Talk:Mark Kirk

Vandalism

71.228.10.185 has made multiple deletions of properly sourced information in the Mark Kirk article. In fact, this user has violated the three revert rule. At this user's talk page other complaints of blanking have been listed. This appears to be a pattern of vandalism. I will closely monitor this user's edits. I ask an ADMIN to please consider placing a block on this user. Propol 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

71.228.10.185 again deleted sourced information (for a 4th time) without any discussion on the talk page. This user was already warned on their talk page. Will an admin please block this user and semi-protect the Mark Kirk article. Thank you. Propol 16:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to WP:AIV to report the user and go to WP:RPP to ask for protection.--Ipatrol (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I've posted a request for a 3rd party to look at this dispute at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Hopefully we can get some resolution to this issue. EJFinneran 22:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a request for Semi-protection on this page. -- EJFinneran 23:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

71.228.10.185 Has removed sourced material that he claims is unrelated even though it deals with the subject of this article. Please make a solid case why this information is unrelated to this article. This user has already broken the three revert rule and has been uncommunicative about his reasons for content deletion.

THIS ARTICLE IS AN INSULT TO OBJECTIVITY This article does a very poor job of maintaining an objective stance, it is undeniable. It is a travesty to make it appear as though Mark Kirk opposes the war in Iraq despite the fact that he helped write and co-sponsored the House Resolution to invade Iraq in 2003.

It is also absolutely ridiculous to boast that he received an award from the League of Conservation Voters, and yet fail to mention that the very same group gave him an "F" rating last Congressional session. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.94.125 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements

There seems to be a dispute about including this:

Kirk is endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. [1] Kirk is endorsed by the Jewish Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs. [2]

Ignoring the not-quite-smooth wording, are these endorsements non-notable? If Kirk were a Democrat, certainly, particularly on the first endorsement, but he's a Republican. John Broughton 01:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Contributors

I'm not a big fan - at all - of going into any detail about who has contributed to which candidate or incumbent, unless the contribution itself is controversial (as, arguably, is the case with money from DeLay and his PACs, and Bob Ney). But Wal-Mart, or Altria? These companies have donated, in all probability, to hundreds of politicians over the years. It's not illegal, and it really doesn't say much except that they prefer someone to whoever is running against him/her, or prefer his/her party to the party of his/her opponent. In other words, this seems to be guilt by association.

Given that this level of detail is absent from virtually every other bio of House incumbents and candidates, I propose to remove perhaps 90% of it. Comments are welcome before I do so. John Broughton | Talk 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

John Broughton, I kindly ask that we retain the contributors section. The Federal Election Commission is a reliable and unbiased source. Many organizations and publications pay careful attention to campaign finance / political contributions, such as the Center for Responsive Politics. Many people deem the contributions to be very relevant. I have seen this level of detail on the articles of other politicians. Please see Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert or U.S. Senator Jim Talent. I'm sure both of these articles receive extensive editorial review from the Wikipedia community. Thanks. Propol 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out Dennis Hastert#Campaign contributors. That section is an excellent example of what a section on contributors 'should be. It is relatively short and covers only major matters. It thus does not give undue weight to the topic, which would be a violation of WP:NPOV.

By contrast, the section in the Mark Kirk article is at least twice as long as that of Hastert's (though I'm sure that Hastert has gotten far more campaign contributions in his life), and provides far less connection to Kirk or indications why such contributions are noteworthy (because, I believe, such is not the case). If the section in the article on Kirk were halved, that would go a long way toward addressing what I think are its faults.

As for the Jim Talent article, I found three sentences about his contributors - so I'm not sure why you offer that as an example. If anything, it seems an example of why the section in the Kirk article is far too long.

I do not dispute that the section meets WP:RS standards. Nor that some people will find it interesting. Just that it's way too long, and detailed, and this level of detail gives undue weight to the topic. John Broughton | Talk 14:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

John Broughton, I am not opposed to edits of the contributors section. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I was concerned that you were advocating for the deletion of the entire section. In my opinion that would be a mistake. I took into consideration your concern of undue weight, and reduced the contributor section by about half. I tried very hard to be NPOV in my editing. I retained language noting support from Abbott and Baxter, which I suspect Kirk supporters will appreciate. I retained the details about Kirk receiving donations from Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, and Duke Cunningham. I'm sure Kirk opponents would want those three mentioned. Although, I did note that in all three cases at least part of the contribution was returned. I hope we're on the same page now. Thanks. Propol 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Very nice - just the right length now, I think. Thank you very much for taking the time to trim this back. John Broughton | Talk 14:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

need citation

Need citation of him being one of only 2 reservists. Who is the other one? DianeFinn (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The errors and overstatements on this page are too numerous to mention. Apart from the "contributions" section, this is a partisan fan page. Were I not certain that the GOP bots would come and reconstruct the misinformation, I would make the revisions myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Material and Dubiously Sourced Material

I did have a legitimate reason for removing the two sections of material.

The Poker Players Alliance and their blogger in chief Rich Muny doesn’t qualify as a reliable source. If more news outlets were to pick up on the significance of his "f" from the Poker Players Alliance, then it might warrant inclusion, but since there is no notability indicated from secondary sources, I don’t think it noteworthy enough for inclusion. The funding section is much more strait forward. Only one statement was sourced, to a primary source, with no secondary source indicating how its relevant or noteworthy. The rest of it has no sources at all , and makes a lot of guilt by association. Lots of people took money from these individuals and their PAC’s and unless the significance of Kirks taking the donation (and his return of the money as many recipients die) is made clear, and is more notable than anyone else’s receipts of the contributions, there is no reason this belongs n the article either.

While the exclusion of the rating from the Poker Players Alliance was more of a notability call on my part, the campaign contribution section leaves little room for interpretation for its violation of BLP policies. CENSEI (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While youre right about the Rich Muny garbage, I've added in the contributions section with some basic references (you also deleted one item that was referenced), and plan to improve them when I have the chance to look through the Tribune archives.Shsilver (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That’s fine, just be sure that there is sufficient notability to include any specific contributors. CENSEI (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Shsilver, I just looked at what you re-included. There is no notability given for anything you have reincluded. Using a primary source as the sole source for any information like this is WP:NOR as there is no indication why it is notable. The "Burnet County Democrats" is not a reliable source for a BLP. Correct this or I will have to remove it again. No rush, just get to it within the next few days. CENSEI (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost a week has passed with no additional sourcing, I am removing the section. CENSEI (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, i've reverted the edit and included the section again. I've removed the iffy democract ref and OR and replaced them with more reputable sources (opensecrets, newspaper articles). I've also added a ref for the money being returned, although with no date stamp it cant be described as "immediately". Ironholds 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Open Secrets is a fine primay source, but without any notability of the donation from a secondary source, its still OR. CENSEI (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Which one are you talking about, the Rezko bit? Ironholds 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

These are sourced to a primary source only:

According to Federal Election Commission records, Kirk has received numerous contributions from Political action committees and individuals. Several contributors have district ties, such as Abbott Laboratories and Baxter International. Abbott and Baxter are the largest and third largest employers in the 10th District of Illinois, respectively. Medical associations, defense contractors, and other groups have contributed

As reports of misconduct surfaced against DeLay in 2004, Kirk returned all monies received from ARMPAC.

This has no source at all, when it needs a primary and a secondary:

Kirk received funds from American Prosperity PAC, which was controlled by Republican Duke Cunningham, who pled guilty to federal charges. Kirk refunded the Cunningham contribution and contributions from all parties affiliated with the case when news of wrongdoing first became public.

Do you understand why this is OR? CENSEI (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but again I'm asking; which OpenSecrets source do you mean? Ironholds 16:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All of them ..... I think. CENSEI (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have reverted the text from the numerous articles on which it was included. The site is temporarily blacklisted to stop recurrence of this abuse. There is a discussion on WP:AN as of now, this will likely be archived fairly shortly. Here's a permalink with the reasoning: [3]. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

This article does an awful job maintaining an objective viewpoint, it is undeniable. It is a travesty to make it appear as though Mark Kirk opposes the war in Iraq despite the fact that he helped write and co-sponsored the House Resolution to invade Iraq in 2003.

It is also absolutely ridiculous to boast that he received an award from the League of Conservation Voters, and yet fail to mention that the very same group gave him an "F" rating last Congressional session. Absolutely misleading.

I do not often edit wikipedia, and am not quite sure how to correctly cite these facts. This page does not paint an accurate portrait of Mark Kirk.I ask somebody to help me correctly cite the credible sources of these facts in order to maintain this great site's credibility. 74.93.94.125 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)an informed voter in the tenth district

Serious cleanup needed

Right now this article has a really clunky & repetitive feel. Sure it does get the facts right if the sources are properly attributed, but it's all jumping around "Kirk did this...Kirk did that." Come on, Wikipedia can do better than this.

And regarding the "Contributors" section, there should also be Kirk's ratings from the usual political rankers like National Journal, American Conservative Union, etc. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing info

Didn't this person take a trip to afganistan, the first congressman to do so since WWII?--Ipatrol (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the contribution section

Please stop your bad faith editing and follow NPOV. John Asfukzenski (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What is in that section has been raised by secondary sources as important issues. You cant just say it cant be here. The stuff that was only based on the primary source of the FEC records were removed, but the information based on secondary sources needs to stay. nableezy - 23:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No that is absurd, all this is is guilt by association and that type of garbage is not allowed here at wikipedia. John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No actually it is not absurd. This is valid criticism of Kirk that has been raised by secondary sources. Who a politician accepts donations from is very much a part of the coverage we should provide of them. You cannot just whitewash the page of any valid criticism. This is not "guilt by association", Kirk accepted the donations, that is what the sources say. When a reliable secondary source brings up donations from Tony Rezko that is an important topic that needs to be covered in Kirk's biography. I already removed the donations that did not have secondary sources commenting on them but you cannot just remove entire sections that are both well-sourced and on-topic. nableezy - 15:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That is complete bullshit and you know it. This is nothing but undue weight. No where in Barack Obama's article does it mention he received donations from Rezko. John Asfukzenski (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not "complete bullshit". Can you explain how this is undue weight? What viewpoints are not given their proper weight on this topic? Or are you just trying to name a random policy hoping you get a hit? And as a matter of fact Obama's page does mention Rezko, and guess what; Tony Rezko's page goes into quite a bit of detail on the ties between Obama and Rezko. Based on other edits you apparently have an elastic understanding of WP:NPOV as can be seen in this somewhat funny reasoning. You cannot try and keep out information that is reliably sourced because it portrays somebody you like in a negative light. And if you are going to try at least have the balls to be consistent with your arguments and not try and put in denigrating information about those you do not like. That is what is called "complete bullshit". If you would like some more policies to try and throw up you can try these, but it is my suggestion you read them before writing that this is a violation of one of them: WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:V WP:RS WP:BLP. nableezy - 05:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Read Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. No guilt by association is allowed here. John Asfukzenski (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Read that more carefully. This is not phrasing anything as criticism or praise. It is saying, as a statement of fact, that Kirk accepted donations from these people. Reliable secondary sources think that is important, so it can go in the article. What you are linking says the following: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides. That is what is done here. nableezy - 21:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should this section in Mark Kirk's article be allowed?

Is the "Contributors" section article good or does it violate NPOV with guilt by association?John Asfukzenski (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply - It is not guilt by association, it is just what reliable secondary sources have commented on who he has accepted donations from. The section had been filled with donors cherry-picked from FEC records, it now only includes those that secondary sources saw fit to comment on. This is a topic that should be covered in biographies of politicians. nableezy - 19:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like guilt by association, although I think there are other problems with the section. I'm pretty new, so I'm not familiar with the nuances of WP:Notability, but given the token amounts contributed by Rezko and Ney, and the fact that Kirk's name only appears in the middle of long lists in the secondary sources (that is, no addressing of the subject in detail), I'm not sure those contributions belong here. Even if we keep them, it should be made clear that the contributions were made before any charges were filed, and as far as I can tell nobody ever called on Kirk specifically to return Ney's contribution; the source cites a general call to all politicians who received such contributions, and there is no indication that that played a role in Kirk's decision to return the money. --Aaronspook (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, welcome to Wikipedia. Notability applies to the existence of articles, not the content of articles. nableezy - 23:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• The section does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view, even with sources backing it up. I question the relevance of having a "contributors section" at all if this is the only material that can be found for it. I don't think it accurately describes his financial base, and it reads like it is trying to indict him by associating him with criminals. Even if we have reliable sources describing the two donators, just discussing one side of the coin is not neutral. I note that the sources given for this section are either primary or trivial. They list Kirk among a large list of politicians who have recieved "tainted" donations, and Kirk isn't near the top of either list. There's no stories or discussion of why these donations in themselves merit a mention, and apropos of that, the mention in this manner appears to be undue weight. I would support this section's removal unless it is presented neutrally and fully. ThemFromSpace 18:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  How is it non-neutral? And none of the sources used are "primary" or "trivial". nableezy - 18:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The information is very trivial/news sounding, though if the information has a sufficient amount of coverage it should be included. Though the current size of the Contributor section would suggest the information can be merged in to another part of the article.--Otterathome (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I could see moving it into the years campaign each contribution happened in. nableezy - 19:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:UNDUE needs to be applied here. Also don't add anything unsourced negative content about a living person or it must be deleted, see WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing here is unsourced. And a total of 3 sentences about financing is hardly undue weight. WP:WEIGHT says representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, that is what is done here. nableezy - 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Contributors" section removed

Discussion

Not withstanding the comments above, I've removed this section. I've probably edited more than a hundred bios of Congressfolk, and this is a totally non-standard section to have. It isn't "three sentences" anymore, and there isn't any way to prevent editors from pulling more information from primary sources to enlarge it, because the criteria of newsworthyness has been lost. Undue weight means that Wikipedia articles don't cover things that reliable, secondary sources like newspapers and magazines don't find interesting. Also not mentioned is that pulling a fact out of a newspaper article (that Kirk was one of a number of politicians getting a particular tainted contribution) is not the same as citing a story about Kirk. In short, if there have been stories about Kirk that discuss a particular controversy of campaign contributions, that's fair for the article. But if it's about going into FEC records and finding a donation from someone bad (e.g., Tom DeLay's PAC), that raises original writing and WP:WEIGHT issues. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Content removed

Kirk accepted $1000 from Tony Rezko, who has been convicted on federal charges of attempted extortion, money laundering, and fraud. According to the Federal Election Commission, Kirk for Congress refunded this contribution in the form of a donation to the MIdwest Young Artists on October 19, 2006.

Mark Kirk received a donation from Congressman Bob Ney, who pled guilty to bribery. Kirk was called upon to return the tainted money. Kirk refunded the Ney contribution in the 2nd quarter of 2006.

FEC records show Kirk received financial support from Americans for a Republican Majority, a PAC formed by Tom DeLay. According to the Federal Election Commission, Kirk for Congress refunded the contribution on July 27, 2004

In June 2009, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported that Kirk received $91,200 from pro-Israel lobbying groups in the 2008 election cycle, the most of any member of the House of Representatives during the 2008 election cycle.

Rumors of homosexuality?

I'm really surprised that there's nothing at all - nothing - about this on the page. I don't feel comfortable at all adding it in, as it's such a hotbutton issue - but rumors of his homosexuality have been a major issue in the campaign, come from credible sources, and are reported in credible newspapers. (The finance chair of the Illinois GOP, for the first part; the Chicago Tribune, for the other.) I'm not suggesting that I believe - or even care - about the rumors, but when his primary opponent tries to make it a campaign issue, it seems odd that there is nothing at all on this page. I came to the Mark Kirk page because Wikipedia is my default "learn more about this issue" destination. Like I said, I'm surprised. Simnel (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is that Wikipedia does not report on rumors, in accordance with the guidelines on biographies of living people. Only if the rumor is particularly persistent and extensively covered in multiple mainstream media sources is it likely to be covered. However, if his opponent is making a campaign issue of it, the use of the rumor as a campaign tactic may be appropriate for coverage in United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Rogers (activist) is a very good source. He was everytime right und he had to lose his reputation and credibility. http://blog.blogactive.com/2010/06/truth-or-consequences.html However, it could also be that Kirk is bi. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 11:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Military tours and "deployment"

I've used the following blog posting as a basis for changing the wording on Kirk's military service in Afghanistan to reduce the chances that readers will think that "deployment" means a six or 12 or 18 month tour of duty:

http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-blumenthal-but-not-kirk.html

The blog posting discusses what the blogger considers misleading claims by Kirk, but since none of them seem to have risen in notability to the point of mainstream media discussion (see WP:RS and WP:UNDUE), I have not added such information to the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It has now risen to notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 00:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Massive removal of information

It seems that a massive removal of information was done in early April, much of it was sourced and may be worthy of re-installing. The editor did not indicate why the information was removed. Shsilver (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Military service

The section about Kirk's military service currently is far too short, and a WP:UNDUE violation (at the moment) because it speaks primarily of the errors in what Kirk said about his service.

At minimum, the section needs two longish paragraphs:

• Kirk's current military rank, and what he has done during his military career. A version of the section as of a week or two ago would be a good starting point. The point is to list information that is not disputed.

• Errors in what Kirk has said about his military career. This should not be a long recitation, but rather include one or two examples, plus when the matters became of public interest, plus what Kirk's response has been. The sources should include somelthing like this: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2352440,kirk-corrects-military-record-060310.article , which has all (so far) of the details, so the reader can judge for him/herself whether the errors are significant.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What do we know about Kirk's career that can be verified by documentation?

The guy has mostly lied about what he's done. So it's hard to write about his military adventures because he has lied so frequently.

XJRfoBY is aggressively deleting any attempt to summarize Kirk erroneous statement about his military career.

The hallmark of Kirk's political career has been to exaggerate his military record and imply that he did more than he did. As such, this Wikipedia article needs to be vigilant that Kirk's erroneous claims and implications are not introduced to the article.

As a member of Congress Kirk is prohibited by law and the "Incompatibility Clause" of the U.S. Constitution from serving beyond his two week training once per year. This should be clearly stated in the article.

Before the controversy about Kirk's military record, many media outlets carried information that was inaccurate about Kirk's service. When documenting Kirk's service, all references should be from after the controversy was covered and understood.

Also, the Wikipedia article should say what Kirk has done, not what the country did. Saying Kirk was in the military during Operation Iraqi Freedom seems misleading since the truth is that he served on an unpaid two-week training in the United States.

Since Kirk has furthered his career by misleading people, I think it is important to describe his military service as precisely as possible.

For example, I added that Kirk was directly commissioned in the reserves and did not serve on active duty before this. Since most reservists do serve on active duty first, it seems likely that many people will assume Kirk served on active duty before being commissioned.

Unless there is some reason to omit the information it should be included.

The section on Kirk's military service should be expanded to include the details of what he actually did so that the section about his exaggerations and misstatements doesn't have to explain what he did.

While this will probably make the section on Kirk's military service more detailed than other members of Congress who have served, it is justified. The facts need to be explained. But putting the facts and misstatements in one section makes that section cumbersome.99.48.254.240 (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a Joint Unit Achievement Medal of the U.S. Armed Forces. The link is now dead, but this was probably intended to be a Joint Meritorious Unit Award. A few days ago I corrected the name for the National Defense Service Medal, which is awarded to all during each discrete period of conflict, and I'm leaving the individual awards, which seem appropriate for his service, but until reliably sourced with the name of an actual award, I'm deleting the confusing name portion for now. 75.203.238.191 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Found where the Washington Post got official version from Navy. Changed Navy Commendation to Navy and Marine Corps Commendation (awarded 1999, name changed 1994), organized by precedence, still left Navy Achievement Medal though not specified in article, "other awards and decorations.", listed all three unit awards. Sorry, forgot to sign this. 75.204.72.16 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Using Kirk's website as a reference

Given that Kirk has provided so much erroneous information about himself, it seems inappropriate to use his campaign website as a reference for his Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

LastNavigator, you make a very good point:

Wikipedia Rule: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles."

Wikipedia Rule: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and not tagged or moved to the talk page."

Given the above stated rules, it is inappropriate to use Mark Kirk's website as a source since it is not a "third-party" source. Given this is a poor source, and given Wikipedia's rule that poorly sourced material on a living persons page "should be removed immediately and not tagged or moved to the talk page," I propose immediate removal of all material that is unsourced or that is sourced solely to Mark Kirk's own website. --Denovo1 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The information on Kirk's website has been gone over with a comb by Alexi's research team. If there was unreliable/untrue information on the site it would be publicly uncovered. It is safe to assume the information is reliable since it has been checked by his opponent —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not "safe to assume" anything about it. And exactly how do you know it's "been gone over with a comb?" Are you affiliated with either candidate or campaign? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is border-line vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTacoKing96 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

XJRfoBY engaging in aggressive editing of page

Much of what XJRfoBY does is remove information that is accurate and relevant but damaging to Kirk.

This user has also inserted much information that is of low import or not particularly relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 03:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am noticing the same aggressive editing from XJRfoBY. He is making major edits that are inaccurate, irrelevant, biased, and/or superfluous. Further, he is making no attempt to discuss his changes here on the talk page. --Denovo1 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that both of the previous editors dislike Mark Kirk. On numerous occasions, they have deleted relevant and well cited information simply because it favors Kirk. User:LastNavigator for example tried to insert word for word a liberal blogger bashing Kirk's military record. This is obviously inappropriate and it shows his bias against Kirk. These individuals are clearly biased against Kirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

People who don't like Kirk aren't excluded from Wikipedia. Are the references accurate? Is the information relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 00:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Text deleted by XJRfoBY and proposed for re-insertion

The following text has been deleted entirely by XJRfoBY. Since XJRfoBY has not cited any reason for his deletions, I propose adding the following text back. --Denovo1 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal History

Despite Kirk's false claims that his divorce case files have been opened to the public, they still remain sealed.

Sexual orientation

Citing his recent divorce (and not having had children) some have questioned Kirk's sexual orientation, although this allegation remains unsubstantiated.

Rumors of Mark Kirk being gay remain unsubstantiated and are only rumors. Since they are rumors they have no place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus. Any reference to Mark Kirk's alleged homosexuality is baseless, unfounded and thus inappropriate for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there is not consensus. If this issue plays a part in the 2010 election then if definitely has a place on Wikipedia, with proper references of course. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Repute of Military Record

On December 18, 2009 Undersecretary of Defense Gail H. McGinn noted that Kirk had on two previous active duty periods engaged in politicking in violations of Department of Defense regulations; on one occasion Congressman Kirk commented on Rod Blagojevich's arrest while in Afghanistan and on another occasion Congressman Kirk posted a tweet.

I didn't mean to delete this XJRfoBY (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I added it back then, and I added a more reliable source that is not a blog. Thank you. --Denovo1 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to find a way to satisfy pro-Kirk and anti-Kirk people.

I propose that the pro-Kirk people can have a section "repute of military record" and the people who see things differently can have a section "erroneous statements made by Kirk about his personal history".

I think the issue from the campaign perspective is that Kirk has made numerous erroneous statements about his own life.

The Kirk supporters want to portray the criticism of Kirk's erroneous statements as criticism of his military record. IMO this is just spin to make Kirk the victim, but whatever. I won't delete a "Repute of Military Record" title or section if Kirk supporters won't delete a section detailing Kirk's erroneous statements about his own personal history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.120.101 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson Jr. "endorsement"

DISPUTED CONTENT: In May of 2010, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Il) told Politico that he was contemplating giving his endorsement to Mark Kirk instead of his fellow Democrat Alexi Giannoulias.[16]. While Jesse Jesse Jackson Jr has not yet endorsed Congressman Kirk, he has failed to endorse Alexi Giannoulias [17]. Jesse Jackson Jr. is the son of civil rights activist Jesse Jackson

DISCUSSION:

Undue Weight: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. In this case, the section is entitled "Endorsement by Jesse Jackson, Jr.", when in fact the text explicitly states that Jesse Jackson, Jr. never even endorsed Mark Kirk. Given no endorsement was made, I see no need for this section. --Denovo1 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When Jesse Jackson Jr. said that he was considering giving his endorsement to Congressman Kirk it made the front page of Politico, one of the most popular political-news organizations. The implications of not endorsing Alexi and instead endorsing Kirk are huge. Now Alexi must diminish his limited funds in order to reach a key demographic that should have been free; it is a huge story. This event has not been given undue weight. --User:XJRfoBY —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

If you want to discuss the implication to Alexi, you should go to his page. This is a Mark Kirk page. Jesse Jackson Jr. has not endorsed Mark Kirk, and thus this section is irrelevant and misleading. --Denovo1 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This event had major implications for Kirk's campaign for Senate. In politics, Jesse Jackson Jr. snubbing Alexi was the equivalent of an endorsement; the effects were the same. Kirk won a major political victory.XJRfoBY (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If he wanted to endorse Kirk, he would have. He did not, however. Until he does, this section is speculation--not encyclopedic. --Denovo1 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

By saying he was thinking about endorsing Kirk and then snubbing Alexi he in affect did endorse Kirk. Jesse Jackson Jr. provides access to a very large network on the south side of Chicago. That demographic would never vote for the Republican candidate. By publicly snubbing and then denying Alexi, Jesse Jackson Jr provided Mark Kirk with all of the benefits of an endorsement. Again, it made the FRONT PAGE OF POLITICO! It's obviously relevant if Mike Allen thought it was that relevant.XJRfoBY (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A non-endorsement is a non-starter. Your interpretation is just that, your interpretation, also know around here as original research. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A non-endorsement MADE THE FRONT PAGE OF THE LARGEST POLITICAL-NEWSPAPER IN THE COUNTRY!!! Obviously, it is a "starter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not everything in the newspaper is encyclopedic. --Denovo1 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You're clearly biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Until Jackson endorses this is not worthy of mention in the entry. I doubt there are any cases of Wikipedia entries including non-endorsements in other close political races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.120.101 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Powerful" House Appropriations Committee?

All committees and federal office positions are "powerful," thus this adjective is unnecessary and superfluous. Moreover, this term is arbitrary, given power is relative. If such an adjective were appropriate, we would have to add the word "powerful" to each and every office, position, and committee listed on wikipedia. --Denovo1 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Appropriations Committee is either the most or the second most powerful committee in Congress, therefore the word "powerful is appropriately discriptful. Also, lay readers may not know how powerful it is, therefore the word "powerful" is necessary to give readers an accurate description. --XJRfoBY —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

The Committee includes a hyperlink to its own page. If readers would like a description of the committee, they can go there. --Denovo1 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Denovo1. If the context were describing (for instance) why this is an important seat relative to some other position, this might be worth emphasizing, but in consise summary for the lede section it is unnecessary, and a bit WP:PEACOCK. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When someone, who knows how influential the Appropriations Committee is, hears the term "the Appropriations Committee" they are really hearing "the powerful Appropriations Committee." Seeing how even Denovo equated the power of the Appropriations Committee to "all committees and federal office positions," it is clear that lay readers need to be made aware of the extraordinarily large amount of influence the Appropriations Committee has. It is appropriately descriptive.XJRfoBY (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not even called the "powerful" Appropriations Committee on it's own page, let alone is it appropriate here. The hyperlink to it's own page is sufficiently informing. This is the Mark Kirk page--not the Appropriations Committee page. --Denovo1 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Even you did not know the powerful nature of the committee. By placing "powerful" there, I in fact helped you understand the powerful nature of the committee.XJRfoBY (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant to the article, and a backdoor attempt to indicate the "power" of this particular individual. Any subjective analysis of the committee should be done at it's article, not here. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is necessary to inform lay readers. I'm not giving Mark Kirk undue credit or trying to embellish his position on the committee. The Appropriations Committee is so powerful that it requires at least one adjective before its name in order to give proper weight. XJRfoBY (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply on your say-so? No. There are now three editors who have commented here disagreeing with you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you aren't aware of the enormous power of the Appropriations Committee then you shouldn't editing a politicians wikipedia page. And, only one person has disagreed with me, but on three different usernamesXJRfoBY (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said I was unaware of it's importance? I simply dispute the relevance of mentioning it here as a way to give Kirk additional positive spin. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks.

one person has disagreed with me, but on three different usernames

That's a fairly serious bad faith accusation, and playing that card does not help your case. If you are not willing to file a sock puppet investigation, can you please retract it?

If you aren't aware of the enormous power of the Appropriations Committee then you shouldn't editing a politicians wikipedia page.

Argument to the affect of If you don't agree with me, you are ignorant are also rather off base. No one here disagrees that the Appropriations Committee is powerful, only that it is not needed in the lede section. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my challenge to XJRfoBY: are you adding the adjective "powerful" to all members of the House Appropriations Committee? What about the Ways and Means Committee? Does it warrant the addition of "powerful" to each reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just added it reflexively. The Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Rules committees are so routinely called "the powerful X Committee" that I did it without thinking. I don't actually think it is a backdoor way of puffing up Kirk, and I could find thousands of citations for it being called that if it would help. If the consensus is overwhelmingly against use it, obviously I won't object to its removal. I don't care to read this whole discussion right now, so I please understand why, if consensus is already apparent, why I am ignorant of it. -Rrius (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I spot checked four Ds and four Rs on Appropriations committee. Only Marcy Kaptur's entry includes the adjective powerful before the "Appropriations Committee". —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Specific Quotes Should Not Be Altered

“I simply misremembered it wrong" is the exact quote made by Mark Kirk, according to the reference and all other verifiable sources. Deleting the word "wrong" would be a misrepresentation of the exact quote. This should be changed back, so that the quote is accurate. --Denovo1 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute of Misstatement or statement

Misstatement is not accurate and there has not been adequate consensus that he did in fact make a "misstatement" to justify it's placement on a wiki page. If you read the whole transcript of what Kirk was saying it is clear that he was referring to the US as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. "Misstatement" is an opinion - "statement" is fact. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Using blogs

Blogs are listed under wikipedia's unreliable sources. Any information from blogs should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTacoKing96 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not automatically unreliable sources. It depends on the context.

Much of the damaging information about Kirk has broken on blogs. These blogs quote original documents in some cases. And in other cases the blogs are quoting official statements by Department of Defense.

In cases where the blogs are the closest thing to a primary source, they are perfectly acceptable to quote. Unless Mark Kirk or the Kirk campaign claims the information provided is fabricated then it's perfectly acceptable to quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.120.101 (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Barry Berk

Barry Berk is not a notable figure; he did not win the Medal of Honor and he wasn't a well respected veteran's advocate. His opinion is lay and unimportant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTacoKing96 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You have no respect for veterans. All of their opinions are important. The source is relevant and sourced. --Denovo1 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The net result of XJRfoBY/TacoKing's edit is to remove any negative comments by veterans, thus skewing the tone of the article. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You're trying to add information from a letter to the editor. That is not reliable and Barry Berk is not a notable figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTacoKing96 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Teaching Record

I would propose changing the current section on "Claims of military record questioned" to read:

===Claims of military and teaching background===

After press coverage, Kirk has downgraded his claims of military accomplishments, awards and experience. However, Kirk continues to claim in a speech to the Illinois Education Association, ""As a former nursery school and middle school teacher, I know some of what it takes to bring order to class." Yet, The New York Times reports that his claimed nursery school teaching experience was as a Cornell work study student playing with students in a play group and did not involve teaching or maintaining order.

Thanks!

Tuesday Group

Why is this important enough to include?

Members of Congress serve on large numbers of committees and boards. What makes this one important?§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proper format for footnotes

Please use the proper format for footnotes. Don't just insert a URL.

If you don't know how to format a footnote, use an existing footnote as a template. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate quote

"In June of 2010 the Washington Post reported that Kirk claimed to have been named the “Intelligence Officer of the Year,” when in reality the award was given to his unit."

This statement is inaccurate.

Kirk claimed to be the Navy's "intelligence officer of the year". This statement is completely false.

In 1999 four squadrons were operating together. The combined intelligence divisions of those squadrons got an award from a professional organization, not the Navy. Kirk was the lead intelligence officer at one of the squadrons, not the squadron in tactical command.

The Wikipedia entry should not blur that there is some relation between the Navy giving an individual award to Kirk (what he claimed) and a professional association funded by the Military-Industrial Complex giving a multi-unit award to four combined shops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

listing misinformation provided by Kirk about his military record

Kirk's supporters complain that a list is too detailed.

But then they want to summarize Kirk's erroneous statements in a way that is both inaccurate and minimizes the extent Kirk has provided erroneous information about his military record.

Do we need to footnote every lie Kirk has told about his record? That's fine if that's the standard the article is going to be held to. But it's not OK for Team Kirk to come in and delete references to Kirk's erroneous statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Posting word-for-word of what some liberal blogger says does not conform to wiki's objective standards, is by definition not appropriately cited --as blogs are not reliable sources --, and his opinion is not relevant. XJRfoBY (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

XJRfoBY, if your objection is the specific wording, change the wording. You're true objective is to delete the underlying information. You are vandalizing accurate information out of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

First, blogs are not reliable sources. Second, it is not accurate; it is the opinion of someone who doesn't like Kirk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Every point made was footnoted to a corporate media outlet or the original document. You are merely repeating your objections which seem to be made in bad faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Content: ‘"Mark Steven Kirk"’ (born September 15th, 1959) is an American politician who is currently serving his 5th term as a member of the US Congress, representing the 10th district of Illinois. He is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, co-chairman of the GOP Tuesday Group, and a founder of the bipartisan House US-China Working Group .

Congressman Kirk is currently the Republican nominee for the 2010 Senate Election in Illinois.

Discussion: This is a fair, balanced, well cited, and accurate depiction of who Mark Kirk is. There is no reason to alter any part of this paragraph in anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Th problem is that the first citation is to his campaign website, which you cannot do since it is not an independent, third party source. The second problem is that the second cite doesn't say that he is the co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, rather it says he is a PAC donee. The passage might pass Wikipedia standards if it had proper citations, but as it is now, it in effect has no citations and cannot stay up since all BLP pages must be cited appropriately. --Denovo1 (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have since updated the sources (actually I did before but someone deleted them). It now conforms with wiki's citation standardsXJRfoBY (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The caucuses and working groups do belong in the article, but not the lead. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and should only cover the most important points. Also, I don't see where in the source for the Tuesday club it says he's a co-chair rather than just a member, so I've removed that claim. If you can provide a reference for that, obviously we should include. I do think it is okay to use Kirk's site to cite memberships in congressional caucuses; however, it is should be avoided because those pages will die on January 3. If he is elected to the Senate, his new Senate site could end up having that info, but it is no guarantee. If loses, it definitely won't be around.

In addition to moving the information above from the lead, I've fixed several MOS and related issues and removed duplication of the electoral history. -Rrius (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The information about Kirk's committee memberships and caucuses should be included in lead of his article. They are noteworthy accomplishments and paint an accurate picture of the active representation that Kirk brings the the House. Furthermore, I had a link to the Tuesday site, but people keep deleting stuff.

His Appropriations seat remains in the lead in my edit. As to the other information, you are simply wrong. It is simply not important enough to be in the lead. If you don't realize that, you either need to read or refresh yourself as to the content of WP:Lead. There are multiple editors disputing your addition of content, so consensus is clearly against you for the time being. Stop edit warring, and attempt to gain consensus before putting this information in the lead again. -Rrius (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, on a side note, I appreciate your input however could you please edit one thing at a time to ensure that responsible editing is done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You reverted an edit that was all fixes of MOS issues and removal of duplicative content. Since the latter is the only thing you could have even close to a reasonable objection to, please explain why a list of names and percentage is necessary when we have neat table that provides that information in a much more coherent manner. -Rrius (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sally Grub

Undue Weight: Since Sally Grub is only a member of the church and there is no evidence -- it is only implied -- that she was working while Kirk was teaching at Forest Home Chapel, her opinion is unreliable and unimportant. A statement by the administrator, principle, or other representative would be appropriate. We have no way of knowing is Sally Grub has direct knowledge of Kirk's employment status, bearing false witness, or is biased against Kirk for some reason. Having such statements posted gives undue weight to an unreliable and unimportant opinion. It should be removed for these reasons.XJRfoBY (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

XJRfoBY, the NYT was satisfied they had enough sources that said Kirk didn't teach at the nursery that the NYT went with the story. How would you like to see it worded that all parties contacted agreed that Kirk representing himself as a "teacher" was a misrepresentation of his duties there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Kirk's House website is not an appropriate reference

The information placed on official Congressional websites is provided by the members of Congress and posted by their personal staffs.

As such, it is not third party information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nature NMIA's Rufus Taylor award

There is an intelligence 'analyst' award, for enlisted sailors; there is not an intelligence 'officer' award. Officers do not typically receive individual awards since their accomplishments are not considered individual accomplishments. Instead, the officer's unit is given an award and that represents favorably upon the officer. If you ask anyone in the military, Congressman Kirk's statements were completely legitimate. XJRfoBY (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Even a cursory Google search turns up plenty of references supporting that there is such a thing as "Intelligence Office of the Year". Wikipedia is based on information verified by reliable sources. Reliable sources, including the one I provided, support the contention that there is an Intelligence Officer of the Year Award given out by the Navy and that it is completely different from the unit award Kirk was given. Until you bring forward a reliable source supporting your contention, it is not even worth considering. -Rrius (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Kirk did not win the Intelligence Officer of the Year prize in the late 1990s -- awarded by the U.S. Navy -- but did receive the "Rufus Taylor

Intelligence Unit of the Year" award for outstanding support provided during Operation Allied Force."

The source clearly states that the award was instead given to his unit. However, there is has been no evidence given for the "intelligence officer of the year" award. Therefore, your edit was not supported. I believe you are getting your information from the Rachel Maddow segment. Please go on youtube and rewatch it. She carefully says "analyst" instead of "officer."XJRfoBY (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. You are right that the source says,

Kirk did not win the Intelligence Officer of the Year prize in the late 1990s -- awarded by the U.S. Navy -- but did receive the "Rufus Taylor Intelligence Unit of the Year" award for outstanding support provided during Operation Allied Force.

The source clearly says there is an Intelligence Officer of the Year Award and that he did not receive it. On the second count, I am not getting my information from Rachel Maddow, I am getting it from the source that you failed to read properly. I am not disputing that the source could be wrong, but you have failed utterly to provide a source to suggest it is. -Rrius (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Rufus Taylor Award" was given by a professional association called NMIA.

The award was given in a way that no military award is given. Four EA-6B squadrons were tasked to work together as an ad hoc unit which got call "Electronic Attack Wing Aviano, Italy". The Rufus Taylor Award was given to the four intelligence divisions, in aggregate. Part of the award was that the intelligence divisions got the water and electricity connected in an old building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 13:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

haha, touche. The source, however, is ambiguous. It is not sufficient in and of itself to prove the existence of the "officer" award. Since Wikipedia requires evidence to include and not evidence to exclude (meaning the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is another award and not on me to prove that there is not an award) the "completely different award" section must be left out because it refers to something 'not in evidence,' as it were XJRfoBY (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not ambiguous. It might be if it didn't contain "awarded by the U.S. Navy" parenthetically. You are wrong and need to provide a source for your view. So far, there is no way of knowing that it is an invention of your imagination. You need to prove it isn't. If you search for "'Intelligence Officer of the Year Award' Navy -Kirk", you get sufficient hits and of sufficient quality to believe there is such an award. Either revert yourself or prove you are wrong. -Rrius (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, stop adding "powerful". There is a 4 to 2 (with the two being us) majority against inclusion for the moment, so there is no consensus for including it. Perhaps if I gather a source or two thousand we can reverse it, but for now, we need to respect consensus. -Rrius (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I ONLY PUT IT IN BECAUSE YOU READDED IT! When you took out the GOP Tuesday Group and Iran Working Group. I thought it was a compromise.XJRfoBY (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I added it without realizing there had even been a discussion about it. I responded in that thread after the word was removed again, and have read the entire discussion. -Rrius (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy Veteran Quote/Opinion Proposed for Deletion

DISPUTED CONTENT: On June 7th 2010, Medal of Honor recipient and advocate of Veteran’s benefits, Allen Lynch, commented on the situation to ABC 7 News. “To me, in my opinion, it’s just a bunch of nit picking. Plus, he’s done a Christ ton for veterans. So I think this is being blown way out of proportion" . A number of veteran groups have also come out in support of Kirk along with his commanding officer who claimed "Mark was the best intelligence officer I ever worked with," while presenting Kirk with the Rufus Taylor Award and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal .

DISCUSSION: This text represents the opinion of an unknown individual; such individual opinions are not encyclopedic, and thus this section is proposed for deletion. --Denovo1 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The section heading is 'repute of military record.' Any major event that affects the reputation of Kirk's military record is absolutely relevant. When Allen Lynch (Medal of Honor recipient, veterans rights advocate for 40 years, and one of the most respected veterans in the country) gave a statement on the situation it impacted voters and donors all over America. It is a major event affecting the repute of Kirk's military record.

In Politics, a politically powerful person making a statement to the press is the equivalent to a battle in war. The "battlefield" of politics takes place in the minds of people. Therefore, an event that affects the public's opinion of a subject is relevant on it's wikipedia page. *let me know if you would like me to clarify this paragraph** --user:XJRfoBY —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

Again, your interpretation is just that, your interpretation, also know around here as original research. And since that's the case, perhaps you would care to explain why you keep removing the referenced bit about Kirk having violated DoD regulations? Seems that you're trying to paint Kirk in the best possible light, removing negative info and plumping up the positive side with such lines as "the son of civil rights activist Jesse Jackson" and "Medal of Honor recipient and advocate of Veteran’s benefits, Allen Lynch." That's what I see happening. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, deleting the Dod "violations" was a mistake. What exactly am I interpreting? You're not being clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If removing the DoD bit was a mistake, then put it back. Your interpretation is encapsulated in comments such as "In Politics, a politically powerful person making a statement to the press is the equivalent to a battle in war. The "battlefield" of politics takes place in the minds of people." Clear enough? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Information reported on a blog is not sufficiently reliable. However if the statement of an adequately powerful blogger is reported by a reliable source then it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the deletion of Lynch's statement. It is sourced and relevant to this BLP.Boromir123 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The section should not be called "Repute of military record" in the first place. The campaign issue is that Kirk has misrepresented his personal history, both his military record and his teaching experience.

Besides quoting a random supporter does not mitigate Kirk's lies and misremberances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Allen Lynch is not some random supporter. He was awarded the Medal of Honor, advocated for veteran's benefits for 20 years, and is one of the most influential veterans in the country. His opinion directly impacts the "repute of [kirk's] military record." I believe a consensus has already been reached on this issue. Please refrain from deleting such information. XJRfoBY (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the "opinion of Allen Lynch page." I don't care if God himself had an opinion on the subject--it is not relevant. --Denovo1 (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This was a notable event that effected the repute of Kirk's military record. I refer you to my battlefield statement -- this statement is as relevant as a battle is to a war. XJRfoBY (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoting someone who didn't serve with Kirk is inappropriate b/c he has no more firsthand knowledge of Kirk's service than a random homeless veteran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Allen Lynch is not some random supporter. He was awarded the Medal of Honor, advocated for veteran's benefits for 20 years, and is one of the most influential veterans in the country. His opinion directly impacts the "repute of [kirk's] military record." I believe a consensus has already been reached on this issue.XJRfoBY (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

XJRfoBY, no consensus has not been reached that quoting a Kirk supporters is an objective source of information. Absolutely not.

If you want to create a section to talk about Kirk and his relations with the Veterans community then Allen's a primary source. But he is absolutely not a primary source to characterize Kirk's service.

The Lynch quote isn't even in the article cited in the footnote. When I did a Google search on the quote, the only place the quote is listed is on this Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 04:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find this purported quote in the paper cited either. The text says the quote was from ABC7 News, but the cite is to the Chicago Tribune. I have that copy of the Chicago Tribune and I simply do not see that quote anywhere. Besides a bad citation, I don't see how one man's opinion is worthy of this much space. I know plenty of other decorated veterans that we could add here with contrary opinions, if that is the standard. --Denovo1 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Lynch quote is in the You Tube clip cited. However, the You Tube clip makes it clear that Lynch is not an objective veteran, but someone the Kirk campaign requested the TV station interview. So, Lynch is not an independent source of information, but a political supporter. Lynch was also included in a press release by the Kirk campaign of veterans who supported Kirk early in this controversy.

Tenure in Congress

It seems this section should get more detail.

I propose adding a section on the Iraq War and a section on Kirk's activity wrt the BP facility in Whiting, IN.

Also, how do people feel about including some ratings by interest groups? Is this non-standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

how to deal with Kirk's erroneous statements?

There are some who seem determined to delete any reference to Kirk making erroneous statements.

Kirk made statements. They are not consistent with the facts.

What are the rules for writing about a public figure who has said things about himself that are false?

It is not reasonable to ignore the fact that he has repeatedly provided info that is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way is to not self-conclude that something was erroneous. If you do that, it will likely be disputed as being opinion. Here's an example of not self-concluding:

In May 2010, the Washington Post reported that Kirk's claim to having been named the Navy's “Intelligence Officer of the Year” was erroneous.

This is now a fact and not opinion, because if you read the reference, the Washington Post did in fact report the claim as erroneous. --Denovo1 (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's acceptableXJRfoBY (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Kirk committee assignments

IIRC Kirk did not start on the Appropriations Committee. This is normal. Few reps start on Appropriations.

The Wiki article should say when Kirk started on the Appropriations Committee and what committees he served on prior to being named to the Appropriations Committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Kirk's accomplishments and activities in Congress

There should be more information about what Kirk has done in Congress.

Specifically, what Kirk has done in connection to the Iraq War should be explained.

Probably Kirk's work against the Whiting BP facility dumping more into Lake Michigan should be covered.

And Kirk makes claims on his campaign website that should be covered. "[Kirk] wrote a number of provisions which became law, including funding for commuter rail, improving veteran’s health care, ensuring military voting, and boosting aviation security." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

American Clean Energy and Security Act

It is not the case that in 2011, Kirk voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act. He voted for the bill in 2009, when he was still in the House. In 2011 he was in the Senate. <ref>https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/2454<\ref> Can someone fix this? I don't know how to deal with the wikipedia bureaucracy. 128.135.59.238 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done @128.135.59.238: User:Eeyoresdream fixed it for you. Thanks for pointing it out! --Closeapple (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Senate campaign, Iran

Kirk has mentioned Iran a great deal, especially on his Facebook page.

There probably should be a section discussing Kirk's emphasis on advocating that the United States take a hard line on Iran and the fact that Kirk is the top Republican recipient of campaign contributions from the Israel Lobby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of Planned Parent Hood?

At the last time PP put out ratings I can find (2208) Kirk was given a 100. However, since then, partially as a response to his support of Stupack-Pitts, PP has pulled its endorsement of him and given its support to Alexi. Now I cant find a new rating, but using the 100 despite the fact that they have pulled their support seems disingenuous. I propose switching out PP with the NARAL rating, as they are a comprable pro-choice organization. If theres no disagreement, I'll get on that soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripoli Art11 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just note the update in circumstances rather than switching to a less-used ranking? -Rrius (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless NARAL is more common. Frankly, National Right to Life are the ones I hear the most, but I think we should go with the most common and explain as necessary. -Rrius (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When will his term begin?

When will his term officially begin? From the Chicago Tribune on 2 November: "The results have to be certified, so state election officials said they expect to be able to send the new short-term senator to Washington in time for the Nov. 29 reconvening of the Senate to finish business in the lame-duck session."[4]

If the results aren't certified on the 3rd—and based on the Tribune article, they won't be—is it correct to say that he assumes office on that date? —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't know the exact date of his term beginning. He will assume his office when the election results have been certified and the Illinois Secretary of State officially confirms this to the Senate (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/10/ranking_the_nex.php), so he should be sworn in this month. Same goes for Coons (DE) and Manchin (WV). It just depends on quick the states are in certifying their elections.142.207.112.44 (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

When I was looking for info regarding Talk:United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010#Final Results, I came across this: officially Illinois has to wait until at least November 19, 2010 for absentee ballots to arrive; they count as long as they are postmarked by November 1 or 2, depending on the county. See October 25 2010 Press Release from the State Board of Elections. There was some talk a couple days ago in the media about the Mark Kirk certification possibly being put on a "fast track" somehow, but I don't know if anything came of it. Perhaps the Illinois Secretary of State may be able to conceive of a way to certify to the U.S. Senate that Mark Kirk has been elected, without having to certify the exact tally for state records yet, if the total number of outstanding absentee ballots is already less than Kirk's lead over Alexi Giannoulias. --Closeapple (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

When I was looking at the Illinois elections website, en route to the Tribune results, they showed a certification date of November 23. That may be the fastest they can do it, but I wouldn't want to speculate to that end in the article text. —C.Fred (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

I read on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 page that Mark Kirk was the lone Republican to vote in support of the ban, sponsored by Diane Feinstein(D-California). I think it would be a good idea to add this to his page as it is a significant event that shows his political views. --Jsourber (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Dead links

His kirk.house.gov url now redirects to clerk.house.gov as they will be handling payroll, mail redirect, and other issues until Dold is sworn in 03 Jan. Links need to be re-sourced; they may not ever be available once his senate site fleshes out. 75.204.127.229 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that's already been fixed. Flatterworld (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

'ratings' and controversies

We generally avoid detailed lists of 'ratings', voting records and such as they go out of date immediately and are too easy to 'photoshop'. External links provides reliable sources for this sort of detailed information. Another thing we do is split 'controversies' out to avoid Undue Weight issues. Therefore, his military career includes what he did, dates and so forth, and Controversies includes that sort of thing. Same goes for Political campaigns and Electoral history. He is a sitting US Senator, and what he does as such is the most important part of the article. Campaigning is not his job, doing legislative things is. There's a difference. We are an encyclopedia and our job is NOT to trivialize the office. Flatterworld (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that interest group ratings should not be included in the article body. However, Controversies sections are a bad idea because they have the effect of either sanitizing the rest of the article (WP:CENSOR), plus creating a seedy WP:ATTACK section to be edit-warred over (WP:UNDUE). Material considered controversial should be seen in context of the rest of the article so as not to bias any section pro or con. I partially reverted the change you made, but left out the ratings (I support your removing these), and an empty section on Senate Committee Assignments which can be restored when this information is added to the article.

Splitting out "Controversy Sections" is not something we do. Where these exist, they are usually temporary arrangements that should be fixed. More on this at WP:CSECTION and WP:STRUCTURE. Thanks! / edg ☺ ☭ 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I've just full protected the article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the matter instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on at [5] regarding the reliability of the secondary sources being used in this edit. There's been no consensus on that issue.CFredkin (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No consensus? "Talking Points Memo is certainly reliable in this instance." "While partisan, this is a legitimate news operation with professional editors and reporters, who has credentials that can be verified." There are other comments, about arguments other than whether the source is reliable, but the topic is whether the source is reliable, and there most certainly does seem to be consensus about whether the source is reliable. In addition, I've added three more reliable sources, all of which support the text. You have done nothing but edit war and provide various bad arguments backed up with nothing. Your response here is very discouraging, since you seem to be actively misreading and misrepresenting the conversation at WP:RS/N. — goethean 22:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You've specified a total of two secondary sources. Both of which are under discussion at WP:RS/N.CFredkin (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You are being incredibly silly. You don't contest that Kirk voted the way I described him to vote, and you agree that two secondary sources have been provided. One wonders what exactly your new argument against the material will be. — goethean 01:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the vote occurred. My point is that Kirk has made many votes. Why is this one significant? If it's significant, it should be referenced by a reliable secondary source. I believe the sources you've provided are pushing an agenda that makes them unreliable in this context.CFredkin (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The senator voted to disapprove of his own earlier vote to avoid shutting down the government. You think that that's not significant, odd, or noteworthy? Well, a reliable source did think it noteworthy, and did make note of it.

One, the source provided has been found to be reliable at WP:RS/N. Two, your argument is not supported by Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, which I suggest that you read before making any further edits to Wikipedia. Please quote the portion of WP:RS that supports your argument. — goethean 13:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

One, regardless of what you think about TPM, your edit is clearly in violation of NPOV. You are clearly trying to push a specific POV. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to edit this article but as I see it is protected. Is full, indefinite protection really needed here? Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It was protected due to edit warring. The two editors above dislike some of the material that has been added about Kirk's votes and one of them has edit warred to remove the material. — goethean 00:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's clear. But my point is that the the above discussion is inactive now, and the protection is indefinite, so maybe the protection can be removed. SPQRobin (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mark Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100209024241/http://cbs2chicago.com:80/voterguide/mark.kirk.senate.2.1423262.html to http://cbs2chicago.com/voterguide/mark.kirk.senate.2.1423262.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100718203120/http://vaq140.ahf.nmci.navy.mil:80/Command%20History.htm to http://vaq140.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/Command%20History.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/02/15/mark-kirk-%E2%80%9981-campaigns-illinois-senate-seat-after-winning-primary
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2352440,kirk-corrects-military-record-060310.article
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/mark-kirk-survived-a-stroke-now-he-s-picking-fights-in-congress-20130628

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Kirk's controversial debate comments

...but of course, no mention of it and his attacks on Tammy Duckworth. Way to go. 174.17.228.134 (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See proof here: http://www.salon.com/2016/10/28/watch-mark-kirk-hits-tammy-duckworth-over-thai-heritage-in-illinois-senate-debate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:F500:51AF:8D8C:EC60:FE94 (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

174.17.228.134: Wikipedia is not a news site; it doesn't exist to "report" things 10 seconds after they happen. And it's already in the article by now, so you should be be civil and not shout accusations into the wind, as if someone here was doing something. If you're smart enough to watch a debate, you're smart enough to know not to make preemptive attacks against the Wikipedia community like that. --Closeapple (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have refactored some of the comments above to better comply with WP:BLPTALK. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mark Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nmia.org/images/2000_NATIONAL_Award_Citations.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2352440%2Ckirk-corrects-military-record-060310.article
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730201058/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kirk.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mark Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513053200/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/01/sen_mark_kirk_has_stroke_surge.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/01/sen_mark_kirk_has_stroke_surge.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160524213814/http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=about_senator to https://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=about_senator
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606042406/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/06/more_mark_kirk_military_record.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/06/more_mark_kirk_military_record.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403052456/http://www3.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=9385 to http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=9385
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016165228/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/05/kirk_lawmakers_wife_splits_for.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/05/kirk_lawmakers_wife_splits_for.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430123434/http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=283 to http://kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=283
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304031413/http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=42 to http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=42

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)