Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:37, 24 July 2006

Template:Activepol

Deletions

I noted Tom DeLay is facing criminal charges. User:Tdl1060 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)

User:Tdl1060, why are you deleting sourced information from the article (

)? — goethean ॐ 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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. --Tdl1060 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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. — goethean ॐ 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You have again deleted information. I will put it back in the article for a third time. — goethean ॐ 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

goethean, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.137.41 (talk • contribs)

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. — goethean ॐ 20:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Goethean, didn't you say this aricle was about Roskam? Why is McSweeney's criticisms of Kathy Salvi relivant?--Tdl1060 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. — goethean ॐ 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--Tdl1060 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--Tdl1060 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. — goethean ॐ 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.--Tdl1060 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If you can find another poll that measured the same opinion, please include it. — goethean ॐ 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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.68.74 (talk • contribs)

Language

This edit 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? — goethean ॐ 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Goethean 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?--Tdl1060 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--Tdl1060 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.

— goethean ॐ 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 Anglican Church.--Tdl1060 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. — goethean ॐ 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Goethean Norquist has not been convicted so your premice for reverting my edit, that "Roskam is supported by criminals" is invalid.--Tdl1060 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Norquist

User:Tdl1060 has been deleting the following information from the article:

Norquist has been criticized for aiding convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff as a financial conduit.

Norquist, a Roskam supporter, laundered money for a convicted criminal. This is not notable or related? — goethean ॐ 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.

Reader5 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment by Rick Carney (currently link 38), while it is a joke, does serve to illustrate an important point - that Roskam has relocated on multiple occasions to advance his political career. He has moved between Wheaton, Naperville, etc. Perhaps a more formal discussion of Roskam's changes in residence would be better. I will look into this.

I believe Roskam's connection to Exelon (currently links 46 and 47) is valid. Roskam has chosen to accept, on multiple occasions, from a company accused of nuclear pollution. It was recently announced that in addition to Braidwood, Exelon had tritium leaks at the Dresden plant in Morris, IL and at a third plant (now closed) in Zion, IL. The fact that several communities near the 6th Congressional District have been affected makes it of particular interest.

The FEC violation by the Campaign for Working Families does not implicate Roskam directly (currently link 32). You are correct, and I think subsequent edits were appropriate. What the article now states seems fair and there is a reliable source (the FEC). It is still of relevance because the conduct of Roskam's supporters reflect upon him.

Reader5 where I disagree with you the most is in regards to the criticisms of Roskam's gun position. You feel that other editors have attempted to suppress the fact that Roskam supported closing the gun-show loophole. However, he only voted for this in a piece of legislation that called for the destruction of records for firearm purchases. Nearly every gun-control organization was opposed to this. Roskam could have authored legislation closing the gun-show loophole, without calling for record destruction. Roskam and his supporters have tried to illustrate this as a balanced compromise, but gun-control advocates and independent observers, such as the Chicago Tribune, believe it to be a Red herring. There are always political games (both parties are guilty) where Bill A (i.e. banning murder) is amended in a contradictory or unrelated manner (i.e. repeal all environmental regulations), so that if a legislator votes against the bill, the authors can claim the opposing politician supports murder. This is an obvious logical fallacy. So if you wish Reader5 to include Roskam's support of the legislation closing the gun-show loophole, that's fair (as long as you provide a proper source), but realize others (possibly myself) will edit further to show Roskam's support may have been disingenuous. I will of course cite proper sources.

I intend to remove the NPOV check tag in a few hours, unless you make specific recommendations as to what should be changed and what the revised language should be. Thank you.

Propol 18:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. In response to the Exelon point, I disagree in a few places. First of all, the fact that issues such as the Tritium leak at the Braidwood plant occurred outside the sixth district is important. Roskam and Major Duckworth are both running to represent the sixth district, not the surrounding communities. In addition, one of the founders of Exelon is Congressman Rahm Emanuel, one of Major Duckworth's main supporters. However, no one is posting on Duckworth's wikipedia entry that she is therefore responsible for, or even connected to Exelon and its dispute involving the Braidwood plant, even though she recieved support in approximately equal connection to it as Roskam did. We all realize that, without further data, such a connection is extremely tenuous.

With respect to the gun control law, Roskam's action was in fact paralleling federal law. Just like federal law held that federal agencies had to destroy NICS (National Instant Check System) records within 24 hours, federal law also required that non-federal government groups destroy NICS records as well (though not specifically within 24 hours). Illinois has its own instant check system in addition to the NICS system. However, Roskam's legislation simply paralleled the rules for the NICS which specifically prohibited using firearms background checks to establish a firearms registration system nationally or in the states. At the same time, the legislation he introduced recognized that the police might need the records for longer than just one day. The Illinois legislation still allowed police some time to use the records (90 times longer than the federal government allowed its own agencies to keep records) while preventing the state government or its subparts from invading citizens' privacy. This legislation in now way interfered with Illinois law requiring all gun owners to have a Firearm Owner's I.D. card, allowing police to still have a good idea who possessed firearms.

Reader5 02:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Exelon issue, I understand your point (it's only tangentially linked), but I think it should remain. Per FEC records, Roskam accepted donations directly from Exelon and Duckworth did not. Roskam received donations from Exelon's PAC (typical) but he also received donations from CEO John Rowe and other senior officers, which is less typical and suggests more of a relationship. I don't think the geographical location (outside the district) of Exelon's tritium leaks invalidates it as a campaign issue. Nuclear pollution would be an issue even if it were occurring outside the United States. By the way, if you want to document a Rahm Emanuel / Exelon link, I think that would be fair for Rahm's page. All politicians should be accountable for whom they accept support from. I would like to reach a consensus. Are there any edits that I can make to the paragraph on the Exelon issue that would make you more comfortable? What are your thoughts? Thanks. Propol 04:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On the gun issue, forgive me, but I'm going to poke a little fun at you. What, a Republican arguing for privacy rights? Isn't that a little inconsistent with other positions (abortion) held by Roskam? OK, all teasing aside, I'll think over a more serious response and post tomorrow. Propol 04:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• grins* First of all, believe it or not, I'm an independent. Second of all, in return: What? A Democrat arguing against privacy rights? Isn't that a little inconsistent with complaints about NSA wiretapping and the like held by Democrats (or Duckworth - can't say I actually know what she's said on that issue)? More seriously, I don't have time to write on the Exelon issue right now, but I'll try to get back to the page on that soon. Reader5 19:20, 29 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 User:Reader5's conduct has been questionable. All of his/her edits have been to the Peter Roskam article. Verify User:Reader5's contributions here. 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. 204.16.84.50 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You both need to read Assume good faith. 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 one has even resigned, over press coverage of their actions). Comment on contributions rather than on contributors. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Well, it would appear some ax grinding from some here... looking at the way the article is written right now , it appears rather negative and not true NPOV. We can agree this needs better balance. The concept of NPOV is lacking right not. I am willing to assume "good faith" but there seems to be little in this article right now and from the posters to this wiki article.

--Joehazelton 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that the article is unbalanced. What exactly is unbalanced about it?

If you remove the DCCC link again, I will report you to an administrator for violating the three revert rule. The only reason that you have not been reported, and possibly blocked, already is because you appear to be a new user who may be unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages rules. Please read Misplaced Pages's policy on external links. — goethean ॐ 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The DCCC is a blog and not relavent due to the fact is full of opinions and political axgrinding... my question is Why should this link be here? Misplaced Pages's policy on external links --Joehazelton 05:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will report you as well .... I am familiar with the concept of NPOV and this article very much lacks it Let the admin see it for what is is and rule. --Joehazelton 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the DCCC websitre shouldn't be here, then why should Roskam's website be here? They are both biased. The answer, of course, is to include both sides for balance. At Misplaced Pages, we don't endorse one side or they other by only presenting links that exemplify one side. — goethean ॐ 14:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV DISPUTE edit

Joe's edit

• Why did you delete the picture of Roskam and Cheney? I think that it is quite notable that a State Senator has the support of the vice president of the United States.

• Why did you delete the picture of Roskam's Chicago Tribune ad? It is certainly relavent to this article. You seem to be embarrassed by Roskam's career as a lawyer. Furthermore, the picture that you uploaded has no source information while the two pictures that you deleted have complete file information. This reason alone is reason enough to keep the two original pictures instead of yours.

• Why did you delete the description of the types of cases that Roskam's law firm handles? That is quite relavent to understanding his career. If it is inaccurate, please replace the wording with more accurate wording.

• Why did you delete Republican Rick Carney's comments about Roskam's political career? They are accurate and sourced. Please do not deleted well-sourced information from articles. This is considered vandalism.

• You can't just insert a quotation from a blog without any introductory explanation or formatting. People won't know that it is a quotation. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV DISPUTE

First off, I believe you have bias and edit this article as well at the Tammy Duckworth article with a very left leaning agenda and a political ax to grind. With that, I have begun to take a look at your heavy hand on this wikiarticle and the first question I ask, directly, is - are you an “official” admin or just some one who as taken it upon them self to sit on this article and keep out,control and steer the content of this article though the clever use of semantics and augment for your own agenda in mind.? What makes you have the right? I have seen your hand in this article thought the weeks in the logs and I have begun to compile them, and with time, I will be able to prove my point, but for now, I will assume good faith and engage you in this discussion.

Don't waste your time trying to prove bias. Assume good faith is an official Misplaced Pages policy enforcable by ban.— goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I am new to the wiki way in dealing with this type of discussion but I would like to formally declare this article to be bias and have is so noted on the top of this article until this is resolved. I plan to look in this and add that banner on this article as soon as I am able to figure out how and who I have to go to get that done. With that I will engage these points you bring out.

• Why did you delete the picture of Roskam and Cheney? I think that it is quite notable that a State Senator has the support of the vice president of the United States — goethean ॐ

I remove the picture because, first and foremost this a biography about Pete Roskam not Dick Cheney…. So it is my opinion at the picture should be nice picture one of Pete not the small, fuzzy one of Roskam and Cheney. If you must, the picture can be in the article some were in the campaign 2006 section. Further more, I got the picture I scanned from goverment web site which I forgot. I know it s public domain and will find the copyright... untill then there was a grace peroid of 7 days, I belive with wikipidia before such copyright had to be established.

Apart from Cheney's low poll numers, there's no reason why the Cheney picture should be removed, and if you remove it, I will revert you. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Why did you delete the picture of Roskam's Chicago Tribune ad? It is certainly relevant to this article. You seem to be embarrassed by Roskam's career as a lawyer. Furthermore, the picture that you uploaded has no source information while the two pictures that you deleted have complete file information. This reason alone is reason enough to keep the two original pictures instead of yours. — goethean ॐ

The reason is simple, first I have lived in the Chicagoland area all my life and find the writings of Eric Zorn to by highly political and crusading hack with a well known personal hatred for most of the Dupage Republican office holders, which dates back twenty years. Hardly a source of NPOV. Second Eric Zorn is a “Columnist” running a “BLOG SITE” and that alone would disqualify him as a “reliable” source for “unbiased” information about the good or bad on Peter Roskam and all Dupage Republican office holders for that matter. Eric Zorn, in my opinion, anything he writes is not be trusted and to be highly bias.

Your opinion of Eric Zorn is irrelevant. Zorn works for a little paper you might have heard of called the Chicago Tribune. If statements are correctly cited to the source of thev statement, you cannot remove them. I will link you to the appropriate Misplaced Pages policy — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Why did you delete the description of the types of cases that Roskam's law firm handles? That is quite relevant to understanding his career. If it is inaccurate, please replace the wording with more accurate wording. — goethean ॐ

I removed because of the elaboration of what a PI attorney does...

"...a personal injury firm which handles cases such as automobile accidents and injuries, medical malpractice, bodily injury, slips & falls, dog bites, pedestrian injuries, and wrongful death..."

...is redundant and waste of the readers time and space. That’s like saying a truck driver steers, accelerates , brakes and stop to eat at truck stops… this is irrelevant and its just in there to build a red herring based on many people's distorted perceptions of a PI (personal injury) attorneys and what they do. You have it there to try to portray Peter Roskams law firm as “ambulance chasers” and to try to build a red herring based that negative, distorted perceptions many people have of PI work.

The text you have a problem with is from Roskam's website. It is his own words describing his law office. It is relevant and sourced and as such should not be removed. I will revert any removal of sourced and relevant information from this article. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Why did you delete Republican Rick Carney's comments about Roskam's political career? They are accurate and sourced. Please do not deleted well-sourced information from articles. This is considered vandalism. — goethean ॐ

Vandalism, You throw that word around a lot… I consider your “edits” be “vandalism” … a smooth writing vandal but a vandal all the same…. What makes your opinion any better than mine. Stop using that word in the contexts of this discussion, it is patently wrong and out of context of this discussion. I remove the comments because they add nothing because they are minor "quips" and are irrlavent to the 2006 campaign.

The difference is that Misplaced Pages policy is on my side, not yours. Again: the deletion of sourced relevant information from the article is vandalism. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• You can't just insert a quotation from a blog without any introductory explanation or formatting. People won't know that it is a quotation. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just balancing by the July 12,2006 House Race Hotline Update: Experience Countsthe article I posted.

Just the fact that Eirc Zorn commments predominats this article and is allowed to have such a high profile, considering that Eirc Zorn is well known in the Chicago/Dupage County area for his axe grinding and “Highly Editorialized” column in the Tribune, and his well known, personal hatred for most Dupage County elected officials is grounds alone to depute NPOV of this article.

I added a link to a Norwestern Universty Medill School of Journalism Professor's website with his opinions about Eric Zorn's and the Libel lawsuit against the Chicago Tribune for a little background on Eric Zorn's "point of view" --69.220.184.129 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In closing, I feel you are just steering this article to just to build red herrings, strawmen and guilt by association with a left agenda in mind. Any honest look this article can see that. NPOV is lacking.

I will look into getting “Neutrality is in dispute” banner stuck on this article unless you can give compelling reasons why it should not be done.--Joehazelton 05:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)--69.220.184.129 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)--69.220.184.129 12:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about: There is no bias. You are free to add whatever sourced, relevant information to the article that you want. What you did with the hotline blog was to simply cut-and-paste material from a website. That is not allowed, because it basically makes Misplaced Pages redistribute copyrighted information, an act for which Misplaced Pages could get sued. I don't want that, so I will delete copyrighted info from the article. You have to re-write it accurately yourself. — goethean ॐ 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Playing nicely

Let's all calm down a bit. Throwing around accusations of bias doesn't accomplish anything, won't improve the article, and just poisons the atmosphere, getting in the way of productive, cooperative editing. I see some valid points all around that are being lost in the static. If you think you see bias, comment on the content and do not attack the contributor. Gamaliel 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

GamalielI have no problem with playing "nicely" as long as goethean stops name calling by using "vandalism" for my legitimate edits as well as using wiki-tricks to get his way and personally discredit me with out a fair,unbais, and good faith discussions on this article about Peter Roskam and his current run for the US congress

I found this in the wiki policy and it this part read....

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons... should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view....

As a side note, I consider Eirc Zorn and his writings to be an example of "Extreme" Advocacy Journalism. Which, even though Eric works for the WGN (worlds greatest newspaper) that newspaper has been wrong many times and also been sued for libel on a number of occasions.

I wonder how this would apply to Peter Roskam and his contested campaign for the 6th congressional district of Illinois and the fact that Democrats are "pulling out the stops" to win this.

also, it should be factually noted that goethean has been very active on the Tammy Duckworth article and it should be also noted that it seems that Goethean likes to put up negative "stuff" on the Roskam's article and not so quick do the same with the Duckworth article? Why is that? would that imply a bias editor or agenda? Now, I am reading Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines and wonder how it would apply in this case of apparent bias?

For referance I found this as well:

Malicious editing

Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association....

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

In closing, I hope to see the principles of fair play, ( tricky rule manipulation to allow a hack job stay up may be "by the rulz" but is it really NPOV?) and not allow a trash and bash article for this honorable man stay up.

--Joehazelton 01:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care for it when people label edits they disagree with as "vandalism" and I think goethean should immediately cease doing that. However, you are responsible for how you act and your good behavior should not be contingent upon the actions of others. Accusations of bias and bigotry are even more inappropriate and do just as much to poison the atmosphere and inhibit collaborative editing. And such accusations could easily be turned around on you. How would you feel if you were accused of bias because of your desire to defend the reutation of "this honorable man"? We're not going to make any progress by throwing around accusations. Gamaliel 19:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted JoeHazelton's repeated deletion of sourced, relevant information from the article. You can see from his own words that he considers any airing of Roskam's dirty laundry here to be "bias", and "a hack job". He considers adherence to Misplaced Pages policy to be "tricky rule manipulation". There is nothing wrong with describing how Roskam's arguably misogynist religious sect differs from the mainstream Anglican and Episcopelian churches. The only reason that this sourced, relevant information has been deleted from the article is because his supporters are (rightly) ashamed of his religious position. I don't think that we should be taking JoeHazelton's personal embarrassment into account in the editing of this article. Honorable man, my ass. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Tags

Joehazelton I think you took the dubious tags a little far. There are a couple where I see your point. The joke by Rick Carney doesn't come across as encyclopedic, so I reworded it to express the criticism but remove the joke. The DCCC link also comes across as highly critical of Roskam, but that doesn't mean it should be automatically excluded. It would be a poor article if we only included links favorable or opposed to Roskam. In my opinion we should have a balance of both. I think the DCCC link should stay; it's an official organization, not just the blog of some random person, so it carries more weight than it otherwise might. To be fair though, I modified the description to note it is a site critical of Roskam. On some of your other concerns however, I do not share your concern. I don't know what is disputed about the description of Roskam's church. There is a properly cited source.

The problem if very simple, the description of Roskam's church and it's controversy is totally inappropriate and does not belong on the Peter Roskams article. The reasons are as follows:

First, the details of this controversy should be found on the cited article, Anglican Mission in America not here. A person can very very easily click the link and read all about it,having it cited here as well is redundant. It would appear though this bit of information is only to inflame and is absolutely against the principles of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and polices for articles on living persons Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons.

Second, It smacks of religious bigotry and should be removed on principle. Now Bigotry is a strong word, but what to you call trying to link a splinter sect actions and policies of the protestant church to which you belong to - to you? This has absolutely no relevancy to Peter Roskam or his 2006 campaign and has no business being in this article.

What it does shows is the agenda of some of the editors of this article and shows with out any doubt the bias, and lack of neutrality this article has.

--Joehazelton 07:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton I understand your point, but I don't agree. A discussion of Roskam's religious affiliation is not bigotry. He should be free to worship however he chooses, but the public also has a right to inquire about and discuss his beliefs. I think we can all acknowledge that religion influences politics. Roskam chose to attend an AMiA church. If there are any positions where he disagrees with the church's position, he is free to elaborate (i.e. a pro-choice Catholic). Also, you should note the original source (which you deleted) about Roskam's religious background was by Sun Times columnist Tom Roeser, a well-known movement Conservative. Mr. Roeser seemed to think it was relevant, and I highly doubt he is bigoted against Roskam. I think at least a brief discussion of Roskam's religious background is appropriate, and that goes for all other politicians as well. Propol 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Propol First, if Roskam makes a "on the record public statement" (any man including a public figure is entitled to a "private life" within a church of his choosing), published comments agreeing or disagreeing with his church policy, then it (maybe?) fair game, but trying to say "A" belong to "church B" and that "church B" has a sect "Sect C" and "Sect C" does this and that, without comment by Roskam, then its not relevant and sticking on the Roskam's article is only inflammatory and totally not NPOV. Second, where was the article by Tom Roeser? The only part I edited out was this...

...It is led by a bishop from Rwanda and aims to be an alternative to the Episcopal Church . It has been described by the Anglican Journal as a "right-wing faction" of the Anglican Church . The church opposes the ordination of women as priests or bishops, but supports ordaining women as deacons, and allows women ordained before the church decision to continue serving as priests. ....

Show me the Tom Roeser source? Its not any where to be found??? Besides any hay to be made with this Church should be done on the Anglican Church article and not on Roskam's article

--Joehazelton 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom Roeser was cited as a source. Please look above; I think you missed it. Also, I firmly believe that the religious faith of a politician is relevant since religion and politics influence one another. If Roskam were in some other field (i.e. business leader, author, etc.), I wouldn't think it would be relevant unless there was something exceptional. Propol 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that contradicts the article. I think the dubious tag should be deleted unless you can establish (with a source) that there is a factual error with the description. Also, the FEC investigation of the 1998 campaign clearly states the FEC did not conclude that the Roskam Campaign was at fault or complicit in CWF's error. There is a very solid source - the FEC. I think the dubious tag should be deleted. Lastly, I deleted the dubious tag for the article by Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn about Roskam. You may disagree with the premise or the conclusions of the article, but that doesn't mean you can exclude it. It is an objective fact that the Chicago Tribune, a respected newspaper with a Conservative editorial allegiance, chose to publish Zorn's article. Joehazelton - please save the dubious tag for documented factual errors, or highly questionable sources (i.e. John Doe's blog), and the like. I can tell you're passionate about this; that's okay, but lets work together. Thanks. Propol 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

PropolIt should be noted your presumption that the Tribune is a "Newspaper with "conservative Editorial Allegiance" on based on what the Tribune was in historical context ie... when The old Col. Robert R. McCormick ran the show there a long time ago... But the col is gone and Tribune is not that "Conservative" and more... quick proof of that is The Tribune consistent endorsements of Democratic Candidates for office as for example Barack Obama for US senator to Illinois was endorsed by the Tribune. --Joehazelton 21:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Joehazelton I agree with you that the political leanings of a newspaper can change over time, but I think it's still fair to say the Chicago Tribune is conservative. (It's Misplaced Pages article even says so.) Endorsing Barack Obama over Alan Keyes wasn't a shocker. Did any mainstream publication endorse Keyes? I'm not aware of any. Personally, I think the Sun Times has shifted to the right with columnists such as Robert Nowak, etc. The Sun Times even endorsed George W. Bush over Al Gore. I think that is far more of a shift. Propol 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any open issues regarding disputed items. (I want to add-back some of the discussion of Roskam's religious affiliation, but we can save that for another day.) In the mean time I plan to delete the POV tag from the article unless someone objects. Thanks. Propol 16:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Article talk header templates