top of the "Personal history" section so it doesn't butt into the "Electoral history" section.
 * Why does "Electoral history" come between "Personal history" and "Illinois General Assembly"? Frankly, I'm not sure it should be a section of its own. Patiwat 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I've implemented them. I've had a chance to review the articles about 30-40 other members of Congress during the past few days and most of them had sections on electoral history. Some of them had exquisitely developed tables with each and every election's results, including links to articles about their opponents. So this might be an avenue for further development of this article. I have, however, moved the section down to just above the references, consistent with placement in other articles. Again, thanks for your constructive input. Dino 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no section on his abortion stance?
Why is there no dedicated section on his abortion stance? Wouldn't this be more notable and worthy of documention that his stance on O'Hare Airport, which merits a stand-alone section, for instance? Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, though intended for articles, essentially fits here. --Calton | Talk 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He has never voted on an abortion-related bill in the House, and to the best of my knowledge, he never voted on any such bill in the state legislature. If his amendment to an alternative energy bill is not notable enough to be in the article at all, then his position on abortion (unsupported by any votes on legislation) certainly doesn't merit a section of its own. There's one sentence about it in the "Other Positions" section. Based on your arguments regarding the alternative energy bill, even that sentence shouldn't be there. Dino 14:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

JoeHazelton
Not every editor on the Peter Roskam biography is Joe Hazelton. Propol is extremely uncivil to make such blanket accusations, with out any proof whatsoever. Furthermore, Propol accusations poison discussions and makes for a hostile environment. Putting scarlet letters and wallpapering other editors talk pages is not assuming good faith and is in violation of wiki policy. To bad the administrators protect this rogue editor. 128.241.110.26 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No indeed - half of them are Bryan Dean :o) Guy (Help!) 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to see a native Londoner so concerned about Dupage County and the 6th congressional district of Illinois politics. 207.67.151.116 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof of you sockpuppet claims? It seems like any time an anonymous editor edits here, they are automatically tagged with the JH sockpuppet tag.  --rogerd 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Impression Series
The charge that Peter Roskam wants to ban books is disingenuous and stretches logical common sense.

The books that Peter Roskam wanting removed from grade school's had questionable subjects, which Mr. Roskam advocated parental choice of which books were going to be used in the classroom. The fact that Peter Roskam thought the “Impression series” of textbooks had questionable content is not banning “Little house on the prairie” and “Martin Luther King” etc. The assumption that Peter Roskam wants to ban classic books is totally disingenuous and misleading.

Additionally, to put this small minor event, which happened over 15 years ago, is undue weight and does not merit being included in this biography and be labeled with a subheading as his educational position. This, again, is misleading and non-encyclopedic.

If you wish to illuminate Mr. Roskam's educational positions, more recent and more relevant, and well documented examples should be used rather than this poor and misleading little blurb.

Also, relying on two journalists, one from the Daily Herald, Mr. Eric Kol and Eric Zorn, from the Tribune, whose style of journalism advocacy bias and slants this biography of a Republican officeholder. This article would be better served if other sources were use rather than these two highly partisan journalists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.241.110.26 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).