Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BenBurch (talk | contribs) at 17:57, 14 July 2008 (→Re. the latest edit war: Then why the insult?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Person(s).

To-do list for Peter Roskam: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-05-20 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Inconsistent citation style. Fix dead links in citations. --Dual Freq 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Priority 1 (top)

Peter Roskam was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: March 15, 2007.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Recently removed and restored Education section.

I think this section is properly sourced and proper for inclusion in the article. Please leave it. --BenBurch (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Restoring section contentiously deleted by oldschooltool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I see no cogent argument advanced for omitting the sourced material. Wikidemo (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Oldschooltool" has been sock-blocked. --BenBurch (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Now he is back as a IP. Its pretty clear he is likely an employee of Roskam. --BenBurch (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder in what capacity. Public relations? :D Gamaliel (talk) 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. Wikidemo (talk) 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. April 30, 1993 talks about an Illinois Senate Bill sponsored by Republican state senator Edward Petka. The bill was Senate Bill 779 and the expressly counsels for suicide line comes up in this IL Senate transcript from April 23, 1993. 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 Rickey R. Hendon and opposed by Republican Judy Baar Topinka. 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 Rickey R. Hendon supported the bill and urged other senators to vote for it. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

88 GA Master index lists the status of SB-0779 on page 61. The bill never left the Senate 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. --Dual Freq (talk) 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 wikidemo76.224.20.133 (talk) 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. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would comment but no point feeding a troll.Wikidemo (talk) 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 Romeo and Juliet and It's a Wonderful Life. 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 WP:3RR 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. Wikidemo (talk) 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. — goethean ॐ 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. Wikidemo (talk) 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. --BenBurch (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we are. We don't just repeat anything we find in print. See WP:RS, WP:BLP, etc. Claims made in article space, if likely to be challenged, must be sourced to reliable third party secondary sources. Wikidemo (talk) 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? --BenBurch (talk) 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. Wikidemo (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Duck you appear to also be a sock of JoeHazelton, and I have added you to the process. --BenBurch (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. You're going to get yourself blocked with this nonsense. Cut it out.Wikidemo (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hold up Ben, I'm fairly certain Wikidemo is nobody's sock. R. Baley (talk) 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? WP:DUCK but I am happy to have checkuser prove me wrong. --BenBurch (talk) 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. --rogerd (talk) 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. <humor> My Acme Bread 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" </humor> perhaps I'll return someday if the editing environment improves. Wikidemo (talk) 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. --BenBurch (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Got 2008 campaign section started...

Have at it! --BenBurch (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why this article is locked out? Garywheaton (talk) 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. --BenBurch (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Low-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Delisted good articles