Talk:Peter Roskam

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

What is our goal here?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it should be every longstanding editor's goal to get articles to Good Article and eventually featured article status. This article is miles from that goal, IMO. One thing that means is that you should be able to read the article and not be able to guess the political slant of the editors. A good example is "xxx opposes abortion rights", or "xxx is pro-life". Both of those phrases are politically loaded to one side or the other. A more neutral phrasing would be "xxx opposes abortion". We all have our political opinions here, but we should leave them out of the article. You can have a fully referenced and sourced article that is still slanted and POV. --rogerd 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My goal is GA too. But sometimes when you paint an accurate picture you wind up with something that *appears* to have a slant because the RS-V sources that can be found all paint a picture of somebody who has some negative issues. I try to balance this by seeking out the positive issues that you can find about most people. But if somebody has a hard-line abortion stance (harder than most anti-abortion advocates), seeks to ban books and movies, and talks tort reform while making his living on the lack of tort reform those facts are material to any true depiction. As are his buying and returning soldier's dog tags part of a true depiction. Very few human beings are 100% good or 100% bad, and wherever that line falls, you have to draw it in any biographical article. But I agree with you that you should seek the most neutral language possible that still conveys the data to be exposited. --BenBurch 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think abortion is bad. Effective birth control should have been used in most cases where an abortion is sought, and wasn't through irresponsibility. I wouldn't prevent anybody from doing it because I have a very Libertarian view of personal freedom, but I would hope that nobody here tries to paint me as some sort of advocate for it. Thanks. --BenBurch 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think abortion (on demand, in the 1st trimester) is good GREAT - and furthermore - it should be federally subsidized and no more costly or harder to get than a flu shot. That is all. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't care what your position on abortion or any other political issue is. That is my whole point, you shouldn't bring it here. This is not a politics forum, it is an encyclopedia. --rogerd 03:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bravo. An editors' claims that there is only negative RS-V sources for a political candidate that won his district is going to have difficulty contributiong productively to the article. Most people have trouble writing objectively if they have an opinion, however good editors recognize when an edit improves the NPOV stance. It is my experience that this is not happening here and the article spirals into ever more biased POV. There is no "line to be drawn" nor should his biography be a collection of simple positive and negative factoids. --Tbeatty 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... sure... trying to HIDE his abortion stance (like the Roskam supporters here want) so that the reader has no idea what he stands for is really NPOV. LOL !- Fairness & Accuracy For All 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is hiding his abortion stance. In fact, it is slanted left even when it is described as "Opposing abortion except to protect the life of the mother" is an accurate description of his position. A NPOV version is that Roskam "opposes abortion rights" and that is apparently the AP method of reporting. Tryng to portray his position in such a light so that it comes out as "hard line" is simply POV. I have not seen any Roskam supporters and I am certainly not one as I didn't hear about him until this article. But I know a smear job when I see it. This article reads like a DCCC ad. --Tbeatty 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, go out and find those positive sources. You just volunteered. --BenBurch 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources are adequate. The tone is the problem. You have opposed all attempts at changing the tone. In fact you violated 3RR to maintain the critical tone of this article. --Tbeatty 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Justify yourself that way if you want... Whatever gets you through the night. --BenBurch 03:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Memory hole

The following was recently removed:

The late nationally syndicated columnist Molly Ivins commented, "Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?"

Roskam supports the death penalty, and opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions.

(Roskam never served in the military) [1]

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.

On October 3 2006, according to Crain's Chicago Business, Roskam's opponent charged that Roskam should return the $40,000 in campaign contributions that he received from House Speaker Hastert and other House leaders who she accused of covering up the Mark Foley sexual harassment scandal.

Roskam has been criticized for his law-firm's advertisements in the yellow pages.

On 3 October 2006, Jillian Lindeen filed a malpractice lawsuit against Roskam in the DuPage County court. The suit alleges Roskam failed to use due diligence in pursuing Lindeen's personal injury case and that as a result Lindeen's case was dismissed on 1 August 2006.

In 1992, Roskam's state campaign was investigated by the Illinois Attorney General and the Internal Revenue Service for failing to report campaign contributions from a 501(c)3.

Roskam's campaign manager, Ryan McLaughlin, said that adult and umbilical cord research "is where the results are really occurring for individuals across the country", and said that other issues are more pressing for the Sixth district. However, the National Institutes of Health claims embryonic stem cells have greater potential.

Roskam's campaign manager says that Roskam supports "common-sense gun control provisions" in the gun politics debate.

Duckworth also noted that Roskam's campaign has received heavy donations from the House Republican Campaign Committee, to which Foley gave $500,000 over the past decade. Roskam responded that Hastert acted correctly and added that "the Democrats have had lots of scandals of their own." As of June 30 2006, Roskam has received more contributions from political committees formed by sitting legislators than any other non-incumbent Congressional candidate in the nation. A Roskam campaign spokesman credited House Speaker Dennis Hastert for those contributions: "That's related to how important [Hastert] is for us in this race."

• GOP Auction House: Peter Roskam of Illinois The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee criticizes Roskam's ties to Tom DeLay

Travb (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And? FAAFA NO LONGER has a nice picture of Ivins on his user page. AND HASN'T HAD ONE SINCE YESTERDAY It's not attributed to anyone so I suspect it's a personal photo? A Molly Ivins quote, while entertaining, really has no relevance in a Roskam biography but maybe in an article that covered the Roskam/Duckworth race (if there is one, which I doubt)? --Tbeatty 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And nothing :) Travb (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"FAAFA has a nice picture of Ivins on his user page." WHAT???!!! THAT'S Molly Ivins? (RIP) ROFLMAO! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup for tone

First shot at a cleanup. Probably should be reorganized as well. All the Eric Krol editorials seem irrelevant as opinion except where facts are cited (and are relevant to the bio). A lot of it was fluff not particlularly relevant to his bio or actually unsourced claims. I removed weasel words and run-on sentences. Tbeatty 04:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Two thumbs down. - FAAFA (The Chosen Vessel of the Remaining Bride) 09:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What's pathetic?

The fact that Roskam supporters think that HIS MOTHER buying 37 dog tags for $20 in Vietnam is 2001, and Roskam helping to return them to the families, in anything more than an interesting bit of TRIVA, but needs to be conflated into something more, and prominently featured in the article. Sad :-(

Too bad MoveOn didn't think to make a biting campaign ad comparing the 2 candidates 'military' service and sacrifice! Duckworth - two legs and an arm in service of her country vs Roskam - $20 and postage! (assuming that he paid his mom back, that is) LMAO - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Violating WP:BLP is what's pathetic

Including the name of each and every newspaper that endorsed Duckworth, along with excerpts from several of the endorsements, violates WP:BLP because it makes Wikipedia appear to side with Roskam's critics. See also WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an inventory of everything negative that has ever been published on the Internet about Peter Roskam. It is sufficient to state that several Illinois newspapers had endorsed Duckworth. At this point, I'll respond to a remark by Goethean:

Are you really arguing that a Wikipedia article should reflect the opinions of the majority of votes from the Sixth District? That's absurd.

I am arguing that a Wikipedia article about the incumbent Congressman from the Sixth District should reflect the opinions of the majority of voters from the Sixth District, and that claiming the opposite is what's absurd. Wikipedia must not be used as a propaganda machine by Roskam's challenger in 2008. It cannot even resemble such a propaganda machine. Dino 11:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you were to start a Wiki that only concerned itself with the Sixth District, then you would have a point. But here, you do not. — goethean ॐ 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic claims

Dino - I was drawn here by your claim on the Free Republic talk page : "Freepers were instrumental in helping Peter Roskam beat Tammy Duckworth three months ago, bucking the national trend." I couldn't find anything about it in the article! Could you point me in right direction concerning FR's instrumental help in Roskam's victory? (it should be here in this article, right?) - FAAFA (The Chosen Vessel of the Remaining Bride) 11:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a clue: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735576/posts#2

Here's another ... look who started the thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1726044/posts "I have said many times that I will continue to help with this campaign for Pete, and I intend to go full blast on the last 72-hour push."

Now that you have your answer, you no longer have an excuse for Wikistalking me over here. Dino 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight Dino - You admit to working on the 06 Roskam campaign, and in another thread claim that he's already got his 08 campaign in place - fundraising and filling staff positions (insider info if you will - as there's no public evidence of a Roskam 08 campaign) - and you want us to believe that you DON'T have a COI??? - FAAFA (The Chosen Vessel of the Remaining Bride) 14:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Er..... Dino..... Your Free Republic threads indicate that you were the only Freeper working on the Roskam campaign. Can I assume you were an unpaid volunteer? So.... you volunteering on the Roskam campaign translates to : "Freepers were instrumental in helping Peter Roskam beat Tammy Duckworth three months ago" in your mind ? Wow... just wow. - FAAFA (The Chosen Vessel of the Remaining Bride) 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I say again: now that you have your answer, you no longer have an excuse for Wikistalking me over here. You may consider this your final warning prior to seeking remedial action from an administrator. Also, please don't assume that the threads I've linked were written by me, or about me. I've just linked them to provide the proof that you've been demanding. Finally, there are two separate posts, on two separate threads, by two separate Freepers, stating that they were working on the campaign. It wasn't just one. If I really started hunting, I could probably find a few more.

The whole truth of the matter is that about half of Roskam's campaign staff and at least 10% of the volunteers were Freepers. But that isn't the sort of thing that gets bragged about, or covered by the news media. As you are certainly aware, many people who participate on Internet forums such as DU, FR and Wikipedia do not want their online personas identified with their real life names and careers. The Internet provides anonymity for those who choose to have it. So I hope you'll understand if I maintain that the two links I've already given you should be sufficient, and refuse to provide any more information. I'm not trying to put it into any articles, after all. Dino 15:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're WARNING me not to participate here anymore???? LOL! I ain't leaving! PLEASE file your Wikistalking complaint as promised! I implore you! "Half of Roskam's campaign staff ?" LMAO ! Another 'claim' like he has a 08 campaign up and running, huh? - FAAFA (The Chosen Vessel of the Remaining Bride) 18:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I've abandoned NOTHING.

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