Talk:Bob Dold

Early life, education and career

I understand the rv concern but I included info re Dold's home rental and current businesses from the 08/25/2010 Tribune article because they are active discussion points in 2010 campaign. (The newspaper story appeared in print and online.) Dold is campaigning from the perspective that he has small business experience and Trib story informed the public on some aspects of that. Also the home rental issue has been raised during the campaign. I presume this is why the Trib wrote about it (to debunk rumors). I didn't think the info from the Trib article rose to the level of needing their own sections so I placed in Early life, education and career. Trib article was well sourced based on publicly-avail info and candidate-provided documents. Tried to write it as neutral as I could think of. Cardinal91 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see the relevance of how the Dold family has chosen to structure their family business. Just because a reporter chose to write about something doesn't make it encyclopedic. If there was something improper in all of this then perhaps. However, I can think of many mundane reasons why the family would choose to have Dold rent a home from his parents. In this case, we should have a bias in favor of privacy, per WP:BLP. Ronnotel (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to violate privacy, etc. (not that that's what you're claiming). I was just trying to better inform readers. The home rental matter has fed several rumors during 2010 U.S. Representative campaign. My intent was to dispel the rumors for wiki users and clarify based on facts from the news report. Re the business my intent was to supplement previously available info so wiki users understood background since the candidate has made biz experience a central focus of the 2010 campaign. Perhaps this could be worded differently? Thanks for your advise Ronnotel! Cardinal91 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that your edits were made in good faith. However, rumors really aren't anything that are a concern to WP, either reporting on them or trying to dispel them. I'm not sure what these rumors are about, but reporting that Dold rents his house from his parents and may have lost a little money on one of his businesses simply fails per WP:N, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The Dold campaign claims that he runs a successful family business and lives with his family in Kenilworth. I don't see anything in the source that would contradict any of that. Ronnotel (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTE - Residency Issue discussion moved to under Residency Issue section. Cardinal91 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Eagle Forum

It seems like there is no consensus on whether to add the Eagle Forum endorsement. Can we please discuss this here before any more edit warring? In my mind, the sourcing seems somewhat suspect. In the only reference, the endorsement appears in a paragraph that discusses endorsements for Seals. I'm also somewhat concerned about notability of the Eagle Forum and the relevance of any endorsement from them. There's nothing on the Dold website that references it seems unlikely that they sought out the endorsement. Ronnotel (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ronnotel. Please clarify your concern on the Lake County News-Sun reference. I took the Dold endorsements listed in that blurb to be a balance of the Seals information the paper listed. Also - I wonder about the NPOV of IP 64.81.157.18 that is deleting the Eagle Forum reference. I clicked the ARIN link on the user page the other night and it is registered to the campaign. I disagree that a campaign modifying their candidate's article is lack of consensus. Arbor832466 has also politely queried the user on Eagle Forum editting but no response. I do agree Eagle Forum has notability (negative to some, positive to others) but if there was an endorsement why should that fact (good or bad depending on POV) be removed? I'll let it go for now while others perhaps weigh in but I don't view the Eagle Forum endorsement is an issue. Cardinal91 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"don't view listing the Eagle Forum endorsement as an issue". Oops. Sorry for confusion. Cardinal91 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I, too, have concerns about the NPOV of IP 64.81.157.18, which is part of why I reverted the deletion in the first place. However, upon further review, it looks like Eagle Forum maintains a fairly comprehensive list of candidates it endorses, and Dold is not on it, so I am willing to accept that he is not presently endorsed by Eagle Forum, although he may have been in the past. Arbor832466 (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also: just checked and according to http://cqcounter.com/whois/, IP 64.81.157.18 is registered to Dold for Congress. Arbor832466 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Normally we source to the person or organization making the endorsement. If they don't say it, it doesn't exist. As for "unwanted" endorsements, we can put '(unsought)' after it. Or, 'renounce and denounce', depending on how strongly the candidate feels about it. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible explanation

I think I figured out the confusion related to this. Was browsing through some recent columns by Greg Hinz at online and ran across this: "Mr. Dold was endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and pro-life groups, Mr. Seals notes, and stands to his right on issues such as gay marriage and gays in the military. Mr. Dold replies that the Eagle Forum endorsement was a mistake and was removed from the group's Web site when he found out about it. He says he really is "pro-choice," excepting partial-birth abortion and parental notice."

What do you guys think of including something like:

The political action committee Eagle Forum had listed Dold as being endorsed but they removed him from their endorsements when he asked them to. Dold indicated the Eagle Forum endorsement was a mistake. He considers himself pro-choice but with exceptions. (Cite: Dold, Seals race toward middle in tight race for Kirk's House seat, Greg Hinz, Crain's Chicago Business, September 14, 2010)

A WP:NPOV of the matter? Its relevent to the article with both campaigns and local activists discussing it. I don't think it deserves its own subsection but please provide feedback. Cheers all. Cardinal91 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Thanks for researching it! Arbor832466 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm basically OK with this, except it sounds like it might border on being WP:UNDUE. Can we trim it down to this

The Eagle Forum, a pro-life group, rescinded its endorsement at Dold's request. Dold considers himself pro-choice but with exceptions. (Cite: Dold, Seals race toward middle in tight race for Kirk's House seat, Greg Hinz, Crain's Chicago Business, September 14, 2010)

Ronnotel (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I added Ronnotel's version except w/ the description from the WP Eagle Forum article to be safe since that has consensus already. Also added a recent campaign visit from a notable supporter. Cardinal91 (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Residency

I added some more detail about his residency. Knowing something about Boy Scouts, the fact that Dold has served as a Scout Master for eleven years is pretty strong evidence of his roots in Kenilworth/Winnetka. This seems more convincing, IMHO, than voting records. Also, since questions are being asked of Dold, it only seems fair to include his campaign's response regarding Seals residency. Ronnotel (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point of repeating the campaign's press statement about the church or Boy Scouts. You don't have to be a resident of a town to go to a church or Boy Scouts there. And the Seals residency info also seems superfluous here. Besides it is listed in the Seals article. Cardinal91 (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The information was quoted in the article, not sure why you think it's from a press release. And being a scout master shows a great deal more involvement in a community than simply showing up to vote. A scoutmaster of an active troop is typically involved in community events on a weekly if not daily basis. I find the tone of the paragraph much less balanced after your edits. Ronnotel (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ronnotel. I value your opinion but I disagree. To me including information regarding being a scout master or a church under Residency is not NPOV for the simple nature that someone doesn't need to be a resident of a town (or a Congressional district in the case) to be part of a scout troop or a church. The section is about residency not community involvement. Perhaps that info is better placed under Early life, education and career so I will add it there.

And to your question about a press release the information quoted in the Sun-Times article used for the reference says it was from a Dold campaign written release.

FYI -- here's the quote used in the cited news story: “Unlike Dan Seals who has never lived in the 10th District, Bob was a permanent resident in Winnetka until 2007, when he moved to his current home in Kenilworth. His business is in Northfield, he goes to church at Kenilworth Union Church, and for the past 11 years he has been the Scoutmaster for Troop #13 in Kenilworth,” Dold’s campaign said in a written release. Thanks! Cardinal91 (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, having had the issue of residency come up in my own dealings, I can tell you that participation in civic groups such as church and service organizations *is* one of the chief determinants of residency. For instance, the government will accept as evidence factors such as were you active in your local Boy Scout troop in determining where your tax home is. Here's an article that lists factors used to determine one's domicile - it includes Location of religious, community and social affiliations . Based on this, I'm going to refactor this back to the residency section. Also - I'm a little unsure about the reference to the State's Attorney. Anyone can make a referral to the State's Attorney. Given that we are at the height of political silly season, this development seems to be a little precipitous and in my mind crosses the WP:BLP boundary. If the State's Attorney actually takes up the issue and investigates that would be a different matter. Ronnotel (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone?" The Sun-Times article stated it was the Cook County Clerk's office. Thanks for your recent rvs though. They do read more NPOV than previous. Cardinal91 (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I'm glad you think my changes help. Here's my beef with the referral bit. The article says that the Assessor's office forwarded their concerns to the State's Attorney on the same day the complaint was made. When is the last time the Assessor's office processed anything on the same day? I'm concerned that Dold did not receive the due process to which he is entitled and therefore I'd like to see a little more evidence of deliberation in this matter before anything gets put on this BLP page. Like I said, if the State's Attorney looks at the matter and decides there's a case, then that would be different. Right now it just looks like Chicago-style politics at work. Ronnotel (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

By way of clarification- it was the Clerk's office not Assessor's office which referred the matter to the State's Attorney. And the supposition "when is the last time X processed anything on the same day" is itself not NPOV. ;) The Clerk is the office which deals with election and voter registration matters which from what I gather from news stories is how this issue came to light. And the Cook County Clerk is indeed very speedy with processing new voters, voting booth issues, etc. from past experience. Cheers. Cardinal91 (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Both the Clerk's office and the State's Attorney deny there is an ongoing investigation. [1]. Ronnotel (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Residency Issue Section Blanking

((User:DUMF28)) 11:24, 8 October 2010 Why would you put attacks on Bob Dold on a wiki site that is suppose to be his background and his views not personal attacks. Wiki is suppose to be real and not fake about his life and issues. People can say what they want on blogs but it doesnt mean it is true or not. (( User:DUMF28) 11:28, 8 October 2010 User talk: DUMF28//// Talk))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DUMF28 (talk • contribs)

Hi DUMF28. Thanks for commenting here. In general I tend to agree with you. The issue of Dold's residency seems like the sort of thing that gets pumped out right before an election. The fact that there is no investigation, nor any intent to start an investigation, make this seem like a non-event - regardless of whether a reporter chose to write a story on it or not. I would vote to keep it out. By the way, you can sign your comments by adding 4 "~" characters to the end. Ronnotel (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. Keep. Removing a legitimate campaign issue simply fails NPOV just as much as an actual personal attack would (which this issue is not). The residency issue has been brought up by both the candidate who first made claims of residency and opponents who found information which seem to negate those residency claims. This is all based on info published by independent, neutral, notable sources. Legit campaign items are encyclopedic. References to the apparently short-lived investigation or whatever already were removed through discussion rather than being summarily section blanked w/o discussion. Cardinal91 (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Facts change as more becomes known, and so does their relevance. Once it was determined that there was nothing worth investigating here then the entire issue became non-notable and therefore has no place on this page. If you want to read about campaign issues then you should go to the candidates own web pages. That's not what WP is about. Ronnotel (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This residency incident is precisely what WP is about as an encyclopedic reference. :) It is notable, relevant and well-documented as part of the 2010 campaign particularly related to the candidate's profile (campaign claim of being lifelong resident, county official questioning residency discrepancy, property records being contrary to subject's claims, neutral and trusted source doing the reporting, etc). The incident is worthy of the encyclopedic record per Public figures -- "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". The effects of the edits over the past few days are to leave only the subject's positives (ie, church, Scouts) regarding the residency issue while completely scrubbing material the subject may dislike because the incident runs counter to his campaign claims. User DUMF28 who did the original section blanking even labeled Flatterworld's contribution a "personal attack"! The resulting blanking fails NPOV by elimination of notable/relevant content. Thanks! Cardinal91 (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Think you might be missing the big picture here. A reporter was fed some salacious "facts" that turned out to be wrong. No one can seriously question whether Dold was a resident of the 10th district during the period in question. The bar is set very low - look at all the reporting being done now on whether Rahm Emanuel can claim residency. All one needs to show is intent to return to an area long-term, while maintaining a plausible connection to the area - such as by voting, involvement in the community or having a couch to crash on. Dold had all of these things, therefore there are no legs to the allegation that he intentionally misled the public about his residency. As soon as the State's Attorney office released a statement that no investigation was underway this whole thing became a nothing hamburger. Ronnotel (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So a 40-year-old candidate's high school activities are not superfluous to the article while a controversy from his campaign is? (LOL - that's a joke) Color me confused. :) The big picture is that this is a controversy related to the subject's campaign which is itself a major portion of his biography. Without the subject's 2010 campaign he is not notable enough to be on WP. That you bring up Rahm Emanual's residency points to the notability and relevance of this residency controversy. Not to pick on you (I hope it doesn't seem like I am picking on you in any way while we debate this) but your rational "one needs to show is intent to return to an area long-term, while maintaining a plausible connection to the area" is not that different from the campaign's press release (ie, spin) quoted by the Sun-Times and is not a valid reason to blank out the controversy. And even the campaign's response to the issue was listed in the article for NPOV anyway. The fact is still that this is a notable incident from the subject's campaign which again is the only reason the subject is on WP in the first place. Completely blanking it doesn't pass the sniff test. My two pennies. Cardinal91 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@Ronnotel - Can you please explain why you view the facts in Sun-Times were either "salacious" or "wrong"? The Sun-Times quoted the property tax records showing the candidate had lived in Chicago. Other news articles point out that the candidate had also lived in Washington and New York. I'm not understanding how any of that's wrong let alone salacious. Thanks! Cardinal91 (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a BLP and anything that goes on this page needs to be relevant after the election as well as before. Someone somewhere made an allegation that Dold was not an actual resident during a period when Dold had claimed to be a resident. It turns out the allegation was incorrect. There's nothing there and merely including the allegation in the article because in managed to make it into print would violate BLP. With Emanuel, the issue has received vastly more attention in the reliable sources because it is not clear that he will even be able to run for mayor. The only issue here is that a political opponent has taken issue with the biographical claim regarding residency and the issue disappeared as soon as the claim was examined and dismissed. The text as it existed gave far too much weight to the notion that Dold had somehow done something wrong. Ronnotel (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I know full well this is a BLP. Doesn't change the notable/relevant facts here about this issue's role in the campaign. The news reports show the candidate was not a resident for a significant period of time. Those news reports in turn are based on other verifiable, neutral info like Chicago property tax records and the candidate's own resume working in New York and DC etc. Plus I'm not so sure the matter really has disappeared if Google is to be believed. Cardinal91 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Resotring material. It's an issue covered by the media, and this is a full explanation which clearly explains the difference between a 'principal' residence and a 'permanent' residence, the confusion of which is why the kerfluffle began. Flatterworld (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not NPOV. The use of "scare quotes", and calling it a controversy are hardly make it neutral. Just because a single reporter took the bait and wrote an inaccurate article hardly makes this notable. For now I'm removing the most objectionable parts but I believe te entire section is WP:UNDUE. Ronnotel (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Dold claims to be a life-long resident" is POV. All available evidence clearly shows that he always has been a resident, regardless of partisan attempts to smear him on this issue. Please provide solid, sourced evidence if you want to dispute this. "Questions were raised. . ." is highly POV and involves WP:WEASEL words. This sentence cannot be supported under NPOV. Lots of questions get raised about candidates right before elections - that doesn't mean they need to be documented. This whole section is WP:UNDUE. Ronnotel (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

@Ronnotel - The candidate does claim to be a life-long resident on his Facebook page, website, etc. How is that POV? It's a statement of fact - he has claimed it and I think still is. Contrary to your assertion that this is some kind of smear several news articles from Daily Herald, Pioneer Press, Tribune, etc. have run bios on him saying he worked in New York State and Washington DC. The Tribune endorsed the candidate. Are those articles listing his resume also a smear because they give evidence that he lived elsewhere for a time? And the Sun-Times article which you routinely dismiss as "a single reporter took the bait and wrote an inaccurate article" also reported that Cook County tax records showed the candidate had been living in Chicago for a time. There is no part of the 10th District which is in Chicago so he could not have been a resident of the district while living in Chicago (under commonly used definitions of the word "resident" that is). I have already had my say on this item and you are now running counter to two others who also appear to agree this item is a keep. No offense but you have failed to convince me as to why this is such a problem to include it in the article. I'm happy to leave it as NPOV as you feel necessary but it quite frankly is an important development to the 2010 campaign and meet criteria for inclusion. Cardinal91 (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding - the Early Life section also includes info about the candidate clerking for a New York State judge and working in DC for Dan Quayle and for Republicans in the House. The source articles for those items are evidence that he for a time was living outside the district. Cheers. Cardinal91 (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

@Cardinal - I think the place where we are failing to connect is on what constitutes "residency". By case law and statue, the bar is set very low in Illinois. Here's an article from the same reporter that details the requirements for claiming residency. It boils down to two things: i) intent to return and ii) a place to occasionally sleep. Dold clearly had both - his voting records indicate intent to return and he always had his parents' house to sleep in. That the State's Attorney office declared that there was no investigation into this matter should settle it. Dold is and always has been a resident as he has claimed. I'll admit that Pallasch's awareness of the law seems to have grown between the time he wrote the articles on Dold and Rahm. I doubt he would write the Dold article again given the knowledge he demonstrates in the Rahm article. As far as I can tell, there was no other original reporting on this issue and the sourcing seems incredibly thin. I would vote to strike the entire issue. Ronnotel (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FEC violation

I replaced the notable information regarding the campaign FEC violation. It's unclear to me how something which was covered throughout local media and continues to be an ongoing topic in the campaign could be considered not notable. Cardinal91 (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It boils down to recognizing a $20k expense in one reporting period instead of a different reporting period. Dold's campaign said that they hadn't received the bill yet so they didn't know how much to report. Sorry, but I fail to see why something like this is notable. Ronnotel (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That summary doesn't mesh with news accounts that reported it was not just a $20k expense but several smaller expenses (like restaurant meals as I recall) and also some donations that the FEC requested info about. All of which came in the Second Quarter. The news articles and broadcasts on the subject all indicated the campaign amended their Second Quarter report in response to the FEC request. I don't see anything that says the campaign revised it in a different reporting period. The Third Quarter reports didn't even come out til October which is after the first news reports on this. Some news reports also said that the FEC requires anticipated debts to be filed even if the bill hasn't come in yet. Based on my understanding of Notability this item meets Notability criteria since it is verifiable, directly related to the topic, widely discussed, etc. Then again you and I seem to disagree on what constitutes notability. C’est la vie. :) Cheers mate. Cardinal91 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

TV Ads

I removed the lines about TV ads. Ads are routine to any Congressional campaign and mentioning two ads out of the boatload that have aired this year seemed WP:UNDUE. Cheers. Cardinal91 (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The ads from Senator George Allen's group should be written about

The stuff I wrote about George Allen's right-wing attack group was removed before. I think it should be put back. George Allen was a Senator from Virginia but he said some racist comments and he lost. Now he is attacking Dan Seals who just happens to be black. But the stuff keeps getting deleted so the people who deleted it said I should write about it on this page instead. Here is what I wrote about. It has a link to the newspaper article about it.

Right-wing attack group American Action Network is smearing Bob Dold's opponent with false information. American Action Network is run by ex-Senator George Allen from Virginia who discriminated against minorities and lost his Senate seat. Bob Dold's opponent is an African-American man. Bob Dold was supposed to pull that discriminating group's lying T.V. ads but he is refusing to own up to it.

Regardless of the merits of this particular entry, it sounds like it should either go at George Allen or Dan Seals. However, pretty much everything you have written fails to meet WP's policy on neutrality. I think you added this material earlier as User:GOLFscouts, right? I tried to make it NPOV with this edit but it was removed (rightly so) because it fails to meet notability. Ronnotel (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ Ronnotel -- there's no reason that George Allen's attack on Dan Seals should be included in the Bob Dold article even if it were written in an encyclopedic manner, which clearly it is not. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Proposed page move

I have undone, for now, the move of this page from "Bob Dold" to "Robert Dold". I'd be happy to re-do it, properly this time, but I'd like to have a chance to discuss first. Pretty much all of the reliable sources refer to him as "Bob", instead of "Robert". Per WP:COMMONNAME, I feel that should be what we use here. For instance, see Bill Clinton - not William Jefferson Clinton. (see below) Ronnotel (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, I stand corrected. A google search reveals more hits, both in news and on the web, for "Robert Dold" over "Bob Dold". Unless someone feels strongly that this should stay as "Bob" I'll shift it. I note that Mr. Dold refers to himself, and indeed signs his name as "Bob" - however that should be secondary to the preponderance of citations in reliable sources. Ronnotel (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw the page move and erroneously reverted. I have no opinion on the issue other than the fact that the most common name should be used. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, based on this comment, and the lack of any objection, I will move the page forthwith. Ronnotel (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Image is public domain

The image on this page has been properly released under CC-BY-SA by the copyright holder. If you are concerned I can provide you with a copy of the email that was sent to the commons and is now being processed. Ronnotel (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do provide the release or a link to the release via discussion page. The image appears to be copyrighted by Rose Pest based on the info available on their website. Cheers mate and happy holidays! Cardinal91 (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, the proper place to discuss this is at the commons image page. The licensing information is available there - including the fact that an email releasing the image has been sent to the commons and is currently being processed. I'll forward you a copy of that email since my word doesn't seem to be enough of a guaranty for you. However in order for me to do so you'll need to configure your account preferences so you can receive email. Ronnotel (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And further, the image you linked in your edit summary is merely a thumbnail of the source image submitted to the commons. If you do "view image info" of the image at rosepestcontrol.com, your browser will show you that the resolution is only 133x200px, while the image at the commons is 2336x3504px.

Ronnotel, you chose to initiate discussion on this talk page (not I) rather than referring to the Commons in your rv remarks. I responded here to keep the conversation in one spot. The images at Rose Pest and in the Commons may be different resolutions but they are clearly the same image, albeit with a little Photoshopping and cropping done in the interim. Thus, my concern over copyright. I note that the image in Commons metadata indicates the photo was taken in 2005 (in keeping with the 2006 Rose Pest copyright) while in the file history you've listed the source as Dold for Congress (which didn't begin until 2009) and the author as one Philippe Melin, a Dold for Congress campaign worker who didn't start with the campaign until 2009 from what I can find. It struck me as odd that someone who didn't begin working for the Dold campaign til 2009 is listed as the author of a 2005 photograph. My presumption was to err on the side of caution, that's all, and you've since changed that info on the Commons image data anyway. No harm intended and no reason to be snarky about guarantees and whatnot. Again, the image appears at Rose Pest Control with a 2006 copyright. I'm no lawyer but my hunch is that unless the campaign purchased rights to the image from Rose then the copyright remains with Rose, not Philippe Melin or Dold for Congress. I'll paraphrase this response over on the Commons image discussion in order to note my concern more directly. Thanks Ronnotel! Cardinal91 (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi

I requested semi-protection (which was granted) due to the recent repeated attempts by anonymous IPs to insert material that violates WP:SYNTH. The argument being put forth seems to be that the congressional record shows Dold voting for legislation that was described negatively in an opinion piece, although Dold's vote was not discussed. There are a number of problems with the approach: i) the use of primary sources, such as the congressional record, is strongly discouraged by WP:RS, ii) the opinion piece is just that, someone's opinion, not an objective analysis of Dold's record, iii) the opinion piece doesn't even mention Dold's vote so it really has no place on this article. In short, the argument being put forth is only supported by synthesis of these two sources, neither of which is reliable. Since WP:BLP applies to this article, it's doubly important to make sure that these policies are strictly enforced. Even if there were a reliable source that was on topic, it would also need to be shown that this point doesn't fail WP:UNDUE before it could be added to the article. And once it passed that test, the language would need to be presented in a factual but neutral way that was appropriate in tone and length. This is a pretty high hurdle and it's not close to being met with the material presented so far. Ronnotel (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Dold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120318062631/http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Robert Dold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chicagogop.com/home/dold-launches-first-radio-ad.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100721014712/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/07/dold_seals_tied_in_second_quar.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/07/dold_seals_tied_in_second_quar.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817121820/http://elections.chicagotribune.com/candidate/robert-dold/ to http://elections.chicagotribune.com/candidate/robert-dold/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/2755132%2Cbob-dold-residency-issue-092810.article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bob Dold

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bob Dold's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "primary":

• From Aaron Schock: Kaergard, Chris (March 20, 2012). "Waterworth becomes Schock's next opponent". Journal Star. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
• From 2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois: "Official vote" (PDF). Illinois State Board of Elections. Retrieved February 1, 2014.

Reference named "Generalelection":

• From 2014 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois: "Illinois General Election 2014". Illinois State Board of Elections. 2014-11-04. Retrieved 2014-12-18.
• From 2016 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois: "Illinois General Election 2016". Illinois State Board of Elections. 2016-11-08. Retrieved 2016-12-13.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)