| Revision as of 16:49, 28 June 2006 editGoethean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users40,563 edits →Campaign censorship / advocacy← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:48, 19 December 2024 edit undoJevansen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,308,263 editsm add to WP:US State LegislaturesTag: AWB |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{activepol|Candidate for the Federal Legislature, lower house, 2006, possibly competitive district}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=activepol|class=B|listas=Roskam, Peter| |
|
==Deletions== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Low|auto=inherit}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=Mid|old-peer-review=yes|politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
I noted Tom DeLay is facing criminal charges. ] seems to take exception to this and has made multiple edits to delete this fact. I realize this article is focused on Roskam; however, I strongly believe this is a relevant point. Roskam previously worked for DeLay. Roskam has received funding from DeLay. Roskam has recently spoken in support of DeLay, with his quotes appearing in mainstream publications, such as the Chicago Sun Times. Roskam's own behavior has made Tom DeLay an issue. This is going to be a campaign issue that Democrats will raise. It is inappropriate to ignore this. In the future, please discuss prior to making edits on the DeLay issue. Thanks. 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|USSL=yes|USSL-importance=low|importance=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Illinois|importance=Low}} |
|
], why are you deleting sourced information from the article ( |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=Low|subject=Person}} |
|
)? — ] ] 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{To do|1}} |
|
If you want to have a section on contributers and list them specificly, in order to keep the article written from a NPOV, list all of the contributers not just the ones that could make Roskam look bad to some people. Secondly Tom Delay being under indictment has no bearing on the article whatsoever, all it serves to do is bias the article against Roskam. --] 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{DelistedGA|15 March 2007}} |
|
|
|
|
:I agree about the Delay phrase, and did not add it (an anonymous editor did). But you are wrong about the contributors. These are contribution inforamtion that one editor found notable. If you find other contributions notable, add more information rather than deleting. — ] ] 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You have again information. I will put it back in the article for a third time. — ] ] 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
], you deleted information about Judy Biggert's criticisms of Peter Roskam's support of gambling and tobacco interests. You stated the article is about Roskam. I think criticisms of Roskam's positions by another elected official is relevant. Would it be better form to mention the criticisms without attributing them to Representative Biggert? Your assistance in presenting the material in an appropriate matter would be appreciated. {{unsigned|68.78.137.41}} |
|
|
:I have now replaced the information that was deleted. What I meant to delete (and did) was the fact that Duckworth accepted money from PACs. Hence my edit summary that this article is about Roskam. It could have been a database burp. — ] ] 20:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
], didn't you say this aricle was about Roskam? Why is McSweeney's criticisms of Kathy Salvi relivant?--] 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's a fair point. But I would appreciate discussion for future deletions, as some of your edits have been borderline vandalism. — ] ] 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the phrase which calls Joe Dunn a social conservative from the article, just because Joe Dunn may be more conservative than some on social issues does not make him a social conservative over all--] 22:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the reference to a poll conducted by the Windy City Times (a publication for homosexuals). Putting poll results in the article by a gay publication on an issue such as this is akin to putting results from an NRA sponsored poll saying a majority of Americans disagree with an assult weopons ban, The Windy City Times clearly is not impartial on this issue--] 21:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Instead of deleting sourced information, I would recommend leaving both the poll and the source in, and trust readers to interpret the results. — ] ] 21:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you can find poll results by a more impartial source put them in there, but if a user has to rely on questionable sources to make the point they want, I feel it is best left out of the artice.--] 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Please ]. If you can find another poll that measured the same opinion, please include it. — ] ] 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't think poll results from the Windy City Times should be automatically excluded because they're a publication geared towards homosexuals. They are a legitimate newspaper. Granted their editorial positions are likely in favor of gay rights; however, this doesn't discredit their polling or reporting. The Chicago Tribune has consistently endorsed Republican Presidentail candidates throughout recent history. That doesn't mean their criticism of a Democratic candidate should be dismissed without consideration. I'll live with your deletion. The reason I'm going to let it go -- I'm afraid too many readers will have a similar reaction as you did and reject the findings due to the source. Instead I noted business groups, such as the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, were in support of the legislation. I hope this conveys the legislation does have a broad-based appeal. There are several traditionally Republican groups that backed this legislation (and many others who quietly stood to the side so it could be passed). {{unsigned|68.78.68.74}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Language == |
|
|
|
|
|
is unhelpful. AMT "relief" is empty rhetoric, and Misplaced Pages is not in the business of propagating Republican propaganda. We need a word that explains what "relief" means in this context rather than mindlessly repeating Republican talking points. Misplaced Pages would call the Bush tax cuts "tax cuts" rather than "tax relief" as the Republicans call them (or "taxes deferred" as an economist would). I attempted to insert a more descriptive word and was reverted. Please explain Roskam's position with meaningful language, if you can. For starters, is he in favor of ''increasing'' or ''decreasing'' the number of people who fall under the AMT? — ] ] 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] What source do you have that Roskam wants to increase the number of people that fall under the AMT or "expand" it. I do not have a complete knowlege of his exact position on it but from what I have gathered he does not want to change the number of people who would fall under the tax but cut it in totality. If his position cannot be explained in a more specific way would it be better if any referance to a position on the Alternative Minimum Tax be removed from the article?--] 22:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anglican == |
|
|
The AMiA only has an indirect affiliation with the Episcopal Church USA as they are both in communication with the Church of England--] 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your text was unclear about what your clause modified in my clause, so I changed it to the following: |
|
|
::''It has been described by the Anglican Journal as a "right-wing faction" of the Episcopal Church, although technically it is Anglican rather than Episcopalian.'' |
|
|
:— ] ] 22:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The only part quoted from the Anglican Church of Canada's article is "right wing" so I changed it to: ''"right wing" faction of the ].''--] 22:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Avoiding generalities== |
|
|
:''Roskam supports tort reform and fiscal responsibility'' |
|
|
|
|
|
What candidate does not claim to support "fiscal responsibility"? The phrase is meaningless without specifics. I suggest that we delete the phrase. — ] ] 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Norquist== |
|
|
] Norquist has not been convicted so your premice for reverting my edit, that ''"Roskam is supported by criminals"'' is invalid.--] 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Norquist == |
|
|
|
|
|
] has been the following information from the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Norquist has been criticized for aiding convicted lobbyist ] as a financial conduit.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Norquist, a Roskam supporter, laundered money for a convicted criminal. This is not notable or related? — ] ] 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The criticisms of Grover Norquist are fair game. Roskam chose to accept support from Norquist; had he declined it wouldn't be an issue. It doesn't matter if Norquist has been convicted or not. There is a reliable source (Washington Post) that voiced a criticism. That is an objective fact. 18:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==NPOV Dispute== |
|
|
Roskam is a candidate in a highly disputed congressional race. There is a consistent bias (often from a user who doesn't use a username) erasing or altering any information that reflects positively on Roskam, and inserting information that is biased, innacurate, or irrelevant. Some examples include: frequently using biased blogs as sources, including (and reinserting if deleted) personal and obvious slams and jokes such as the comment from Rick Carney (link 38) and the comment at link 17. In addition, sections such as the distant chain of connection with Exelon (link 47) and the CWF's trouble with the FEC, which was declared by the FEC to not implicate Roskam's '98 campagin (link 32), are frequently added in even as properly validated comments are deleted. Allowing both sides' comments to remain, as long as they list good sources is important, as is accurately reflecting the information in the sources instead of only listing half of the source's comments. For example, in the Chicago Tribune article on Gun Control, the unknown user inserted complaints about Roskam's legislation restricting gun purchase, but ignored the part of the article that noted that Roskam also introduced new legislation strengthening important gun control. When this information was inserted, the user properly erased an innacurate part of it, but also erased the entire part about Roskam's beneficial gun control actions, allowing only one side to be heard. Such actions have been occuring consistently for weeks, and even months. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Campaign censorship / advocacy== |
|
|
I am concerned about a couple of users. Perhaps they are new, so I will try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think ]'s conduct has been questionable. All of his/her edits have been to the Peter Roskam article. Verify ]'s contributions . Many of the edits have been deletions of sourced information. Several of the additions cite Roskam's campaign web site as the sole source. Aside from basic biographical information, I think it would be best not to use such a site. See reliable sources. Lastly, information was been presented in a highly biased manner, i.e. noting Roskam received a 100% rating from an environmental group two years ago, but neglecting to mention he received a 67% rating in 2005 and only 40% in 2003. I try to remain open-minded, but it comes across as the work of a campaign operative. I'm hopeful that this conduct will improve. Just so you know, I'm not opposed to information favorable to Roskam. I just think it needs to be done properly. A more recent edit, noting Roskam has voted for tax cuts and providing a link to the Illinois General Assembly is much better form. ] 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You both need to read ]. These accusations aren't really actionable from the point of view of Misplaced Pages. Campaign workers are free to edit articles (although several have been embarrassed, and have even resigned, over press coverage of their actions). Comment on contributions rather than on contributors. — ] ] 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
