Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is currently undergoing a peer review.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The page there says that article was printed in "The Wanderer", a Catholic magazine. Probably this is their website. Probably a reliable enough source for his denominational affiliation. Reading the article, it is clearly pro-Roskam. Adequate proof of bias: at the end it says where to go to make campaign contributions for him. I'd call it sound enough to mention the denominational affiliation, but since says almost nothing about the denomination's position, not to go further. GRBerry 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Do we know that he is a member of that congregation? Here is their web page; http://www.allsaintsanglicanparish.org/ --BenBurch 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

A somewhat unrelated comment offered after reading the Tom Roser article

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 since 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)[reply]

Interesting?? Huh?? what does this have to do with references? --rogerd 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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.

The source is not "PR Newswire or his constituent newsletter."' I'm assuming English is your first language, so I can't imagine how you got that interpretation from "PR Newswire or his constituent newsletter are better venues". To make it clearer: they can go there, they don't belong here. --Calton | Talk 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, don't expand: this article is stuffed with enough trivia as it is. --Calton | Talk 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant expand here in TALK. Roskam wasn't even one of the bill's 15 co-sponsors. He added a MINOR amendment, like what happens dozens of times to EVERY bill. His website and now this article have glowing descriptions of the bill, like Roskam had some MAJOR involvement with it. He didn't. 100% puffery! - FAAFA 05:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

One Wiki article lists him as a member of Evangelical_Covenant_Church

Another ref to this denomination and Roskam: Cov Church

I auggest we remove all claims of his specific denomination pending verification - FAAFA 00:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More : I think we can safely determine that he was a member of this faith in 1993, but that's a long time ago. 1993 cite I respectfully and collegially suggest that we describe him as a Wahhabist Muslim. If its good enough for Obama.... (JUST kidding!) - FAAFA 01:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I think we need to remove any reference to his religion until he makes some verifiable statement on the subject. --BenBurch 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New addition

I added the following to the intro paragraph :

Roskam is well known for his staunch conservatism, and his positions of being unabashedly pro-life, a supporter of traditional marriage, and a foe of embryonic stem cell research. [1] - FAAFA (standing up for conservatism!) 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Roeser is a great guy, but believe it or not, the things he writes are not generally NPOV. Just as the wording of that paragraph has POV overtones all over it.

Better wording might be: Roskam is well known for his conservative politics, some of his positions include: support of pro-life policies, support of traditional marriage, and opposition to embryonic stem cell research. --RWR8189 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I added 'staunch' and 'unabashedly'! Does that mean I'm a great guy? :-) I'm fine with your wording. - FAAFA (standing up for conservatism!) 02:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we end this dispute and still provide documentation on every vote he has taken by linking to a destination where they are all listed. Then we can make a one sentence mention of his voting record and bring in all of his votes, publicity stunts or not. --BenBurch 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in god's name is the point of documenting every vote this has ever taken and will take in the future? How much air do people want to pump into an article about a freshman congressman? It would be like describing a Hollywood character actor's every guest role in every one of their TV series appearances. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much air do people want to pump into an article about a freshman congressman?

One might just as easily ask, "How much mustard gas do people want to pump into an article about a freshman congressman?" This article once appeared to be a repository for every criticism ever published on the Internet about Roskam. It needs balance. Balance can be provided by adding positive material about the congressman's legislative record. It is impeccably sourced and it is substantive legislative work. Dino 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, take a look at this version of the article. This is what it would take to balance the article. Votes on legislation, and particularly authoring major amendments to pending legislation that passed 400-3, is not "trivia." Your reverts are not supported by consensus and some would consider them vandalism. Please stop. Dino 12:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean, Hi! I think they are trival too. Congressmen are supposed to be doing just what Mr. Roskam did here. It is not significant in any way that would make it encyclopedic. Yes, it ought to warrant a newspaper story, maybe a column-inch or so, but not an entry in a biographical encyclopedia article. Also, please do not call a content dispute edit "Vandalism". Many people could have similarly called you a vandal for some of your edits and did not. OK? --BenBurch 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, we see paragraph after paragraph loaded with criticism from political opponents that is not notable. But it is defended vigorously. A biography about a legislator should contain his legislative record. Dino 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Calton's edit. Including the amendment is reaching. Not to mention the Glen Ellyn school thing. — goethean ॐ 15:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Glen Ellyn school thing" was removed days ago and is no longer an issue. Removing the legislative record of a legislator is an issue. Why is there room for every criticism published anywhere on the Internet, but no room for substantive legislative work by a legislator? It is ridiculous. Certain editors here remove everything positive, and shovel in everything negative. Then they wonder why I object and cordially direct their attention to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Dino 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but no room for substantive legislative work by a legislator? That would be for the simplest of reasons: there isn't any. The guy has been in office for a month, and dredging up the most trivial items and buffing them up doesn't make them part of any "substantive legislative work". You have a problem with the negative material? Deal with it instead of trying to gin up some phony "balance". --Calton | Talk 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be for the simplest of reasons: there isn't any.

Authoring an amendment to a bill that passed 400-3 isn't substantive? Where the amount of money spent by the amendment is $10 million, but won't cost taxpayers a dime? Calton, if I try to "deal with the negative material," I'll have an edit war on my hands with Goethean and Propol. And I am fresh from another page where two other editors were defending non-notable partisan criticism like the Japanese at Iwo Jima, so pardon me for suffering from combat fatigue. If you're going to dig in your heels and insist that the legislative record of a legislator must be removed, can you help me form a consensus that the non-notable partisan criticism needs to be removed? Dino 17:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no that is not substantive. Some bills are just not bills anybody can vote against and not look like a bad guy, and this was one of them. Almost any amendment to this bill would have sailed right through. And which article were you referring to where you were re-fighting Iwo-Jima? Also, please do try to AGF with respect to Geothean and Propol. I see no propensity on their part to edit war. --BenBurch 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authoring an amendment to a bill that passed 400-3 isn't substantive? Nope, no matter how muh air you try to pump into it with that vote total: what part of "amendment" is giving you trouble? And $10 million out of a nearly $3 trillion federal budget doesn't even rise to the level of a rounding error. --Calton | Talk 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Ten million won't even buy a single research facility, much less staff it. --BenBurch 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Balance" does not equal neutrality. NPOV is achieved by ensuring that the article is written and presented neutrally and that items included are given their due weight and cited using reliable sources. We do not inflate the importance of minor, potentially flattering events because an article contains too much unflattering material. I have no idea if this is encyclopedic or not, but it certainly is a legitimate matter for debate here, and concluding that it is too trivial for inclusion and removing it certainly is not vandalism, but a legitimate content edit. References to vandalism are unhelpful and potentially insulting.

With that said, on Wikipedia articles often focus on controveries, especially more recent ones, at the expense of a substanital discussion of a person's workaday accomplishments. This is a frequent problem here, as people find it easier and more interesting to write about more recent and flashier events. In the case of a legislator, their legislative accomplishments are certainly something that usually gets ignored or underexamined. But in the case of a newly-elected legislator like Roskam, there simply aren't any accomplishments to write about yet. Perhaps the disputed material could be included in a more condensed form if the editors here can look past their differences and forge a mutually acceptable version. Or perhaps an area for everyone to consider expanding could be Roskam's career as a state legislator. Gamaliel 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that. I have looked at his voting record so far and there is nothing even remotely notable in it. This is why I suggested a one sentence link to a source where his record is being documented. (I'll have to find one, but I am sure it exists.) High points of his state record would be a great addition to this article. Dean? Care to research that? --BenBurch 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found such a source and made that edit. --BenBurch 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to my past experiences with two of these editors, I am seeking formal mediation of this issue. You may all expect to see formal notices on your Talk pages within the hour. Dino 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but can you not se how wholly out of proportion this is? I am trying to work with you and to make suitable edits to this article. But if you want mediation, go for it. --BenBurch 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it. I think the article needs to be pared down considerably. IMHO there's way too much stuff on the campaign. The campaign is over. Keep the notable stuff, but parts like listing the dates and TV stations that featured the debates need to go. I'm not sure what purpose that ever served. - FAAFA 23:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the WP:BIO/N folks seem to think the article is much, much too long for the importance of its subject. We need to keep the debates ONLY where they are used to support other material in the article. What do you think, Dean? We'd really like to engage you in actual discussion here. --BenBurch 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I put his Congressional votes in the wrong section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No objection. Dino 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good Article Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote 40: H R 6: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act No

Vote 39: H R 6: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act No

Vote 38: H R 6: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act Yes

Vote 37: H R 6: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act No

Vote 36: H RES 66:Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act No

Vote 35: H RES 66: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act No

1 yes vote and 5 no votes. Quite a record of being 'green' and standing up to 'big oil', huh ? LOL ! The truth comes out. - FAAFA 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

{post from sock removed}

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

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

I will gently remind Calton that this article was over 6,300 words on Election Day, and that I've gone through it with a chainsaw already to get it under 3,000. However, Calton and FAAFA have failed miserably at the one thing upon which Wikipedia depends most of all: gaining consensus. For that reason, the material should stay. Dino 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{post from sock removed}

It appears that FAAFA has triggered the latest round of revert warring. No surprises there. And a brand-new user jumps in with his very first edits being in support of you -- no surprises THERE, either.

If Calton feels that authoring and introducing an amendment to legislation that passed 400-3 should be removed, then every legislative vote the man ever cast should be removed from this article, and the entire article should be gutted because everything the man ever did consists of "grossly trivial factoids."

Careful, all that straw in your strawmen can be pretty flammable. If you're ready to make a reality-based counter-argument based on what's actually been said instead of what's inside your head, I'll be waiting. --Calton | Talk 02:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's at the public library, sir. They still have paper copies of the February 8 edition. You don't have to figure out the microfilm projector yet, sir. Of course, you'd have to get out of your chair and step away from the computer for a little while ... But before you go to all that trouble, sir, I will again cordially direct your attention to WP:BLP, specifically the section about using the subject as a source. The Roskam news release, as verified by the Congressional Record at the Library of Congress, should be sufficient [offensive remarks removed]. Dino 11:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last crack was unnecessary. Keep it civil. If you have the text of the article, provide it as a courtesy to other editors. If you don't, say you don't, and keep it at that. Gamaliel 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the text of the article in front of me. It's a newspaper; since I live in the area, I get the newspaper. However, no one will believe me if they can't click on a Daily Herald link (without paying one cent) and see it with their own eyes. The article is available from the Herald archives online, but you'd need a credit card and it will cost $2.98. Anyone want to spend $2.98? Dino 19:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just say "I read it in the newspaper, but the article is not accessible for free online"? Why is that so hard? Gamaliel 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one claiming that the article says something about the energy bill in question. The title is about Global Warming. Since youre claiming it mentions the energy bill, you must have a copy, so post the relevent text. Go for it, and we'll judge. Maybe it's one sentence, like "Roskam who has taken $133,765 from energy companies has voted for only one energy bill, and thinks Global Warming is a hoax" $133,765 See the Oscars last Hinnen? AL GORE !- FaAfA 12:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[offensive comment removed] FaAfA 12:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was way out of line. Don't do it again. Gamaliel 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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