Talk:Peter Roskam

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

My observations

I've scanned the article, and find it isn't as bad as many articles, and certainly not worth all the wrangling that is going on. Here are a few problems that I see:

• Campaign fundraising section, the use of the word "scheme" seems POV. (I think someone already caught that one.) Also the "who contributed and who didn't" doesn't sound encyclopedic.
• Stem cell research section, the Chicago Tribune's discussion of the merits or flexibility of different types of stem cells doesn't really belong in this article.
• Spring 2006 section, why is this even here? It's about a speech someone else made when Roskam wasn't even there...
• Summer 2006 section, 2nd paragraph (ICIRR), again, why is this here? Many groups call for action from many politicians, and are often ignored. Why is this notable enough to include, except to make the subject look bad?
• Campaign contributions section, where it says "Only 56% of Roskam's donations came from individuals, while 82% of Duckworth's donations were from individuals." The use of the word "only" is POV-leading, and should simply be dropped from the sentence. The sentence gives exactly the same factual info without the word, only without the editorializing. (removed)

I kind of petered out after that, so there may be another issue or two in those last two sections that I haven't noticed yet, but like I said, it's not as horribly POV as a lot of articles I've seen. Crockspot 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not any more. I'm the one who caught the word "scheme" and there have been other, similar instances of POV-pushing that I've been snipping out as I spot them. Tbeatty has also been vigilant about spotting and snipping out the "weasel words." The other changes you recommend are certainly good ideas as well. After you've made them, there will still be plenty of criticism in this article. I don't understand what the Duckworth supporters here are complaining about. It will be a balanced NPOV article without any whitewash. Dino 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You already did the first bullet, and I have done the last bullet. I'm short on time, so I'll let it ride out further consensus before I make more changes. I'd like to hear arguments/excuses for keeping the parts I pointed out, just to be fair (and for giggles). Crockspot 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I DO understand what the Duckworth supporters are complaining about. It isn't a propaganda vehicle for Tammy Duckworth any more. Dino 18:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's enough. This will be the last such comment from you on this page. You already crossed the line with this edit, where you altered the text of a newspaper quote and then attacked the use of the newspaper quote as "more evidence of POV pushing from the Left". One user has told me they want to stop editing this page because of your behavior. You are substituting cheap rhetoric and attacks for discussion and poisioning the atmosphere here, inhibiting collaborative editing. You've done more than enough to earn a temporary block for disruption, and if you keep this up, I'll just remove your comments and block you. The same goes for everyone else. Take your battles to a message board and stop bringing them here. If I have to, I'll lock the page and you'll have to find some other article to be your partisan battleground. Gamaliel 19:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Battleground? The battle is over; and while I can't describe it as a complete victory yet, we have gained a lot of ground. This article is much, much closer to NPOV and BLP standards than when I started. BenBurch is abandoning this page because I have accused him of Wikistalking and left a final warning on his Talk page. Same goes for FAAFA, though he continues to try my patience as you can see. It is a well-founded accusation. How BenBurch chooses to spin his decision on your Talk page is no concern of mine.

I want this article to be a Featured Article on Wikipedia. In order to achieve that goal, its adherence to NPOV and BLP standards must be beyond any shadow of a doubt. I have a long and tiresome previous history with a couple of these people, Gamaliel, and I apologize to you if any expressions of frustration on my part have made your life more difficult. Now let's try to get along and continue making this article better. There's still much work to do.

I've just nominated this article for Good Article status. My opinion is that it is now a Good Article, but still has a way to go before it could be considered for Featured Article status due to lingering, vestigial issues with NPOV and BLP. The nomination should bring previously uninvolved eyes in here to review the article, and see whether my position or yours is the correct one. Dino 19:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please just try to tone it down. You're not the only one here who displays less than exemplary behaviour, but try to be better than them. This can all be worked out amicably. The sheer volume of commentary posted since my last comment last night is mind-boggling, and a misdirection of energy in my opinion. (Again, it's not just you, but it takes two to Tango.) - Crockspot 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is nowhere near GA. I hope you can stand the disappointment. --BenBurch 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See. Told you. --BenBurch 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't abandoned anything and apologize if my conduct has been less than exemplary. I am working on a full section on Roskam's abortion views and votes, similar to that on Harry Reid and Kathleen Blanco. - FAAFA 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All the Eric Krol editorial obervations/citations should be deleted as well. --Tbeatty 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've abandoned NOTHING.

An admin asked me to remain here, so I will --BenBurch 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Dino, you want to complain that I am wikistalking? Bring it on. --BenBurch 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Roskam's church

Somone changed this:

• Roskam is a member of the Anglican Mission in America, a breakaway sect of the Anglican Church (more commonly known as Episcopal) that opposes Gay marriage.

to this:

• Roskam is a member of the Anglican Mission in America, a conservative branch of the Anglican Church (known in the U.S. and Scotland as Episcopal).

My version was fair and accurate ! (as is my motto!)

1) It is as incorrect to claim that this is a 'BRANCH' of the Anglican church as it would be to claim that Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints is a 'branch' of the Mormon church.

2) The reason why this sect broke away was GAY MARRIAGE and FEMALE and GAY PREISTHOOD. This needs to be made clear.

Once again we have an attempt to HIDE and OBFUSCATE Roskam's beliefs and stances. I want to restore this important info.

• Sect |sekt| noun a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. • often derogatory a group that has separated from an established church; a nonconformist church. • a philosophical or political group, esp. one regarded as extreme or dangerous.

I will agree to describe it as a 'breakaway faction' instead of 'sect' as sect can have a negative connotation. Are we all OK with this? FAAFA 23:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My Anglican friends have nothing nice to say about the Anglican Mission in America, so I am sure they would not want to be lumped in with them. --BenBurch 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a pious baptised and confirmed Episcopalian myself (I go to church SEVERAL times a year!), and wasn't aware just WHAT a big deal this is. Time magazine FAAFA 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is a serious issue! I'd no more lump these two together than I would lump the Seventh Day Adventists with the Branch Davidians. (And the Davidians *were* an offshoot of the Adventists.) --BenBurch 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think sect quite cuts it;

sect

1. A cult or religious movement, a group sharing particular (often unorthodox) political and/or religious beliefs.

A religious sect.

Problem is that thinking that gay people ought to be jailed or burned or stoned to death isn't truly unorthodox. I'd guess that about 28% of the population thinks that. Although the definition does say "often" not "always". --BenBurch 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

However the wiki article on sect says; "In the sociology of religion a sect is generally a small religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example from a large, well-establish religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters." Which fits it to a "t". --BenBurch 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty DON'T delete this again

The leader of Roskam's sect, Peter Akinola, supports a Nigerian law that "levies a five-year automatic prison sentence not only on almost every expression of gay identity and sexuality but also on giving advice or support to lesbians or gay men." gay.com "UJA, Nigeria, Dec. 20 — The way he tells the story, the first and only time Archbishop Peter J. Akinola knowingly shook a gay person’s hand, he sprang backward the moment he realized what he had done." NYTimes Anti-Gay Bishop No wonder some want to downplay his membership in this sect! - FAAFA 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, here is the problem - it is verifiable that Roksam is an AMiA member. It is verifiable that the AMiA split from the ECUSA to follow what they considered the more traditional values of the Anglican Communion. It is verifiable that AMiA Bishop Akinola has strong feelings against homosexuality. However, only the fact that Roksam is an AMiA member is directly relevant to THIS article. If you bring in Akinola you have to establish that Roksam supports Akinola on those issues... otherwise you are damning him by implication without any actual reference to support that implication. Is Roksam an AMiA member because he doesn't believe gays should be priests... or because the parish he had gone to all his life switched over? Now, Roksam himself has taken a position against allowing homosexuals to be joined by either 'civil unions' or 'marriage' so it might be reasonable to mention his church's comparable stance on that issue... but not to mention that the church opposes female priesthood unless Roksam himself has taken a similar stance. The AMiA's opposition to female priesthood is relevant to the AMiA article... but not this one unless it can be verified to be relevant to Roksam himself. Thus, something like, "Roskam is a member of the Anglican Mission in America religious faith which, like Roksam himself, opposes gay marriage", might be relevant but further information about the general practices of the church or beliefs of other members (even the leader) really is not. The whole 'breakaway sect' thing is also very dodgy as the AMiA would undoubtedly say that the ECUSA 'broke away' from the worldwide Anglican Communion, while they did not. Hence just a neutral 'religious faith' type description would be preferable. --CBD 12:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• That makes perfect sense. --BenBurch 13:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input CBD. "because the parish he had gone to all his life switched over?" is such an unlikely scenario that it can be discounted. The stances of Episcopal and AMIA are in such opposition on Gay Rights that somone who has 'happy' with the stances of the EC would not switch to AMiA just cause they worshipped in that physical church building all their life. I will look for more info on his religious views to see how other articles handle membership in controversial churches.- FAAFA 13:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I filed an RfC

I filed an RfC on how much info on the breakaway sect that Roskam belongs to should be included in the article. - FAAFA 11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(RFC response). Remember WP:NPOV's provision about Undue Weight, unless this is demonstrably more significant than his stances on other issues, it should get no more coverage than them. As he is a politician, not a religious leader, his positions on political issues should get more weight than this. So take a guide from the coverage in the "Other positions" sub-section of the "Political positions" section. In my browser, those range from one to three lines of text. So be short, and be focused on him.

Remember that bias in the sources reduces the reliability of those sources, so sources that don't particularly care about the issue matter a lot more than any that have a strong bias (pro-gay or anti-gay). Unless it can be shown (from plenty of published, reliable sources), that his being in the church is considered an important fact about his life, it should receive at best a minimal attention in the article. If he doesn't speak about it himself, no more should be said than that the parish/congregation (I don't know which word is correct for Anglicans) he attends left the old body to join that movement, probably with a wikilink to their article. On the other hand, if he can be shown (again from published reliable sources) to have been a cause of the parish changing its affiliation, then more can be said about that, but never going beyond the sources.

Finally, remember that WP:BLP requires a conservative writing style that underplays controversies. If sources are found, the content may well need to be rewritten to be more neutral than the sources, especially if the sources are activist.

FAAFA appears to not understand the dynamics of religious affiliation. These days, most people's primary affiliation is to a congregation, and the congregation mostly stays put because the denominations stay put. As contrast my grandparent's generation, wherein denominational affiliation was primary. Individuals change congregations when they change residence, sometimes within a denomination, sometimes changing.

When a denomination is significantly changing a doctrine, as the Episcopal church in the U.S. has been the last few years, some congregations move, and some split. These are notable events, often receiving press coverage outside the immediate local area. In an Anglican church, authority and decision resides in the priests, not the congregation. In any denomination, unless the congregation was already close to splitting, normally a solid majority of the congregation will stay together with the leader when the leader decides upon a change in denomination. With no visible evidence at the moment that Roskam either 1) was one of the people that caused the switch or 2) is actively promoting the new denomination, no more should be said than that his church changed affiliation, with the name of the new denomination wikilinked. GRBerry 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Information about the views of the bishop are not relevant to Roskam. This is a large church with lots of ministers and congregants. Including these pejorative terms are not only unencyclopedic, they are libellous as a false light case. Please don't add pejorative terms to describe anyone as I will delete them per BLP unless the term is being quoted from a verifiable reliable source. -- Tbeatty 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said, GRBerry and Tbeatty. Thanks for contributing in a positive and thoughtful way to this discussion. While Wikipedia should report on controversy where appropriate, it also should not become a source of controversy itself. WP:BLP is well-written, and it's there for a reason. It protects Wikipedia. Appropriate places for discussions about controversies in the Anglican church and its leaders would be the articles about the Anglican church and its leaders, not here. Dino 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No reference for his membership in AMiA congregation

There is nothing cited that says that he is a member of an AMiA congregation., and also this (external link from Anglican Mission in America) shows no AMiA congregations within hundreds of miles of Illinois --rogerd 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it shows five in the chicago area, four in the western burbs, and three in wheaton. There was undoubtedly a reference for the claim a while back. I'll have to go into the article history to find it. — goethean ॐ 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We look forward to hearing the results and seeing a RS link for that sentence. Thanks. Dino 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking back in the article history, there was never a cite for the claim. It appears to have originated on the website of Tom Roeser, a conservative radio host. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

roger, likely you just entered Chicago, IL in that search box, and were confused as to the scale of the map. Enter Wheaton, IL and you will find a number of such congregations. And Wheaton is a short drive from Chicago. --BenBurch 21:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the first time I went there, it showed nothing in the state, but I tried again just now and got the same results as Goethean. Oh, well, computers....--rogerd 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. Honest mistake. --BenBurch 22:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a Switchboard.com listing for All Souls Anglican Church in Wheaton, Illinois but no indication regarding affiliation (AMiA or Episcopal). Dino 22:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Still looking for RS sources, but here is what I have that is indicative;

http://www.nndb.com/people/079/000122710/ http://tomroeser.com/blogview.asp?blogID=21552 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Comment

Interesting to note that a fellow conservative plainly states: "He [Roskam] is probably the best known pro-lifer, supporter of traditional marriage and foe of embryonic stem cell experimentation in the legislature." yet some here want him known for everything BUT these positions. (I guess the elections really DID produce a sea-change as editors are trying to paint a strong social conservative as a moderate to make him more palatable to the Wiki audience) - FAAFA 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Event at Glen Ellyn grade school

Calton, regarding the event at at Forest Glen Elementary School in Glen Ellyn, Illinois: why are you dismissing this as a "PR event"? When Roskam has a more lengthy track record of Congressional votes, I'm sure that paragraph will be squeezed out; but for now it shows that he is involved in his district, and doesn't just hide in his office in Washington and leave only for trips to Aspen. Impeccably sourced positive information in a BLP: what's not to love? Dino 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• why are you dismissing this as a "PR event"? Because it, well, is? If you want to do PR work for the guy, PR Newswire or his constituent newsletter are better venues: putting in trivia just to fill space doesn't belong here. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The source is not "PR Newswire or his constituent newsletter." It is a neutral newspaper. Calton, I have indicated (without pointing an accusatory finger at anyone in particular) that previous edits here were doing the opposite of "PR work for the guy" (a violation of WP:BLP) and I was slapped down for suggesting it.

And somehow, in your efforts to remove what you perceive as a "PR event," you've also deleted well-sourced info about Roskam's congressional voting record on alternative fuels. He introduced an amendment to a pending bill that created three new alternative fuels programs without costing taxpayers a dime. It passed 400-3. Obviously not anything that remotely resembles a PR event. And you deleted it in the same edit and never looked back.

I will AGF and observe that somehow, you've made a mistake and deleted an entire paragraph that you didn't intend to delete, then didn't notice your error. I have corrected your mistake. Please try to be more careful in the future, in your zeal to delete "PR events."

Comment: Now I see that you've reverted and said that it was no mistake. But your earlier comments described what you removed as a "PR event." Authoring and introducing an amendment to a bill that eventually passed 400-3 is far more significant than simply voting on a stem cell research bill; yet you left the latter in place, and deleted the former as a "PR event." Please review a text on legislative processes, and see for yourself that amendments are more notable than voting on legislation. Thank you.

Further Comment: I am also adding a third link to the same paragraph, which I somehow failed to include yesterday. When one good link should be all that any reasonable person would need, how many do you want? Dino 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please expand on what his involvement in this fuel bill was. He was a co-sponsor? What was his amendment? HR 527 - Thanks - FAAFA 11:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Anglicanism2

Template:Anglicanism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. This template was previously posted to the article with a POV edit summary. I've replaced it with the original and nominated the fork-template for deletion. --Kyaa the Catlord 13:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)