| Revision as of 11:30, 8 August 2008 editKossack4Truth (talk | contribs)953 edits →Recent edits← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:48, 19 December 2024 edit undoJevansen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,428,595 editsm add to WP:US State LegislaturesTag: AWB |
| (47 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WPBiography |living=yes |class=B |priority=Mid |old-peer-review=yes |politician-work-group=yes |listas=Roskam, Peter|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=activepol|class=B|listas=Roskam, Peter| |
|
{{WikiProject Illinois |class=B |importance=Low|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Low|auto=inherit}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=Mid|old-peer-review=yes|politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{Project Congress|class=B|importance=Low|subject=Person|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|USSL=yes|USSL-importance=low|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Illinois|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=Low|subject=Person}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{To do|1}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{todo|1}} |
|
|
{{DelistedGA|15 March 2007}} |
|
{{DelistedGA|15 March 2007}} |
|
|
|
|
{| class="infobox" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!align="center"|]<br>] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recently removed and restored Education section. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think this section is properly sourced and proper for inclusion in the article. Please leave it. --] (]) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Restoring section contentiously deleted by {{user5|oldschooltool}}. I see no cogent argument advanced for omitting the sourced material. ] (]) 07:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Oldschooltool" has been sock-blocked. --] (]) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Heh. Now he is back as a IP. Its pretty clear he is likely an employee of Roskam. --] (]) 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I wonder in what capacity. Public relations? :D ] <small>(])</small> 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you think that's a for-real possibility I would try to find that out and then contact the office directly or through Misplaced Pages email. As much as it can be satisfying to vanquish a sockpuppet or COI editor, sometimes they have a real concern they just don't know how to express through the right channels. If they can calmly and rationally explain on this talk page, in English rather than Misplaced Pages policy arguments, why the material is unfair or wrong, then we can listen. Once or twice I've seen this work out to everyone's satisfaction. The alternative, if they get caught slanting their own article, is that some newspaper might pick this up and it becomes a PR embarrassment. There are a few cases of politician staffers being caught editing their own article, as most people remember. Could just be an enthusiatic (SIC)supporter though. ] (]) 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I made an attempt to find some period (1993) sources for this "expressly counsels for suicide" line and I found the following. 'Kids Could Lose Access to Books, Films On Suicide' Chicago Sun-Times. ], ] talks about an Illinois Senate Bill sponsored by Republican state senator ]. The bill was Senate Bill 779 and the expressly counsels for suicide line comes up in . It was also mentioned in: 'Suicide Bill Deserves to Lose' Chicago Sun-Times. May 3, 1993. (Highbeam states it was SB799, but it was 779 per transcripts). It's interesting to note that in the transcript the bill was supported by Democrat ] and opposed by Republican ]. It is also interesting to note that all the fuss seems to have been in regards to Senate Bill 779, but Roskam was in the Illinois House at the time. No similar discussions are found via a search of the House transcripts. Only one ref to suicide and that appears to be about assisted suicide. http://www.ilga.gov/previousga.asp?GA=88 is the search page for the 88th IL GA if someone else would like to take a look. I think the Sun Times editorials, which focus on the Republican controlled Senate (33R-27D) not the Democratic controlled House (67D-51R), indicate that this was an issue in the Senate on a bill Roskam could not have sponsored since he was in the House. If it is important to note a bill from 15 years ago that Roskam couldn't actually ever vote for, then maybe it should also be noted that Senator ] supported the bill and urged other senators to vote for it. --] (]) 04:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: lists the status of SB-0779 on page 61. The ] and Roskam, a member of the House, never voted for the bill. Is there anything that he actually voted on that can be added here instead? I'm not sure why we need to include this item from 1993, except that it was incorrectly characterized by his opponent in the last election per the sources listed in the education section. --] (]) 22:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Education III: Changes should be made as cited information is misleading and Esquire article is a repeat of Duckworth Ad. == |
|
|
|
|
|
OrangeMike, |
|
|
|
|
|
The Zorn and Green articles do not support what is said in the Wiki article. Zorn writes, "But Duckworth's campaign deserves the raspberry for its new TV commercial* that attempts to make voters think Roskam wants to ban the writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Dr. Seuss from public libraries:" . . .Parental objections focused on certain stories and poems included in the larger anthology volumes -- some of which the publisher removed for later editions. But according to stories in the news archives, the objections had nothing to do with King, Wilder or Seuss, and focused instead on such entries as "A Wart Snake in a Fig Tree," a parody of "The 12 Days of Christmas," and the poem "I'm So Mad I Could Scream!" that includes a first-person description of anger so intense the author could "beat up my mother and dad." |
|
|
|
|
|
The entry would need to indicate that Roskam objected to anthology volumes of Impressions that were in the Wheaton School District, not Arlington Heights. He did not want to remove Impressions as far as I can tell from the two cited articles, but parents did object to entries that parodied Christmas and talked about violence against parents by children. The Zorn article does not state that he specifically objected to these writings, but that parents did. It is not supported clearly what Roskam objected to or what specific bills he supported in the legislature. Show me what he co-sponsored in the legislature, otherwise this is virtual heresay. I will say that the suicide reference is cited by Biemer, but what did it say? He has never said nor have I seen reference to him saying that he would like to eliminate Romeo and Juliet or It's a Wonderful Life (One of my personal favorite movies of all time) which brings us to the Green article in Esquire. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Esquire article states, "...And he believes suicide is such a temptation to impressionable teens that he wants to strike all mention of it from public-school curricula--and, yes, that includes Romeo and Juliet and It's a Wonderful Life. He'll have to convince voters that he won't follow his party off a cliff." |
|
|
|
|
|
How did Green actually determine this? Did he ask the candidate? Obviously not: "While many of his views are standard-issue conservative--he's pro-life, antitax, and distrustful of the "liberal media" (he declined an interview)-" |
|
|
|
|
|
Please read the article here. Is it biased? It describes Duckworth as "heroic", a "Democratic fantasy", and Roskam as, "too conservative for the District," "Roskam's positions on social issues hew more toward rural Alabama than exurban Illinois." "He'll have to convince voters that he won't follow his party off a cliff." |
|
|
http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ1006ESQ100_208_2 |
|
|
|
|
|
'''So what we have and can prove is that: In 1993, Roskam sponsored a proposal in the Illinois Legislature to eliminate material in schools that "expressly counsels for suicide." Some opponents said it could have been applied to literature that some would categorize as an appropriate part of a schools curriculum.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the bolded material is a better representation of his views and his oppositions views. My hunch is that Green saw the TV commercial Duckworth put out there and wrote about it in his article, but show me where Roskam has ever said that he wants to eliminate Romeo and Juliet. |
|
|
|
|
|
-Love and Bubbles- |
|
|
Posted as a response to the wikidemo] (]) 02:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::I was being facetious. Joe is far too vulgar and abusive to be a public relations guy. You are right, he is likely just an overenthusiastic supporter whom Roskam would be embarrassed to be associated with. ] <small>(])</small> 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I would comment but no point feeding a troll.] (]) 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
===Re. the latest edit war=== |
|
|
It appears that this material contains something that is poorly sourced, i.e. that Roskam's 1993 legislative proposal would have banned Romeo and Juliette, and It's a Wonderful Life. Regarding the edit, there's no significant difference between wikilinking "suicide" or not, or between saying "some opponents" or "opponents" (which implies the same thing). Neither "some would categorize as an appropriate part of a schools curriculum" nor "are considered an appropriate part of a schools curriculum" are ideal. The former is imprecise and bedside the point - there's no support for or reason to get into a discussion of who characterizes what book as being appropriate for a school's curriculum. The latter is problematic because wikipedia is not in the business of making that declaration. "Generally considered" might be more apt, or simply leave hat out and say which books would be covered....or get to the point and say something more easily to support such as "commonly included in school curricula." Which takes us to the real issue, listing '']'' and ''].'' I don't believe the sources establish that the law would have banned those two books, and in fact the Roskam website itself quotes from one source as a demonstration that the criticism is overblown. All the sources I could find for this claim are essays and op ed pieces, hence not reliable. Repeating an unreliable accusation under the guise of saying that an opponent said it doesn't really cleanse it of sourcing concerns. Also, I note that this kind of argument is generally a fallacy. Person A proposes a law, and person B says "that law could be interpreted to ban motherhood, apple pie, and bicycles, therefore person A hates motherhood, apple pie, and bicycles." There's one general principle of legal construction that one cannot invalidate a law by taking a strained interpretation of it - one assumes the law would be interpreted reasonably. That's often in tension with the concept of vagueness and overbreadth In any event, determining whether a (proposed) law would ban a common book or not is tricky business not generally suited for analysis by blogs, editorialists, campaign opponents, etc. Best to simply say that some people criticized / opposed the proposal as banning commonly used curriculum books. |
|
|
|
|
|
That's quite apart from any editor's conduct here. There appear to be sockpuppetry allegations, incivility, apparent ] violation, inapt use of "vandalism", etc. I would caution anyone who's trying to insist on following Misplaced Pages policies that edit warring, acting rash hurts your ability to make a case more than it helps. ] (]) 16:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::''Also, I note that this kind of argument is generally a fallacy. Person A proposes a law, and person B says "that law could be interpreted to ban motherhood, apple pie, and bicycles, therefore person A hates motherhood, apple pie, and bicycles." '' |
|
|
:Straw man. When and where did the article claim that Roskam is against Shakespeare? All the article ever said was that Roskam's law would ban Romeo & Juliet. — ] ] 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's not properly sourced, and arguments of that sort are generally fallacious so it may well be unsourceable. ] (]) 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We are not here to judge the source material, are we? If the source says that, it says that. --] (]) 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Actually, we are. We don't just repeat anything we find in print. See ], ], etc. Claims made in article space, if likely to be challenged, must be sourced to reliable third party secondary sources. ] (]) 16:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Some googling turns up that exact comparison everywhere. I remain unconvinced, but you could convince me. Why don't you get the text of the proposed 1993 law and then we can see if its a justified comparison? --] (]) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I don't wish to edit war or advocate here because I don't want to get involved in a dispute, particularly not on the side of a contentious editor like we've had here in this article, just pointing out that the material isn't reliably sourced. I'm afraid the burden per BLP and RS is on the party proposing the inclusion of disputed content to source it and establish consensus. I have no doubt that lots of people used that comparison "if you pass this law it will ban Shakespeare". Such rhetoric was common during the period. If the claim itself is notable enough we could cover the claim and put it in context - and, for weight / NPOV reasons, any denial of the claim by the politician. If we wish to say that the law actually did ban shakespeare we would need some solid legal source - not our own analysis of the statute (though that's a useful reality check). Coming in between is hard to do - something of the "a blogger said that proposed law X has effect Y" is a weak source. I the blogger is Judge Kozinski sure. I it's a newspaper columnist or political advocate, no. ] (]) 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::] you appear to also be a sock of JoeHazelton, and I have added you to the process. --] (]) 17:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I've reverted. You're going to get yourself blocked with this nonsense. Cut it out.] (]) 17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Whoa, hold up Ben, I'm fairly certain Wikidemo is nobody's sock. ] (]) 17:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I'm happy to let checkuser decide that. I ask this fellow in good faith for research to decide the point and he insults me? And starts a WP-space article on legal threats IMMEDIATELY after the Hazelton sock makes some, and then REVERTS where I added him to the case, and then threatens me here? ] but I am happy to have checkuser prove me wrong. --] (]) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Wikidemo is an established editor with over 12,000 edits on a variety of topics since January, 2007. It took me less than 5 minutes to find this out. Ben, do a little research before you start throwing stones. --] (]) 17:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Way too much time on Misplaced Pages, I know. Wow, I was actually intrigued enough to do a little googling and was about to post on how the Romeo and Juliette stuff might actually be presented in a neutral way, but I don't think my help is wanted here. <nowiki><humor></nowiki> My ] article sure stuck it to those liberals! Perhaps I could get an endorsement that I'm a GOP POV pusher that I can use net time someone at the Barack Obama article accuses me of being an "Obama Campaign Volunteer" <nowiki></humor></nowiki> perhaps I'll return someday if the editing environment improves. ] (]) 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::When I offer to remove the material from the article (and was tending to doing it anyway) if the person objecting would give me some research, and I get insulted instead? And then the person reverts the checkuser addition that sort of insult prompted me to ask for? What am I supposed to think? I think that I asked only for what was reasonable that he find the text of the proposed law in question, and being insulted after that is not appropriate whatsoever. --] (]) 17:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::You're killing me here! Anyway, like I said, I might return here. Y'all got to stop flinging baseless allegations at each other first. ] (]) 18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Apology == |
|
|
|
|
|
It has been pointed out that I read Wikidemo's characterization of the blocked IP editor as being a characterization of myself. --] (]) 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Cool. Thanks. ] (]) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Now, seriously, how can we find the text of this proposed law? --] (]) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't know.... legislative history of the state. State archives? Online, maybe from a government office or a library within the state of Illinois. There must be lots of Wikipedians there with access. Or email / ask one of the journalists? Nevertheless, that's just a reality check and perhaps material to quote. We're not supposed to base legal conclusions on our own legal analysis....we need to find someone with some credibility and point to their analysis. Also, looking at the sources there may be grounds to say that the accusations themselves were of note, so se can indeed say that Roskam was criticized by commentators (or some comparable language - attacked in political TV ads, etc) on the claim that his legislation would ban Dr. Seuss, Shakespeare, etc. It doesn't look like a stray comment here or there. It seems he did face widespread opposition on the point (but he seems to deny it). The controversy can be reported as such if we find solid enough sourcing for it. These school book banning laws do seem to follow a familiar script. ] (]) 20:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
I posted my attempt to track this bill down ]. The bill was Senate Bill 779 and the expressly counsels for suicide line comes up in . Roskam may have been some sort of co-sponsor from the House, but he couldn't vote on a senate bill. The transcript shows some debate on it, the bill appears to have passed at least to its third reading, 44 Y, 3 N, and 9 present in the Republican controlled Senate (33R-27D), showing that it received bipartisan support. lists the status of SB-0779 on page 61, says it passed 3 readings but no conference and never left the Senate. It went ]. ] (D) who is now in the US House was in the IL Senate at the time and clearly supported this bill on page 62 as well as ] (D) on page 59. Republican ] was one of those opposed. Regardless of who supported and who didn't in the IL Senate, I don't understand how this Senate Bill, which Roskam could never vote since he was in the house, on is supposed to explain his "stance" on education. ] is in the US House and he actually voted for this thing saying Romeo and Juliet clearly did not apply to bill because of the "expressly councils for suicide" line that was added. If this is such an important issue, why is this not mentioned in ]'s article? The only reason this is in Roskam's article is because of the misleading campaign commercial from his opponent and not because it is any sort of reflection on his position on education, whatever that is. --] (]) 21:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks so much for that hard work. I am about to take my lovely, brilliant spouse to dinner, but I'll pore over that this evening and see if it matches what we've written here. I'll also use that as a cite. --] (]) 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::(ec)Thanks...I haven't read that transcript just yet. Did they read the bill aloud or do you know any way to find it? Anyway, based on the above it would be neutral and accurate to report that Roskam supported a measure to ban from schools books that expressly counseled for suicide (that's the word, right?). Although critics (opponents?) and a negative television ad claimed the measure would apply to such uncontroversial books as Romeo and Juliette, Doctor Seuss, It's a Wonderful World, and others, Roskam countered that the bill would not apply to these books because it was narrowly drawn only to apply to books that advocated suicide. The bill obtained some bipartisan support but ultimately failed. I don't know if I have it exactly right but some neutral account like that could be told. We then have a ] issue and another question of where to put it in the article if it's included. Is the bill, or the ongoing negative commentary, sufficiently notable as an issue in his professional life that it helps an encyclopedic understanding of the man to include it. If so, is that long explanation too much text and how could it be condensed while still being neutral? I'm not advocating any particular language, just tossing around what could be said assuming we accept Dual Freq's summary above. ] (]) 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::They did read it aloud but the full text is not in the transcript, starting page 56. One of my points is that Roskam was not in the Illinois Senate in 1993, he was in the House. This debate was about the Senate bill, I can't find a matching bill in the Democratic controlled House. I certainly think there is an issue of undue weight here. Maybe there is some current education issue that Roskam has voted on that can be included here. As I noted above, http://www.ilga.gov/previousga.asp?GA=88 is all that Illinois has online for the 88th GA, certainly full text is available at a library somewhere. I tried to search for house bills and debate in the house about suicide, but I found nothing similar. And the article I found about this referred to the debate in the Senate. --] (]) 22:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Without the full text I agree with you. If its found, that is another matter. Off to dinner. --] (]) 22:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Got 2008 campaign section started... == |
|
|
|
|
|
Have at it! --] (]) 04:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why this article is locked out? ] (]) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Massive trolling. Let me know what edits you want to make, and I can put them in for you. --] (]) 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Energy section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest that by {{user|Breakgrant}} be reverted. The quotation from a congressman from Texas has no relevance to Peter Roskam's biography. If Roskam made no statement regarding his vote, then we don't know why Roskam opposed the bill. — ] ] 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Roskam, of Wheaton, defended his vote against the price-gouging bill as a protection of the free market." I'm not familiar with this legislation except that DCCC ran ads against various incumbents based on their votes on it. Personally, I don't think the Texas quote is needed here, but some statement should be included as to why an opponent would oppose the bill. Something like "while opponents said is not and would be difficult to prove even if it occurred." from or similar. discussing price gouging and the difficulty they have in determining if it has occurred. I seem to recall an Illinois state prosecution against Casey's gen store, right after September 11, 2001, so there must already be something in place for Illinois. --] (]) 22:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I deleted the quote from the Texas congressman. There was nothing in it that was specific to Roskam. Roskam's opinion the matter amd his basis for it is already spelled out in the article. ] (]) 04:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
==Why Roskam's income needs to be listed?== |
|
|
|
|
|
I question the value of publishing, on Misplaced Pages, Roksam's Income, prior to his election to Congress. This is not done for any other biography of political office holders, then why should Roskam be treated any different by Wikipeida? Just because the some editorializing Tribune blogger wanted to take a cheap shot, it does not mean Wikipeida has to put up every little crufted, gossipy detail written by some blogger. See ]. ] (]) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I, too question the relevancy and appropriateness of this information to the article. Just because it is source (by a blog), doesn't mean it belongs here. --] (]) 15:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The source is the Chicago Tribune, clearly a reliable source. The incomes / net worth of political candidates are frequently discussed and notable because they impact their ability to contribute to their own campaigns, aka self funding. Many politicians share copies of their tax returns, frequently attracting considerable media coverage. Also, Roskam is a ] and therefore is not entitled to the same expectation of privacy. There is nothing injurious about disclosing Roskam's income; it would be different if information such as a social security number were included in the article. ] (]) 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Actually, it was published in the blog of a Tribune columnist, not the printed newspaper. --] (]) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I believe that is an incorrect statement; the article was published in the print edition of the Chicago Tribune, in addition to appearing in the Tribune's blog (which is still subject to editorial review anyway). Furthermore, I haven't heard anyone dispute the accuracy of the information presented. ] (]) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Why is this so important that wikipeida must publish this mans income for 2005??? Just because a crusading blogger, who works for the Tribune, needs to publish minutia, does not mean it's Encyclopedic in content ] ]. Why is this information not found on other Northern Illinois office holders?. Why only Roskam's? What value is this information, other than salacious gossip. Any finally why, so vigorously oppose this? ] (]) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Wow --- $615,000 is minutia? You must be loaded! — ] ] 17:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
There are two points of relevancy. First, $615K is a lot of income for a lawyer - it puts him in league with large law firm partners and very successful independent lawyers. The exact amount is not important, but the fact that he is extremely successful is. It's like noting that someone plays for a pro basketball team instead of just pick-up basketball. If there's a better way to say that, it would be fine, but simply naming the firm and saying he is a partner does not convey that. Second, as noted it affects his personal ability to contribute to his campaign and overall wealth (which is relevant to a politician). Again, however, the exact amount is not that relevant. Moreover, his income for a single year does not indicate whether he is wealthy or not. $600K in a year is very small compared to the overall cost of financing a major campaign these days so, without more, the term is meaningless. Overall, I think the mention is spurious and relies on innuendo or ] to get to the point of relevancy to the article. However, the subject matter might be worth mentioning if there is a better ] that ties this more directly to his notability as a lawyer and politician. ] (]) 20:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just to follow up, Republicans have made an issue of opposing "trial lawyers", and Roskam obviously is one. That could affect his position on so-called ]. Again, though, that's innuendo unless we have reliable sources that describe the relevance. ] (]) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There used to be a Chicago Tribune article connecting the riches that Roskam made off of personal injury claims to his tort reform promises. It must have been removed by our various Republican friends and their sockpuppets. About a year ago, partisans the article of anything that they deemed negative. — ] ] 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Material like that can go into the child article: ]. As a matter of fact, that's exactly where it went. ] (]) 03:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I think it's fair to mention that he is a proponent of tort reform despite earning a living as a personal injury plaintiff (but we would have to cite it and it would have to be notable either as a life event or a major criticism of his policy, not just ], a POV attack, ]boxing, or trivia) ] (]) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Recent edits== |
|
|
|
|
|
I have removed several non-notable criticisms of Roskam per ]. Please review. ] (]) 01:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Just a suggestion, Cactusframe: try discussing it here per ] before putting that "poker rights blogger" back into a ]. If we include every criticism about a politician from every blogger and every opponent's campaign manager, Misplaced Pages would occupy half the Internet and the bloggers and campaign managers would occupy the other half. It isn't notable. No matter what a politician does, there will be some blogger somewhere who is displeased. |
|
|
|
|
|
:As a hypothetical example, if the Duckworth campaign manager had cited a study by the ] showing that 42.7% of Roskam's cases had been dismissed by the courts as frivolous, and if we had a JPG of his Yellow Pages ad saying, "We don't care whether you can actually prove your case or not," you'd have something. ] (]) 03:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
