Talk:Peter Roskam

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

"most-watched race"

User:NatusRoma said "just because one local paper has said it's the most-watched doesn't mean we should use that judgment"

The thing is that I didnt say that the race was the most-watched, but that it had been called the most-watched, which is pretty indisputable, and notable. — goethean ॐ 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is indubitably indisputable. That doesn't mean that it's notable. It would be notable if lots of different sources called it the most watched. NatusRoma | Talk 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Suicide

I removed the segment referring to Roskam opposing any mentoin of suicide in public schools which was supposed to be taken from an Esquire article, because the external links provided were non-working and upon searching the words Roskam, suicide, esquire I found nothing relating to that topic.--Tdl1060 21:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They currently work for me. Furthermore, the removed text also included the following reference: "A National Knife Fight" by Joshua Green Oct 2006 Esquire, 236". If you were to pick up a copy of the latest dead-tree edition of Esquire magazine and turn to p. 236, you will see coverage of Roskam's plans. The blog link is for your convenience only. I am reverting. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Those links don't work for me either. It only returns "forbidden". Also, blogs are not a reliable source --rogerd 22:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Esquire is the source. Please don't misapply WP:RS. Gamaliel 22:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The material should be removed if it fails to meet WP:RS. A blog, or news "analysis" or partisan website does not meet that criteria. In addition, the link is not readily applicable. Therefore, it is functionally uncited. Arcayne 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read more closely. The source is the October print issue of Esquire magazine. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Molly Ivins comments

User:Tdl1060 removed comments made by Nationally syndicated columnist Molly Ivins on Roskam. The comments are probably the widest attention that Roskam has received in his entire political career. They are notable and should be replaced. — goethean ॐ 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This race has been featured on NBC Nightly News, that is wider attention than Ivins' commentary, secondly this is a third party commenting on a statement, Does wikipedia have every quote Rush Limbaugh (on the right), or Al Franken (on the left) makes on any given politician on their programs, placed on that politician's article? If it did that would be what most of many politician's articles would be comprised of. Molly Ivins' quote is no different, and is of no more importance. --Tdl1060 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Partisan entries

I was wondering why was this added considering this article is a bio and Peter Roskam and not about Folly or Hasert?

On 3 October 2006, 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 due to their role in the cover-up of the Mark Foley sexual harrassment scandal. Roskam responded that Hastert acted correctly and added that "the Democrats have had lots of scandals of their own." [58]

I wonder why the tone of this article is so negative and only negative additions are not challenged as well as the article locked down and any positive entries removed. As I understand Wikipedia policy regarding Biographies of Living persons, it would seem to me this article violates the sprit and intent of that policy as well there seems to be a lack of enforcement of these polices? I can see, though the histories of editing by the primary participants of this article, there seems to be a partisan agenda being pushed here.

Why is this allowed? Any Rate, these are questions that seem to beg here.Timmy0691 14:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Propol should discuss first, before adding inflammatory accusations and damaging information on a living biography of a living person considering the consequences of getting it wrong. Propol (see his editing history) seems to have with this article. Many of his additions are either cruft, or added for negative effect as well as the picture, of dubious copywrite. Propol gives undue weight to every small and negative fact while editing out and dismissing positive entries. This would seem to be inconsistent with Wikipolicy of Undue weight and biography of living persons. Again, Propol should discuss first. Until he comes to the table to discuss, I will remove his editing. It is not a violation of good faith to note facts of apparent bias and bringing an editors history in review, inorder to protect and further true NPOV of a Biography of a Living person, who is running for political office and whose article needs to be NPOV due to, again the consequences if it is not.207.67.145.194 01:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Equal Rights Amendment?

I am curious what relevance the subject's stance on the ERA has to this article. He wasn't even of the age of majority yet when that amendment failed. Should we include his stance on the Civil War, and Marbury v. Madison as well? - Crockspot 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, does he support the Magna Carta? Gamaliel 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn! That would have been a good question to submit to the debate. — goethean ॐ 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to remove Roskam's ERA position, I won't object, but I do think it provides some insight as to his mindset. As for the Civil War, Roskam stated he would support a States' rights argument. Campaign Manager Ryan McLaughlin is still researching the Magna Carta. Propol 19:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the ERA failed ratification, that mindset could certainly not be considered unusual, extreme, or even minority. I'm going to go ahead and remove it as irrelevant. Crockspot 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

84 Senators voted for the ERA. 354 Representatives voted for the ERA. 35 states voted in favor of the ERA. The Republican Party officially supported the ERA at that point in time. Some might think ERA opposition is an unusual, extreme, and minority viewpoint. Propol 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Kolbe contributions

I have removed the paragraph about contributions from Jim Kolbe because, at this point, they're such a minor detail that they're irrelevant. No one has criticized Roskam (or any other politician, as far as I know) for keeping contributions from Kolbe. NatusRoma | Talk 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

...And frankly, they don't seem to address who Peter Roskam is (which would appear to be the actual purpose of creating an entry for him in the first place). Even citable sources are inappropriate if they contain unsupported opinion. Pete 06:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

The Problem with Entries of Current Political Candidates

Reading through the back and forth from the educated folk posting here, it is clear that even the intelligent and well-meaning (as well as those notably less so) have difficulty leaving their political leanings at the door. I understand and appreciate that Wikipedia is a living, breathing thing. I dig that the crucible of the back and forth for most topics renders the viewing public with a midle-ground article that is more truth than opinion, and I approve of it.

That being said, I am not sure we are capable of objectively creating entries for political candidates currently running for office. As recent election tatics in other media have clearly indicated, the potential for abuse of Wikipedia by those who would use this site as a lobbying platform or dirty tricks venue is too obvious to ignore. To allow or condone such activity undermines the goal of Wikipedia, and frustrates the efforts of the editorial staff. It also wastes both their time as well as bandwidth.

The Roskam article is but one of many in which the editing back and forth by users either unfamiliar with the process of revision or unwilling to consent to supervision has wasted an enormouss amount of time. Clearly, some of the edits were necessary, as there were relatively inflammatory edits included as well as the inclusion of flyer information or campaign manager quotes that could not be directly attributable to the person named in the entry. I realize that this can become a somewhat gray area, and tempers can flare.

This is why I propose that the Editorial Staff (or Supervisory Staff/500 Monkeys/Whatever) at Wikipedia prohibit the entries of any political candidates currently running for office. This protects the integrity of Wikipedia. As people may use Wikipedia as a resource to learn more about a candidate, it is imperative that the site remains impartial in the extreme. Those who might object to this moratorium might argue that this prohibition interferes with the freedom of information. I would argue that these some of these same people are cynically utilizing the free access that Wikipedia provides to promote a less-than-neutral agenda. In short, Wikipedia should have the right to protect its own integrity, and keeping political gamesmanship from being submitted as neutral data.

It should be noted that this same moratorium should not apply to candidates not running for office, or for those out of office. Entries for individuals that eventually run for office - and perhaps this should be a permanent policy to be instituted - should then be edited for both accuracy and non-partisanship. Pete 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne_1

Like most newspapers, Wikipedia generally presumes that a candidate who speaks through a campaign manager speaks for himself or herself. The solution to biased edits is oversight, not a lockdown. NatusRoma | Talk 20:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

An interesting idea, though I imagine it would meet objections from people who feel that this goes against WP principles of openness or feel that existing WP methods are sufficient to combat these problems. You'll find a larger audience for your suggestion at the Village Pump, as opposed to the relatively few people who come through here. Gamaliel 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WP is not most newspapers, NatusRoma. It is an encyclopedia. Anyone not living under a rock for the past 50 years is fully aware that campaign managers are political operatives who work in concert with others (sometimes extraordinarily unscrupulous individuals - ie., Karl Rove, Swift Boats for Justice, etc.) who will sometimes attempt to shape policy by putting words into the mouth of the candidate rather than reiterate the specific policy views of the candidate. To presume that a campaign manager speaks for a candidate when there are virtually unlimited methods by which a candidate can express their OWN views is at best gullible and at worst misleading and deceptive. The entry is about the subject of the entrant, not what someone says who the entrant is. If someone wants to craft an entry for the campaign manager, I think that should be done. However, if someone wants to presume that the words from the mouth of one person replace those of another, more significant person, then perhaps that person should revisit the timelines of the McCarty Hearings. The entrant speaks for themself, or they do not speak, It is clearly that simple. A person can be held to account for their words, not what someone elser said their words were.

WP for all of its openness as stated in the 5 Pillars owes its self-described descriptor as an online encyclopedia. As far as I know, neutrality was the key component to encyclopedias, online or not. The openness prescribed by WP was to presumably prevent bias from entering in, and for allowing a well-rounded entry - the sole purpose of this being to arrive at more accurate and less-biased entries. To utilize the open quality of WP as a shield to shape an entry via smear, innuendo or misinterpretation is a cynical abuse of Wikipedia, and should not be tolerated. There is no "fair and balanced" here, nor should there be. The entries are meant to be absolutely neutral - even to the extent of removing parts that cannot be proven. It is this overiding concern that makes all people and all entries equal in WP. Striving for anything less - or allowing less scrupulous or less idealistic folk to influence us into accepting less - and Wikipedia becomes a subjective microphone to anyone who wants to sock puppet with a host of others into getting their way.

Thank you for your advice, Gamaliel; I will address the larger concerns of my suggestion at the WP: PUMP. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Pete 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

I would dispute the idea that what a political campaign manager for a particular candidate says is not relevant to that candidate's article. — goethean ॐ 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: I normally wouldn't blank anyone, but the comments offered by an anonymous user were specifically inflammatory and designed to cause a flame war. So I removed them, because I want a reasoned discussion about my subject here.

Let's keep it civil, shall we? Pete 04:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

I don't see how you could, Goethean. I understand how a campaign manager's statements or actions might be relevant if he took out a gun at a press conference and opened up on the press corps, or sank the campaign over comments that the candidate wouldn't have said. The guiding principle here should be: does it affect the entry of the candidate, or merely support it? If it affects the subject of the entrant (in this case, the candidate), then it is relevant as it affects the canddiate's life. If it merely attempts to speak for the candidate (in other words, imprinting the words and views of the campaign manager over those of the candidate), then it is not germane to the entry. Simply put, if it cannot be verified that a candidate took an actual position or spoke up personally on policy issues, it is not something that they said, and not germane to an entry on who they are.

Frankly, it is lazy writing and sloppy editing to use a campaign manager's quotes in place of the actual candidates' own words. If the candidate isn't prepared to speak up for themselves and allow their own words to be used, quoted and cited, it is highly inappropriate to allow them the benefit of being paraphrased. That might be fine for teh Enquirer, but this is an encyclopedia, sir. We play by different rules and hold to a higher standard.Pete 03:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

A candidate whose views were being misrepresented by a spokesperson would fire that spokesperson in short order. By definition, a person who serves as another's spokesperson speaks for that candidate as if the candidate were speaking for himself or herself. Furthermore, the dichotomy between "supporting" and "affecting" is a false one. Sourced and accurate information that falls short of undue weight is not judged by whether it is "positive" or "negative". However, there are apparently "rules" and "standards" that forbid Wikipedia from quoting spokespeople. I would very much like to see such a Wikipedia policy or guideline cited on this page. NatusRoma | Talk 03:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User: NatusRoma I think that you are perhaps assuming that that sort of doubletalk doesn't happen every day. And spokespeople are fired, every day. A campaign manager is usually unlikely to be fired, as that is interpreted by both the press and the electorate as dissension within the campaign ranks, leading people to wonder how the person can control the office they aspire to, if they cannot even control their campaign. It happens - we just don't always hear about it. Perhaps my dichotomy between support and affect are unclear, and I apologize for that. As well, there aren't standards as to the quoting of spokespeople, aside from the 5 Pillars of WP requiring accuracy and neutrality. The fact is,almost all of these statements are almost always distorted interpretations of the candidate's actual views. There are very few pure Republicans or Democrats running for office out there, and it is the campaign manager's job to make sure the candidate colors within the party lines. The problem with this is that many candidates don't define themselves by those lines. However they tend to benefit from smear campaigns that they do not publicly endorse, such as the SwiftBoat scumbags who influenced the 2004 election. That is the crux of the issue here. This is an encyclopedia. Not a ghost-written autobiography. Not an interpretation of who they are through some artful song-and-dance as performed by the campaign manager. It is to be a truthful, neutral and verifiably accurate definition and history of the person. If the person does not say that they support a specific position through their own, citable words, then there is no proof that they said them at all. Allowing such is not accurate or neutral. Therefore, it doesn't belong as a part of the factual entry.Pete 04:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Stem Cell Research...Revision

I am changing the statement:

Roskam attempted to pre-empt the appearance by holding a simultaneous press conference featuring a cancer survivor who was treated with his own cells.[24]

To something more neutral, such as "Roskam held a simultaneous press conference featuring...etc." The first statement is inflammatory for numerous reasons. As well, the cited source did not even mention the simultaneous press conferences, or that Roskam decided to have a press conference after learning about Duckworth's intended press conference.

I will reiterate, the citation used for the unedited statement bore no resemblance to, or supported the content of, the statements used in the sentence. Perhaps we should take a look at the references for all of these statements. It is a common tactic by folks like Ann Coulter to cite sources so as to have the appearance of citation while not actually possessing the authority of citatable sources.Pete 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Please add comments on entirely new topics to the bottom of the talk page. This is the general practice here and people are more likely to read them as they are used to seeing them there. Thanks. Gamaliel 22:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Gamaliel. Sorta new here, and still learning the procedures. I had tried to enter the topic where appropriate, and now consider myself properly corrected. :) Pete 04:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

I am certain that the "pre-empt" language was in the source when I used it. It's possible that the article has changed since I accessed it. — goethean ॐ 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

google cache — goethean ॐ 21:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gothean, I can certainly appreciate that the obviously biased AP reporter thought that Roskam's action was less than altruistically motivated: "Roskam attempted to pre-empt the appearance," but I think that its advisable to look at the inherent fallacies of that statement. Roskam actually did hold his press conference. As well, his press conference did not actually stop his opponent's press conference. Therefore, one can see why this statement might be considered bias. It makes the candidate Roskam seem desperate and petty. While this might be in fact true, it is not WP's place - or yours as a user/editor - to make that determination. We can say that he held a simultaneous press conference, and what that press conference entailed. We should, however, leave the determination of whether someone attempted to pre-empt or not to the reader. I have read some of your edits in other areas; you need to maintain a professional lack of bias here. I think you should seek out another citation, one that has less bias.

I think it important not to simply cite material, but chose those citations that are less biased on their own. What do other user's think?Arcayne 07:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A new source, one that was more neutral (pure news as opposed to news analysis) was found that provided neutral source material with which to re-state the dual press conferences (with proper citation).Arcayne 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph:

Although Roskam fought privately-funded embyronic stem cell research in the Illinois legislature, he now suggests private funding as an alternative to public funding. [25]

I was originally alerted to the possible bias of the statement by the word 'fought.' Upon checking the source link, I discovered it was a link to a political opinion page. As well, nowhere was above quote or paraphrasing of the statement above to be found. Unless a more credible (or at least more accurate) source can be cited, it cannot stay.Arcayne 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The source is perfectly accurate. However, I will find a additional source. — goethean ॐ 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we would all appreciate the proper assignment of sources, as well as an avoidance of paraphrasing which can lead to accusations of bias. I should point out however, that I have read the source you have cited three separate times now, and nowhere in the article does it state what you are (supposedly) paraphrasing. Specifically, this source, a politcal opinion (no better than a blog) puts words in the candidate's mouth. As well, nowhere in this cited article does it state that Roskam "fought" anything. Using that particular action word implies bias. Arcayne 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Until a proper source can be cited, or the text re-worked, it should not remain. It is unsubstantiated text.Arcayne 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Spring, 2006...Revision

It was quoted: [On May 9, 2006, Duckworth accused Roskam of "standing silent in the face of bigotry."]. Actually, when checking the citation for this comment (to verify its accuracy), what was actually said was:

Peter Roskam's silence in the face of bigotry is not leadership.::

Quite a difference, and one that made me look a bit closer at the text as written. I found a great many other contextural innaccuracies, and will therefore revise them to reflect - correctly - what was originally cited. It should be noted that the cited source was a Conservative Christian news site that defends Rios' and her beliefs, and views secular humanity in the midst of a "culture war." I think it is important to note the philosophical stance of a publication before directly citing its material - there is a tendency amongst these publications to skew the reporting towards that which will feed its its subjective world-view.Arcayne 07:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. — goethean ॐ 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help, and thanks for saying thanks :) Arcayne 08:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Contributions

The source cited (91) does not contain anything resembling the statements used in the article, most notable among them:

"...the Democrats have had lots of scandals of their own."

In fact, the cited article has no such comment as stated by candidate Roskam (it was stated by an unnamed campaign staffer). Therefore, it will be purged as bias.

I am noticing that some of my fellow editors are choosing to paraphrase their cited material, or perhaps not even using the citations at all, using the citation perhaps as some sort of badge that the information stated has been verified. I suggest that this practice is unacceptable, and opens WP to further editorial abuse. Do not paraphrase the articles, despite the brevity that you may think you are providing. As well, I might suggest that you find citable sources that are actual news *stories* and not skewed candidate websites and political blogs and other news analysis websites. Find the pure news, or don't bother.Arcayne

You are the only editor on this page who sees such a vast distinction between what the campaign says and what the candidate says. You have argued for this point quite passionately, and have convinced, as far as I know, no one. — goethean ॐ 22:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not looking to convince anyone, Gothean. I am justfollowing the rules as set up by WP:RS. I suggest that you may peruse this at your leisure, and perhaps adjust what has been pointed out in the past (by more than a few of our fellow editors) as a tad more biased than the norm.

Allow me to be clear: the words of a candidate's campaign manager are NOT the words of the candidate. Therefore, they do not belong in a bio entry for that candidate. It's pretty simple, I think.Arcayne 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Arcayne, I understand your concerns about presenting the opinions of a campaign spokesman or political operative as that of the candidate; however, I think it is appropriate in most cases. If there were ever reason to believe that the comments of a campaign staffer were not representative of the candidate's position, then it might be a different case. Ultimately the candidate is responsible for the comments from his campaign. If someone said something inappropriate it is up to the candidate to correct the situation. That doesn't have to include firing someone. It could simply be to issue a clarifying statement... the comment from yesterday represented their personal view and not that of the campaign. Left unchecked, the candidate has accepted liability. Whatever Tony Snow says will reflect upon George W. Bush, unless he takes action to the contrary. Thanks. Propol 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not looking to convince anyone, Gothean.

Um...you should be, because consensus on the talk page determines what goes into and comes out of the article.

I am justfollowing the rules as set up by WP:RS.

WP:RS says no such thing. You are attempting to create new policy on the fly. I suggest you discuss your issues at WP:RS or some other policy page rather than here. — goethean ॐ 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If this were a truth-in-politics website, I would agree with you, Propol. However, this is an encyclopedia website. The entry's title is Peter Roskam, and not what-Peter-Roskam's-Handlers-Say-He-Says. In politics, a candidate (or incumbent official) are sble to blanket themselves in plausible deniability when their statements are issued through second-hand sources, even if those statements are in concurrence with their own beliefs. They are unable to claim any deniability when they make the statement themselves. They can merely apologize for them and reap the rewards or penalties for them. It would do us no good to correct campaign statements to the effect that the opponent committed murder upon a busload of nuns with a herring, only to have the candidate distance him/herself later (possibly after they won the election due to that comment), as our supposedly factual information helped to contribute to the falsehood. Whether we like it or not, WP is used by many as a primary research tool. We have a responsibility to ensure that what we enter is eminently verifiable - it is the candidate's words, or it isn't. There is no gray area here, but there are issues hanging in the balance.

This is the key issue here, I feel. As an encyclopedia, we have a higher calling than parroting what campaign staff issues in crafted sound-bytes. There is a reason why the entries are under the candidate's name, and not 'Candidate-X's Campaign.' We are not here to reiterate what the campaign says. We are here to document what the candidate says themself. WP:RS clearly says that we must exercise caution when using material from questionalbe sources, and political campaigns are precisely such sources.

I agree that this raises the standard of documentation specifically for political campaigns, but the stakes are also proportionally higher. Just looking at the edit pages for the Illinois 6th race has turned up faulty or outright false edits and citations, overly biased commentary and structure and (at least on the discussion pages) outright flame wars between editors. Politcs and abortion are two subjects that aren't discussed in polite company for a reason; they are divisive and volatile topics. Extra care should be practiced with them. As documentarians, it is ever more so, since our collective word creates what is supposed to be an unbiased truth. Allowing for the statement of heresay and unsupported (ie, genuinely citable) material is a corrosive influence on that reputation. When we consider that WP can clearly be used by unscrupulous political operatives (ie, swiftboating) to aqlter public perception of their candidates by citing wildly inaccurate information and dramatically incorrect heresay, it is more than advisable to filter out anything that the candidate did not say themselves (and is absolutely verifiable and therefore citable); it is a professional and moral imperative.

For those editors who feel that the ends justifies the means, especially those with a partisan bent, please consider that by arguing for the inclusion of biased material paves the way for those who have a diametrically opposed partisan view from yourself using your own arguments to shore up their own partisan statements. The best tactic is for us to remain neutral. This means editing to remove bias. This means citing sources that are not partisan or conjectural. This means keeping a healthy distance from the fray, and verifying everything.Arcayne 23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not looking to convince anyone, Gothean. Um...you should be, because consensus on the talk page determines what goes into and comes out of the article.

Um...pardon me for not being clear enough, Gothean. I am explaining my POV in regards to the neutrality or bias of an article or statement. You can choose to see the clear statements or not. To try and 'convince' anyone implies a bias towards one postion or another. I am taking the POV in favor of neutrality, which you yourself should be aiming at, as an editor of WP.

Only neutral language makes it in, unless it is a direct and attributable quote to the source of the entry. Not a campaign manager. Not what someone else said about them (unless it is a finding of fact or law, etc.) Being 'convinced' to act in a neutral matter implies that the person needing convincing isn't being very neutral.

''I am justfollowing the rules as set up by WP:RS. WP:RS says no such thing. You are attempting to create new policy on the fly. I suggest you discuss your issues at WP:RS or some other policy page rather than here. — goethean ॐ 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. However, I actually read up on the subject before posting, not just WP:RS. And my suppositions are based solely upon how caution needs to be exercised when citing from sources of a partisan or political nature. In addition, I felt it unnecessary to mention how neutrality is upheld by the first two pillars of Wikipedia. You know quite well through your own experience with others that a failure to act with neutrality usually gets folks all het up, and editwars usually result. I am merely suggesting that the sources cited are from a NEUTRAL source (and not some (PAC or candidate's website), and that sources not directly connected to the subject of the entry do not get included, since they cannot be verified to have come from the subject's own mouth.Arcayne 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I noted your suggestion last week, and responded that what the subject's campaign does and says is plenty notable to an article on the subject. There have been many editors working on this article over the past six months, all of whom have upheld the addition of campaign comments to the article. You are the first to voice this particular concern. Since no one has assented with you – on the contrary, multiple voices from all sides have voiced their opposition to your suggestion – it is clear that your proposal does not have the consensus of this discussion page behind it. So if you want to continue to pursue it, I suggest that you take it up on a Wikipedia policy page. — goethean ॐ 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Goethean, you have been the only one to have any serious arguments with such. Of the people who responded (aside from yourself), one was seeking clarification and the other was wondering about the difficulty of such. I am unsure as to your reference of "multiple voices from all sides." There has only been one significant voice arguing that a call for neutrality is unwarranted, yours. The matter is being discussed on the policy page; that being said, it doesn't remove the need to be neutral here, where the litmus test of neutrality is conducted each day through peer revision. As well, it is not at all the first time that this matter has come up, either for this specific entry, or on others. You have even been involved in a great many of these same sorts of arguments. This is not an attack; it is an observation.

Clearly, the inclusion of second-hand information is cause for pause. We should not care as to the liability of a candidate's media handlers to their candidate. The only thing that should mater - I repeat, the ONLY thing - is to verify that what we are documenting are actual, factual statements about the candidate whose name is on the entry, If you are so inclined, you should feel free to include an entry for the campaign manager, whose comments you are so keen to include. After all, they are the campaign manager's statements, and not the candidate's. Again, by allowing the inclusion of statements that clearly cast in a positive light a candidate you have previously personally endorsed, you are proceeding down a slippery slope wherein far less-reputable folk can use the doorway you demand be open to cause serious damage to specific political entries immediately before an election.

Example: let's say that tomorrow, som eone posts a citable source (an obviously biased or partisan, swiftboat-like source) that says either one candidate or the other is being investigated by the FBI's Financial Crimes Unit. It does not matter if the allegation is true (and the citation may be purged right before the polls close), but the damage will have been done. People who read WP for a heads up on the candidates (there actually are people who put this off until the last moment) will see the erroneous comment and make a decision based upon that. Before you can say 'Florida Recount,' WP has unwittingly helped unscrupulous people to alter the results of an election.

I guess I am not understanding how wikilawyering (this is not policy, etc.) is a proper justification for avoiding neutrality and lending credence to unsubstantiated statements. This is why I discuss this matter here - we are the front line of neutral documentation. Heresay is for articles about Wham! reunions and Lost episodes, where the stakes are not nearly as high. WP cannot alter whether there is a Wham! reunion, nor can it likley alter the episodic content of Lost. It is entirely conceivable that it can alter the course of an election, and WP needs to protect its reputation and neutrality from bias.Arcayne 18:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call my references to policy wikilawyering -- they are not. References to policy are necesary because people cannot always agree on what is neutral. I have used newspapers and primary sources in these articles, not blogs. If a newspaper reports swiftboat-like charges, they can be added here. If not, not. That's WP policy, regardless of your theorizing about perfect neutrality. — goethean ॐ 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Goethean, you have been the only one to have any serious arguments with such.

Here. Here. These are both of the other major contributors to this article. The other major contributor, User:Tdl1060, hasn't responded AFAIK. — goethean ॐ 19:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

. While I appreciate the sentiment about my 'theories,' neutrality is not altogether a difficult term to assess. If an editor repeatedly quotes/cites sources that are uniformly either biased or flawed in their accuracy, or simply non-existent, then it is quite possible that they are sifting through sources for one that agrees with their viewpoint, or are simply not making the effort to find pure news. If an editor continually uses biased language to characterize a candidate's (or their opponent's) actions or words that are not direct quotes, it is quite likley that the editor is harboring a pre-existing bias for/against the entry they are editing. It is by no means the definition of neutral. When an editor defends their bias through semantics, it is a diversionary tactic, ie. wikilawyering.

. As for the "primary sources" you have cited, no fewer than three have been found to be either a dramatic paraphrasing, come from sources like blogs or news analyses (and failing the litmus test of neutrality), or simply do not exist. I am sure that these are simply mistakes, but since you saw fit to defend your sources, I felt it prudent to point out the errors of that particular statement. You will note that in every single one of my edits, not one of them can be called into question for neutrality. Poor spelling and grammar issues, perhaps. :)

. I am not going to go back and forth with you on this (as it is only a diversionary tactic that detracts freom the issue at hand), and I did not point out your semantic wikilawyering to upset you. I was pointing out that the spirit of the 5 Pillars is just as important as the letter of the 5 Pillars. Neutrality is our business. It is not some grandiose theory - it is clearly stated in black and white. The bias of some of your entries has been pointed out before by numerous people before I ever became a member. I would suggest that you need to have a nice cup of tea and sit down.Arcayne 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree. The over reliance on Krol, an opinion columnist mind you, not a journalist, as well as the contribution section makes this read like an entry from MYDD. I am also concerned with the contribution sections, it looks too much like a lot of WP:NOR to me. I think the article needs a tag until these issues are addressed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Krol is not a columnist. He is a reporter. — goethean ॐ 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dailyherald.com/opinion/krol.asp note that bewtween ".com/" and "/krol", it says opinion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

He also writes lots of news articles for the Daily Herald. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Arcayne has illustrated these issues as well as I could have. And as far as I can tell none of it has been addressed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Gothean is right here; Krol is in fact a journalist. albeit primarily as an article writer and commentator. I think what I took issue with was the fact that his news analysis was not a good source to draw from, as commentary is very often biased enough that it is difficult to separate fact from supposition. I was arguing for better sources of citation (WP:RS). It may take a bit more work, and a head for maintaining NPOV, but the end product is really worth it. I appreciate your words of support, TDC. Rock on, Mister Man. Rock on.Arcayne 01:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for NPOV tag

Torturous Devastating Cudgel, I kindly ask you spell out in detail your rationale for tagging the article with a NPOV warning. Otherwise, how can I, or any other user, collaborate with you. Thank you. Propol 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, TDC. The collaborative spirit that needs to prevail here is sometimes hard to maintain (I have flunked this particular coolness a few times, to my regret). I am not suggesting that you aren't being cooperative or anything like that. I am glad that you agree with me. If you have a way to expand upon my views, so that those who don't understand (or maybe simply don't share them) can finally get what I am perhaps not explaining well enough. We need to discuss changes before we make them (again, I made the noob mistake of doing this). Otherwise, you risk an edit war, which is the biggest waste of time since Paris Hilton. :D Arcayne 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement

I added a new bit of info regarding the VFW endorsement of Roskam. However, I think I screwed up the link to the citation. Can someone offer a heads-up on how to fix it?Arcayne 23:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC) The citation netaddress is: [[1]]Arcayne 23:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be reorganized a bit. We really shouldn't have sections which detail a bunch of random events in chronological order. If we must have a quote from every paper which endorsed Duckworth, then the endorsements should be grouped together thematically instead of a section which says "on october 15 this happened. On October 23 this happened." Gamaliel 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Coli

There is no dispute that there are issues concerning Coli. The question is that does a discussion of those issues belong here? A good comparison would be Tom Delay. There are citations for articles discussing both Roskam and Delay's criminal charges. The citations for Coli do not mention both Roskam and Coli's issues together, therefore a connection is either original research or perilously close to it. Gamaliel 22:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is Bias

I don't agree, the tag for {{TotallyDisputed}} should be added now.. since the time for election is here and there are untruths, as for example this...

Education

In the 1990s, according to the Daily Herald, Roskam supported three different state legislative plans to ban books from schools: one to ban the textbook series "impressions" from Arlington Heights schools, another to ban books that "expressly counsels for suicide" and a third to allow local juries to determine whether a book is obscene.[38] 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.[39]

This is absolutly untruth, due to the distortion of this event, that happen so long ago and is is mis quoted and mis-understood. I to say that peter wanted to ban Romeo and Juliet, Little House on the Prairie, and It's a Wonderful Life from classrooms, when this are just quoted bits in side a book about the joys of Suicide is a lie.

This and other issues, I have with this article and the tag should remain, until they are disucssed.

The fact that you so keen to remove it in light of my concerns, is contray to the policies of Wikipdia as I understand the.69.220.184.133 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The information in the "education" section is footnoted with reliable sources. Are you contenting that the sources are being interpreted incorrectly or that the sources are inaccurate? If it is the latter, please provide sources of your own that contradict the ones used in the article. We cannot simply dismiss these sources as inaccurate without some reliable information that they are in fact inaccurate.

I have removed the "totally disputed" tag and replaced it with a section NPOV tag for the education section as you have only identified that one as a problem. Gamaliel 22:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this a gang bang are are we going to talk???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.184.133 (talk • contribs)

I thought we were talking. You identified the problem, I asked for more information. Gamaliel 22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not talk.... it's bully boy thuggery... I don't agree and you are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.184.133 (talk • contribs)

I suspect we're dealing with indefinitely banned user Joehazelton here. Thanks. Propol 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...this one seems even less articulate. — goethean ॐ 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy there, Goethean. there is the most infinitesimal of chances that this is someone else, so let's not be all mean to the new user with the paranoiac delusions of grandeur. :) Arcayne 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's most peculiar that the election results of November 7 weren't posted in the article until December 17 -- and they had to be posted by me, a complete newcomer to the article. One might get the impression that the principal editors of this article were reluctant to admit that Duckworth had lost. Please don't remove my statements, Goethean. Respond to them or ignore them if you choose, but don't delete them. Whether I'm logged in or not when I post them, they're my statements, not yours; and they don't violate any Wikipedia rule, regulation, policy or principle. Thank you. -- BryanFromPalatine

Oh, by the way: Joehazelton had a point. This article clearly violated WP:NPOV throughout the entire campaign, and it still does. No doubt about it: you've been getting a great deal of this content from direct mailers by Tammy Duckworth and the DCCC. -- BryanFromPalatine 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the editors have used this article as a vehicle for bashing Roskam for political purposes during the election. Now that the election is over and they've failed to prevent Roskam from getting elected, they're not interested any more. Are you there, editors? Are you paying any attention at all? If I start editing this into a balanced, NPOV article, are you going to start flipping out and making accusations? -- BryanFromPalatine 12:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just look at who edits and how they edit and see the POV which is far from NPOV. What is taking place is a WP:OWN situation, here this wikigang is protecting this article and using bulling, wikilaweyering, and other intimidations to keep others out and protecting the negative point of view which the Peter Roskam Article now has. This article should be tagged with “NPOV in Dispute”. 199.67.138.42 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter Roskam editing

I don't like the accusation of a ban user. goethean, you have no reason or proof of this and you assertion would be constituted as a violation of WP:CIVIL WP:AGF

Your refusing to discuss, in reasonable terms, with out invoking some unfounded charge is troublesome.

Stop it.192.193.220.141 21:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I will block any editor who engages in the sort of behavior that got Joehazelton banned, no need to worry about that, so please let's not assume every single anonymous editor is Joehazelton. Let's assume good faith and treat every editor with respect. Gamaliel 21:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith, and treat every anonynous editor with respect... fine words unless they are enforced? Gamaliel, how about telling that to Propol.199.67.138.42 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Propol reads this page, he can see my comments just fine. AGF means we must treat new editors with respect and not assume the worst of motives, but it does not apply to obvious sockpuppets who pretend to be new users while immediately attacking the same people and making the same edits. Just concentrate on the article and leave the personalities out of it, whether you are a new user or an old one. Gamaliel 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Roskam's religion

I first found Peter Roskam's biography through the entry on the Evangelical Covenant Church, where he is listed as a notable member. The article itself, however, lists him both as a Presbyterian and a member of the Anglican Mission in America. These cannot all be true simultaneously. Does anyone know where he actually goes to church?

The only religion I could find in an outside source is Anglican [2], so I listed him as such in the infobox instead of Presbyterian.--Tdl1060 20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

external link

There is an anti-Roskam blog at [3]. Can it be added to the external links? — goethean ॐ 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blog links are #11 on Wikipedia's Links normally to be avoided.--Tdl1060 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How many pages of voting record will there be?

The issue here is not whether this information is notable but is this information conforms to the stated wiki policy of what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a collection of facts or other long lists of minutia. Are we going to fill this article with pages and pages of every vote this man makes for the next two years? Obviously, this is not what Wikipedia is and policy states this very clearly on their WP:NOT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

Also, his voting record can be found other places and easily linked here as not to fill this article with again reams and reams and reams of Mr. Roskam's voting histories which began can be found easily here. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/r000580/

Also, as customary, the editor should discuss first before making changes. It has been the tendency, as observed by this editor, that some feel that they can add or change unilaterally to this article with out discussion.128.241.41.58 13:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please sign in / create an account if necessary. We have had numerous problems on this page with sock puppets and anonymous IP addresses. It will help your credibility if you do.

I will not get an an account. I did not need to get an account as well as it's not required to have one and I wish to remain anonymous regards to this subject. The credibility of my edits will be determined strictly on the logic of my arguments and not necessarily as a result of whether my reputation is acceptable to you or anybody else here. My reputation as to whether I'm a sock puppet or not is not relevant. The only thing relevant again, is whether my arguments are logicical under fair and reasonable discussion. So please, do not tried to intimidate me and bully me off this article as you have with many other editors in in the past. This is not what Wikipedia is all about128.241.41.58 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion. Detailing three Congressional votes does not constitute an excessive list. The votes listed are likely to be defining and will be future campaign issues. Proper and reliable sources are cited. Please leave them. Thank you. Propol 13:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't refer to my proper, correct and document edits as vandalism. The problem we have here is not just three listings of his vote but a slippery slope of how large this list of his voting record of his voting record will will grow on this article and the establishment of precedent as to whether this list will grow and will never end on this article which is a biography and not a list of his voting record. That's the issue. Also, your contention that your edits are reliable reliable and proper is not at issue here. The issue, again, is his voting list, which constitutes excessive lists which I legitimately disagree with you on this point. And again please don't refer to my legitimate edits as vandalism.128.241.41.58 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I will have to agree with the anon. The man has been in office less than a month and you have already listed 3 votes. Did you also list votes of the other 434 members in their respective articles? Whether or not they are "defining and will be future campaign issues" is pure speculation. I am sure that Rep. Roskam's 2008 opponent will address his voting record in due time. This is not the place for long lists of information that are available elsewhere. --rogerd 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors of this article should form a consensus about how to decide which votes should be recorded in this article. Clearly "none" or "all" are not satisfactory answers to the question of which votes to document. Gamaliel 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is approprioate to document significant votes in the political positions section of the article as long as it doesn't get too excessive, which I have seen on other congressmen's artcles when its given its own section.--Tdl1060 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to limit the length of the text in regards to Roskam's voting record. This information is actually at least as relevant to Roskam's biography as the info on his congressional campaign. — goethean ॐ 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agreee with the reason to limit the lenght of text in regards to the Roskam article. I have to agree with Tdl1060 and disagree with goethean that we are not limited the votes, but that list will soon become very large and unwieldy also it should be noted that wikipeida is not a repostory huge stacks of of lists, links and other disjointed miscellaneous information. The focus of this article should be the bioagraphy of this living person and as such, should be limited to only pertinent facts about this person. For a complete listing of his voting record... that can be found in the Washington Post voting record link which is found below in this article. A careful reading of wiki policy regarding what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT would be in order to comply with the goals of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.Walleyeone 02:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should put a limit on the number of votes listed, just that it should be only key votes and in the context of the political positions section as was done with some of his votes in the State Senate.--Tdl1060 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unverified and poorly sourced allegation

The paragraphs regarding the alleged investigation in 1992, which was over 15 years ago by Illinois attorney general and Internal Revenue Service for allegedly failing to report campaign contributions. I have removed this entry do to the lack of reliable and verifiable sources to justify this entry see WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY. The only basis of this entry was an old campaign website which is no longer available and as such this alleged allegation and investigation cannot be easily verified. Furthermore, if the other other editors absolutely insist on having this old and non-notable event, which had taken place over 15 years ago, these other editors must provide information to the outcome of this charge, which logically had been completely investigated and in all likelihood these allegations were dropped. In the end, this event happened a long time ago and as such is a minor and non-notable event in this persons life and should should not be listed gives undue weight to this allegation.Walleyeone 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Walleyeone, and welcome to Wikipedia! — goethean ॐ 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

HelloWalleyeone 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Walleyeone, you were right to remove the poorly sourced material, but all editors also have a responsibility to ensure that the article is complete and neutral. This means that while editors have a responsibility to source material they insert into articles, it also means that other editors have a responsibility to participate in writing and researching the article instead of just acting as a veto for material they dislike. Despite your claim that it "cannot be easily verified", a quick database search that took me as long as it probably took you to write the above paragraph proved that this "alleged investigation" actually happened: ROSKAM CHARITY FLAP PROBE GOES TO IRS Chicago Tribune October 29, 1992 Author: Rick Pearson. Gamaliel 23:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

{comments by banned user removed}

The Illinois attorney general's office has given copies of its investigation of Peter Roskam, the Republican candidate for the 40th House District, to the Internal Revenue Service to see if Roskam's campaign has violated federal charitable tax laws.

In a letter to the IRS, the attorney general's office said its investigation has found links between Roskam's campaign and the Glen Ellyn-based Educational Assistance Limited (EAL) where he is executive director.

"In the course of our investigation, we have discovered that in 1991 EAL did, in fact, engage in political campaign activity by contributing several residential mailing lists to the `Friends of Peter Roskam' political committee," James Carroll, first assistant attorney general, wrote to the IRS.

Source: Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill.

Author: Rick Pearson.

Date: Oct 29, 1992

Start Page: 2

Section: DU PAGE

Text Word Count: 399

Propol 06:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Democratic Atty. Gen. Roland Burris' office began conducting its investigation into Roskam's campaign after complaints were raised by his opponents in the March REPUBLICAN primary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Propol (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

{comments by banned user removed}

More new users just happening to stop by the Peter Roskam article! Wow. — goethean ॐ 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He does have a point, however, though one delivered in an insulting manner. The material should not be restored until a good faith effort has been made to research the outcome of this investigation. Gamaliel 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He or she. Remember, we have no idea who we are dealing with here. — goethean ॐ 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Silly me, what was I thinking? Gamaliel 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

{attacks from banned user removed}

We have now been joined by the mysterious 75.132.141.231

75.132.141.231 apparently understands the meaning of WP:NPOV with his very first edit, but incorrectly applies it. His reversions are in violation of not only WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, but also WP:BLP. Anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit against a public figure like Pete Roskam. But until the allegations have been proven in a court of law, they do not belong in an encyclopedia article about him. Dino 23:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And we have also been joined by the mysterious 202.190.132.123

Strangely enough, here we have another anonymous IP vandal who knows all about NPOV but applies it incorrectly. The modus operandi is identical. I am reverting this POV-pushing which violates WP:NPOV. Dino 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic claims

Hi Dino - I decided to pay a visit here in response to 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! (but it does look like it needs some fresh input, so I think I'll stay). Could you point me in right direction concerning FR's instrumental help in Roskam's victory? (it should be here in this article, shouldn't it be?) Thanks. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Rape and incest exceptions

Rape and incest exceptions are a standard question in the debate on this topic in the USA and are material to understanding his position. --BenBurch 06:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I added them back to the article. I will revert any future deletions of the topic. Peter Roskam has been very clear that he makes no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. In fact there are television interviews (such as on Public Affairs) where Roskam directly states his position. There's no way to dispute it, and it is clearly notable. Propol 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Find the exact date of that program, please, and we can cite it. --BenBurch 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This would appear to be the debate in question; Is this what you mean, Propol? http://web.mac.com/t.tang/iWeb/PublicAffairs/Podcasts/DF05EDED-CA84-45EC-8BFC-87E9CA2DED1C.html --BenBurch 06:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the exception is notable, not the exclusion of an exception. This is the equivalent of Willie Horton death penalty adds and implies that he supports babies from rape or incest and is a BLP issue. Example: "Michael Dukakis is against the death penalty." vs. "Michael Dukakis is opposed to the death penalty even if the killer tortures and rapes children." Please. Drop it. Tbeatty 06:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this is part of the standard debate in this country. I can cite you MANY politicians who specifically make exceptions in the case of rape or incest. He makes no such exception and has said so. I am in fact surprised that he makes an exception where the life of the mother is at stake as the Roman Catholic Church makes no such exception, and this strikes me as a more consistent and principled stand. But when one is comparing politicians, this is one of the metrics commonly used. It is every bit as much a part of the standard political discourse in the USA as immigration issues or taxes. Unless you can show me that it is not, I don't see how you will convince me that this does not belong here. --BenBurch 06:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And you can include it when they make the exception, just not when they don't make an exception as that is consistent with Original Research or BLP libel. Look at the Willie Horton case. Dukakis even answered the questions when his wife was given as the victim but htat would not be relevant to his position on the death penalty. Dukakis wouldn't make an exception when the rape/murder victim was his wife. Principled? yes. relevant to his stand on the death penalty? No and the question was roundly denounced. "Dukakis is opposed to the death penalty and wouldn't even make an exception for someone who raped and murdered his wife." It's factual. Even relevant as it was in a presidential debate. But isn't a really part of his death penalty stance. He is simply against it. I can name many politicians who oppose the death penalty except for murderers who also commit rape, multiple murders, child murders, etc. Describing their position in terms of their non-exceptions is not notable and an attempt to slander/libel them.

Here are common positions on abortion.

Opposed to abortion in all cases.
Opposed to abortion except for the life of the mother.
Opposed to abortion except for the life of the mother or rape or incest.
Opposed to abortion except for the health of the mother, rape or incest..
Opposed to abortion except for the health of the mother, rape, incest or congenital disease.
(health of the mother used to be a legitimate anti-abortion stance but has recently changed when abortion providers said they would certify condition of "pregancy" as a health risk thereby making it moot).

Abortion on demand at any time prior to birth.
Abortion on demand up to the third trimester.
abortion on demand except for girls under the age of consent.
etc, etc.

Now it would be POV to mix the non-exceptions with exceptions to create teh appearance of judgement by augmenting it with the non-exceptions. The death penalty example has the same type of debate with most states including "aggravating factors" which include rape or the killing of a child as necessary for capital punishment. It is POV to add those non-exceptions to the description of his position. Please don't Willie Horton that line and keep his position as simple and correct as possible. It is an editorial comment, while possibly factual, is not encyclopedic and doesn't clarify his position. It's simply a way to inject POV.

An example from the other side: "Hilda X supports abortion rights up until the third trimester making no exception for procedures that partially deliver the fetus and removing its brain jsut prior to delivery." This would certainly be factual and include reference to an ongoing debatable point on partial birth abortions yet it would inject POV into the statement. It simply doesn't belong. It is Willie Horton politics and it should not be a part of Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 07:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Respectfully, but your argument appears to be a special pleading. Among politicians, not making an exception in the case of rape or incest in really quite exceptional, and is most often noted as such. --BenBurch 10:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, I suspect that because Tammy Duckworth has been elevated to the status of a martyr by the anti-war left, the Peter Roskam article has been targeted for POV pushing. Due to this effort, any negative information about him that can be gathered is being put into the article, in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:BLP. Dino 09:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Er.... Dino, she would have to be DEAD to be a 'martyr'....Look up the word... M A R T Y R.... Like David Koresh and Timothy McVeigh are to y'all in the the Freeper / Black Helicopter / NWO crowd. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 11:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticized for yellow page ad.

True and notable. And not just his opponent was critical of it, looks like the columnist was too! And essential to understanding the character of this politician. --BenBurch 06:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the ad; File:Roskam Yellowpages Ad.png --BenBurch 06:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)