Talk:Peter Roskam/Archive4

My observations

I've scanned the article, and find it isn't as bad as many articles, and certainly not worth all the wrangling that is going on. Here are a few problems that I see:

Campaign fundraising section, the use of the word "scheme" seems POV. (I think someone already caught that one.) Also the "who contributed and who didn't" doesn't sound encyclopedic.
Stem cell research section, the Chicago Tribune's discussion of the merits or flexibility of different types of stem cells doesn't really belong in this article.
Spring 2006 section, why is this even here? It's about a speech someone else made when Roskam wasn't even there...
Summer 2006 section, 2nd paragraph (ICIRR), again, why is this here? Many groups call for action from many politicians, and are often ignored. Why is this notable enough to include, except to make the subject look bad?
Campaign contributions section, where it says "Only 56% of Roskam's donations came from individuals, while 82% of Duckworth's donations were from individuals." The use of the word "only" is POV-leading, and should simply be dropped from the sentence. The sentence gives exactly the same factual info without the word, only without the editorializing. (removed)

I kind of petered out after that, so there may be another issue or two in those last two sections that I haven't noticed yet, but like I said, it's not as horribly POV as a lot of articles I've seen. Crockspot 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. I'm the one who caught the word "scheme" and there have been other, similar instances of POV-pushing that I've been snipping out as I spot them. Tbeatty has also been vigilant about spotting and snipping out the "weasel words." The other changes you recommend are certainly good ideas as well. After you've made them, there will still be plenty of criticism in this article. I don't understand what the Duckworth supporters here are complaining about. It will be a balanced NPOV article without any whitewash. Dino 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You already did the first bullet, and I have done the last bullet. I'm short on time, so I'll let it ride out further consensus before I make more changes. I'd like to hear arguments/excuses for keeping the parts I pointed out, just to be fair (and for giggles). Crockspot 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I DO understand what the Duckworth supporters are complaining about. It isn't a propaganda vehicle for Tammy Duckworth any more. Dino 18:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough. This will be the last such comment from you on this page. You already crossed the line with this edit, where you altered the text of a newspaper quote and then attacked the use of the newspaper quote as "more evidence of POV pushing from the Left". One user has told me they want to stop editing this page because of your behavior. You are substituting cheap rhetoric and attacks for discussion and poisioning the atmosphere here, inhibiting collaborative editing. You've done more than enough to earn a temporary block for disruption, and if you keep this up, I'll just remove your comments and block you. The same goes for everyone else. Take your battles to a message board and stop bringing them here. If I have to, I'll lock the page and you'll have to find some other article to be your partisan battleground. Gamaliel 19:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground? The battle is over; and while I can't describe it as a complete victory yet, we have gained a lot of ground. This article is much, much closer to NPOV and BLP standards than when I started. BenBurch is abandoning this page because I have accused him of Wikistalking and left a final warning on his Talk page. Same goes for FAAFA, though he continues to try my patience as you can see. It is a well-founded accusation. How BenBurch chooses to spin his decision on your Talk page is no concern of mine.

I want this article to be a Featured Article on Wikipedia. In order to achieve that goal, its adherence to NPOV and BLP standards must be beyond any shadow of a doubt. I have a long and tiresome previous history with a couple of these people, Gamaliel, and I apologize to you if any expressions of frustration on my part have made your life more difficult. Now let's try to get along and continue making this article better. There's still much work to do.

I've just nominated this article for Good Article status. My opinion is that it is now a Good Article, but still has a way to go before it could be considered for Featured Article status due to lingering, vestigial issues with NPOV and BLP. The nomination should bring previously uninvolved eyes in here to review the article, and see whether my position or yours is the correct one. Dino 19:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please just try to tone it down. You're not the only one here who displays less than exemplary behaviour, but try to be better than them. This can all be worked out amicably. The sheer volume of commentary posted since my last comment last night is mind-boggling, and a misdirection of energy in my opinion. (Again, it's not just you, but it takes two to Tango.) - Crockspot 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nowhere near GA. I hope you can stand the disappointment. --BenBurch 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See. Told you. --BenBurch 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't abandoned anything and apologize if my conduct has been less than exemplary. I am working on a full section on Roskam's abortion views and votes, similar to that on Harry Reid and Kathleen Blanco. - FAAFA 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the Eric Krol editorial obervations/citations should be deleted as well. --Tbeatty 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've abandoned NOTHING.

An admin asked me to remain here, so I will --BenBurch 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Dino, you want to complain that I am wikistalking? Bring it on. --BenBurch 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roskam's church

Somone changed this:

Roskam is a member of the Anglican Mission in America, a breakaway sect of the Anglican Church (more commonly known as Episcopal) that opposes Gay marriage.

to this:

Roskam is a member of the Anglican Mission in America, a conservative branch of the Anglican Church (known in the U.S. and Scotland as Episcopal).

My version was fair and accurate ! (as is my motto!)

1) It is as incorrect to claim that this is a 'BRANCH' of the Anglican church as it would be to claim that Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints is a 'branch' of the Mormon church.

2) The reason why this sect broke away was GAY MARRIAGE and FEMALE and GAY PREISTHOOD. This needs to be made clear.

Once again we have an attempt to HIDE and OBFUSCATE Roskam's beliefs and stances. I want to restore this important info.

Sect |sekt| noun a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. • often derogatory a group that has separated from an established church; a nonconformist church. • a philosophical or political group, esp. one regarded as extreme or dangerous.

I will agree to describe it as a 'breakaway faction' instead of 'sect' as sect can have a negative connotation. Are we all OK with this? FAAFA 23:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Anglican friends have nothing nice to say about the Anglican Mission in America, so I am sure they would not want to be lumped in with them. --BenBurch 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a pious baptised and confirmed Episcopalian myself (I go to church SEVERAL times a year!), and wasn't aware just WHAT a big deal this is. Time magazine FAAFA 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is a serious issue! I'd no more lump these two together than I would lump the Seventh Day Adventists with the Branch Davidians. (And the Davidians *were* an offshoot of the Adventists.) --BenBurch 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think sect quite cuts it;

sect

1. A cult or religious movement, a group sharing particular (often unorthodox) political and/or religious beliefs.

A religious sect.

Problem is that thinking that gay people ought to be jailed or burned or stoned to death isn't truly unorthodox. I'd guess that about 28% of the population thinks that. Although the definition does say "often" not "always". --BenBurch 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However the wiki article on sect says; "In the sociology of religion a sect is generally a small religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example from a large, well-establish religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters." Which fits it to a "t". --BenBurch 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbeatty DON'T delete this again

The leader of Roskam's sect, Peter Akinola, supports a Nigerian law that "levies a five-year automatic prison sentence not only on almost every expression of gay identity and sexuality but also on giving advice or support to lesbians or gay men." gay.com "UJA, Nigeria, Dec. 20 — The way he tells the story, the first and only time Archbishop Peter J. Akinola knowingly shook a gay person’s hand, he sprang backward the moment he realized what he had done." NYTimes Anti-Gay Bishop No wonder some want to downplay his membership in this sect! - FAAFA 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is the problem - it is verifiable that Roksam is an AMiA member. It is verifiable that the AMiA split from the ECUSA to follow what they considered the more traditional values of the Anglican Communion. It is verifiable that AMiA Bishop Akinola has strong feelings against homosexuality. However, only the fact that Roksam is an AMiA member is directly relevant to THIS article. If you bring in Akinola you have to establish that Roksam supports Akinola on those issues... otherwise you are damning him by implication without any actual reference to support that implication. Is Roksam an AMiA member because he doesn't believe gays should be priests... or because the parish he had gone to all his life switched over? Now, Roksam himself has taken a position against allowing homosexuals to be joined by either 'civil unions' or 'marriage' so it might be reasonable to mention his church's comparable stance on that issue... but not to mention that the church opposes female priesthood unless Roksam himself has taken a similar stance. The AMiA's opposition to female priesthood is relevant to the AMiA article... but not this one unless it can be verified to be relevant to Roksam himself. Thus, something like, "Roskam is a member of the Anglican Mission in America religious faith which, like Roksam himself, opposes gay marriage", might be relevant but further information about the general practices of the church or beliefs of other members (even the leader) really is not. The whole 'breakaway sect' thing is also very dodgy as the AMiA would undoubtedly say that the ECUSA 'broke away' from the worldwide Anglican Communion, while they did not. Hence just a neutral 'religious faith' type description would be preferable. --CBD 12:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense. --BenBurch 13:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input CBD. "because the parish he had gone to all his life switched over?" is such an unlikely scenario that it can be discounted. The stances of Episcopal and AMIA are in such opposition on Gay Rights that somone who has 'happy' with the stances of the EC would not switch to AMiA just cause they worshipped in that physical church building all their life. I will look for more info on his religious views to see how other articles handle membership in controversial churches.- FAAFA 13:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an RfC

I filed an RfC on how much info on the breakaway sect that Roskam belongs to should be included in the article. - FAAFA 11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(RFC response). Remember WP:NPOV's provision about Undue Weight, unless this is demonstrably more significant than his stances on other issues, it should get no more coverage than them. As he is a politician, not a religious leader, his positions on political issues should get more weight than this. So take a guide from the coverage in the "Other positions" sub-section of the "Political positions" section. In my browser, those range from one to three lines of text. So be short, and be focused on him.

Remember that bias in the sources reduces the reliability of those sources, so sources that don't particularly care about the issue matter a lot more than any that have a strong bias (pro-gay or anti-gay). Unless it can be shown (from plenty of published, reliable sources), that his being in the church is considered an important fact about his life, it should receive at best a minimal attention in the article. If he doesn't speak about it himself, no more should be said than that the parish/congregation (I don't know which word is correct for Anglicans) he attends left the old body to join that movement, probably with a wikilink to their article. On the other hand, if he can be shown (again from published reliable sources) to have been a cause of the parish changing its affiliation, then more can be said about that, but never going beyond the sources.

Finally, remember that WP:BLP requires a conservative writing style that underplays controversies. If sources are found, the content may well need to be rewritten to be more neutral than the sources, especially if the sources are activist.

FAAFA appears to not understand the dynamics of religious affiliation. These days, most people's primary affiliation is to a congregation, and the congregation mostly stays put because the denominations stay put. As contrast my grandparent's generation, wherein denominational affiliation was primary. Individuals change congregations when they change residence, sometimes within a denomination, sometimes changing.

When a denomination is significantly changing a doctrine, as the Episcopal church in the U.S. has been the last few years, some congregations move, and some split. These are notable events, often receiving press coverage outside the immediate local area. In an Anglican church, authority and decision resides in the priests, not the congregation. In any denomination, unless the congregation was already close to splitting, normally a solid majority of the congregation will stay together with the leader when the leader decides upon a change in denomination. With no visible evidence at the moment that Roskam either 1) was one of the people that caused the switch or 2) is actively promoting the new denomination, no more should be said than that his church changed affiliation, with the name of the new denomination wikilinked. GRBerry 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the views of the bishop are not relevant to Roskam. This is a large church with lots of ministers and congregants. Including these pejorative terms are not only unencyclopedic, they are libellous as a false light case. Please don't add pejorative terms to describe anyone as I will delete them per BLP unless the term is being quoted from a verifiable reliable source. -- Tbeatty 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, GRBerry and Tbeatty. Thanks for contributing in a positive and thoughtful way to this discussion. While Wikipedia should report on controversy where appropriate, it also should not become a source of controversy itself. WP:BLP is well-written, and it's there for a reason. It protects Wikipedia. Appropriate places for discussions about controversies in the Anglican church and its leaders would be the articles about the Anglican church and its leaders, not here. Dino 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reference for his membership in AMiA congregation

There is nothing cited that says that he is a member of an AMiA congregation.~~, and also this (external link from Anglican Mission in America) shows no AMiA congregations within hundreds of miles of Illinois~~ --rogerd 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shows five in the chicago area, four in the western burbs, and three in wheaton. There was undoubtedly a reference for the claim a while back. I'll have to go into the article history to find it. — goethean ॐ 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We look forward to hearing the results and seeing a RS link for that sentence. Thanks. Dino 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back in the article history, there was never a cite for the claim. It appears to have originated on the website of Tom Roeser, a conservative radio host. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page there says that article was printed in "The Wanderer", a Catholic magazine. Probably this is their website. Probably a reliable enough source for his denominational affiliation. Reading the article, it is clearly pro-Roskam. Adequate proof of bias: at the end it says where to go to make campaign contributions for him. I'd call it sound enough to mention the denominational affiliation, but since says almost nothing about the denomination's position, not to go further. GRBerry 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

roger, likely you just entered Chicago, IL in that search box, and were confused as to the scale of the map. Enter Wheaton, IL and you will find a number of such congregations. And Wheaton is a short drive from Chicago. --BenBurch 21:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first time I went there, it showed nothing in the state, but I tried again just now and got the same results as Goethean. Oh, well, computers....--rogerd 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it. Honest mistake. --BenBurch 22:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Switchboard.com listing for All Souls Anglican Church in Wheaton, Illinois but no indication regarding affiliation (AMiA or Episcopal). Dino 22:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know that he is a member of that congregation? Here is their web page; http://www.allsaintsanglicanparish.org/ --BenBurch 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Still looking for RS sources, but here is what I have that is indicative;

http://www.nndb.com/people/079/000122710/ http://tomroeser.com/blogview.asp?blogID=21552 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A somewhat unrelated comment offered after reading the Tom Roser article

Interesting to note that a fellow conservative plainly states: "He [Roskam] is probably the best known pro-lifer, supporter of traditional marriage and foe of embryonic stem cell experimentation in the legislature." yet some here want him known for everything BUT these positions. ~~(I guess the elections really DID produce a sea-change since editors are trying to paint a strong social conservative as a moderate to make him more palatable to the Wiki audience)~~ - FAAFA 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting?? Huh?? what does this have to do with references? --rogerd 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Event at Glen Ellyn grade school

Calton, regarding the event at at Forest Glen Elementary School in Glen Ellyn, Illinois: why are you dismissing this as a "PR event"? When Roskam has a more lengthy track record of Congressional votes, I'm sure that paragraph will be squeezed out; but for now it shows that he is involved in his district, and doesn't just hide in his office in Washington and leave only for trips to Aspen. Impeccably sourced positive information in a BLP: what's not to love? Dino 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why are you dismissing this as a "PR event"? Because it, well, is? If you want to do PR work for the guy, PR Newswire or his constituent newsletter are better venues: putting in trivia just to fill space doesn't belong here. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not "PR Newswire or his constituent newsletter." It is a neutral newspaper. Calton, I have indicated (without pointing an accusatory finger at anyone in particular) that previous edits here were doing the opposite of "PR work for the guy" (a violation of WP:BLP) and I was slapped down for suggesting it.

And somehow, in your efforts to remove what you perceive as a "PR event," you've also deleted well-sourced info about Roskam's congressional voting record on alternative fuels. He introduced an amendment to a pending bill that created three new alternative fuels programs without costing taxpayers a dime. It passed 400-3. Obviously not anything that remotely resembles a PR event. And you deleted it in the same edit and never looked back.

I will AGF and observe that somehow, you've made a mistake and deleted an entire paragraph that you didn't intend to delete, then didn't notice your error. I have corrected your mistake. Please try to be more careful in the future, in your zeal to delete "PR events."

Comment: Now I see that you've reverted and said that it was no mistake. But your earlier comments described what you removed as a "PR event." Authoring and introducing an amendment to a bill that eventually passed 400-3 is far more significant than simply voting on a stem cell research bill; yet you left the latter in place, and deleted the former as a "PR event." Please review a text on legislative processes, and see for yourself that amendments are more notable than voting on legislation. Thank you.

The source is not "PR Newswire or his constituent newsletter."' I'm assuming English is your first language, so I can't imagine how you got that interpretation from "PR Newswire or his constituent newsletter are better venues". To make it clearer: they can go there, they don't belong here. --Calton | Talk 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: I am also adding a third link to the same paragraph, which I somehow failed to include yesterday. When one good link should be all that any reasonable person would need, how many do you want? Dino 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand on what his involvement in this fuel bill was. He was a co-sponsor? What was his amendment? HR 527 - Thanks - FAAFA 11:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't expand: this article is stuffed with enough trivia as it is. --Calton | Talk 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant expand here in TALK. Roskam wasn't even one of the bill's 15 co-sponsors. He added a MINOR amendment, like what happens dozens of times to EVERY bill. His website and now this article have glowing descriptions of the bill, like Roskam had some MAJOR involvement with it. He didn't. 100% puffery! - FAAFA 05:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Anglicanism2

Template:Anglicanism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. This template was previously posted to the article with a POV edit summary. I've replaced it with the original and nominated the fork-template for deletion. --Kyaa the Catlord 13:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He might not even be an Anglican!

One Wiki article lists him as a member of Evangelical_Covenant_Church

Another ref to this denomination and Roskam: Cov Church

I auggest we remove all claims of his specific denomination pending verification - FAAFA 00:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More : I think we can safely determine that he was a member of this faith in 1993, but that's a long time ago. 1993 cite I respectfully and collegially suggest that we describe him as a Wahhabist Muslim. If its good enough for Obama.... (JUST kidding!) - FAAFA 01:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I think we need to remove any reference to his religion until he makes some verifiable statement on the subject. --BenBurch 01:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New addition

I added the following to the intro paragraph :

Roskam is well known for his staunch conservatism, and his positions of being unabashedly pro-life, a supporter of traditional marriage, and a foe of embryonic stem cell research. [1] - FAAFA (standing up for conservatism!) 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Roeser is a great guy, but believe it or not, the things he writes are not generally NPOV. Just as the wording of that paragraph has POV overtones all over it.

Better wording might be: Roskam is well known for his conservative politics, some of his positions include: support of pro-life policies, support of traditional marriage, and opposition to embryonic stem cell research. --RWR8189 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I added 'staunch' and 'unabashedly'! Does that mean I'm a great guy? :-) I'm fine with your wording. - FAAFA (standing up for conservatism!) 02:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation of votes.

I suggest that we end this dispute and still provide documentation on every vote he has taken by linking to a destination where they are all listed. Then we can make a one sentence mention of his voting record and bring in all of his votes, publicity stunts or not. --BenBurch 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in god's name is the point of documenting every vote this has ever taken and will take in the future? How much air do people want to pump into an article about a freshman congressman? It would be like describing a Hollywood character actor's every guest role in every one of their TV series appearances. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much air do people want to pump into an article about a freshman congressman?

One might just as easily ask, "How much mustard gas do people want to pump into an article about a freshman congressman?" This article once appeared to be a repository for every criticism ever published on the Internet about Roskam. It needs balance. Balance can be provided by adding positive material about the congressman's legislative record. It is impeccably sourced and it is substantive legislative work. Dino 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, take a look at this version of the article. This is what it would take to balance the article. Votes on legislation, and particularly authoring major amendments to pending legislation that passed 400-3, is not "trivia." Your reverts are not supported by consensus and some would consider them vandalism. Please stop. Dino 12:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean, Hi! I think they are trival too. Congressmen are supposed to be doing just what Mr. Roskam did here. It is not significant in any way that would make it encyclopedic. Yes, it ought to warrant a newspaper story, maybe a column-inch or so, but not an entry in a biographical encyclopedia article. Also, please do not call a content dispute edit "Vandalism". Many people could have similarly called you a vandal for some of your edits and did not. OK? --BenBurch 14:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, we see paragraph after paragraph loaded with criticism from political opponents that is not notable. But it is defended vigorously. A biography about a legislator should contain his legislative record. Dino 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Calton's edit. Including the amendment is reaching. Not to mention the Glen Ellyn school thing. — goethean ॐ 15:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Glen Ellyn school thing" was removed days ago and is no longer an issue. Removing the legislative record of a legislator is an issue. Why is there room for every criticism published anywhere on the Internet, but no room for substantive legislative work by a legislator? It is ridiculous. Certain editors here remove everything positive, and shovel in everything negative. Then they wonder why I object and cordially direct their attention to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Dino 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but no room for substantive legislative work by a legislator? That would be for the simplest of reasons: there isn't any. The guy has been in office for a month, and dredging up the most trivial items and buffing them up doesn't make them part of any "substantive legislative work". You have a problem with the negative material? Deal with it instead of trying to gin up some phony "balance". --Calton | Talk 16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be for the simplest of reasons: there isn't any.

Authoring an amendment to a bill that passed 400-3 isn't substantive? Where the amount of money spent by the amendment is $10 million, but won't cost taxpayers a dime? Calton, if I try to "deal with the negative material," I'll have an edit war on my hands with Goethean and Propol. And I am fresh from another page where two other editors were defending non-notable partisan criticism like the Japanese at Iwo Jima, so pardon me for suffering from combat fatigue. If you're going to dig in your heels and insist that the legislative record of a legislator must be removed, can you help me form a consensus that the non-notable partisan criticism needs to be removed? Dino 17:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no that is not substantive. Some bills are just not bills anybody can vote against and not look like a bad guy, and this was one of them. Almost any amendment to this bill would have sailed right through. And which article were you referring to where you were re-fighting Iwo-Jima? Also, please do try to AGF with respect to Geothean and Propol. I see no propensity on their part to edit war. --BenBurch 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authoring an amendment to a bill that passed 400-3 isn't substantive? Nope, no matter how muh air you try to pump into it with that vote total: what part of "amendment" is giving you trouble? And $10 million out of a nearly $3 trillion federal budget doesn't even rise to the level of a rounding error. --Calton | Talk 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Ten million won't even buy a single research facility, much less staff it. --BenBurch 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Balance" does not equal neutrality. NPOV is achieved by ensuring that the article is written and presented neutrally and that items included are given their due weight and cited using reliable sources. We do not inflate the importance of minor, potentially flattering events because an article contains too much unflattering material. I have no idea if this is encyclopedic or not, but it certainly is a legitimate matter for debate here, and concluding that it is too trivial for inclusion and removing it certainly is not vandalism, but a legitimate content edit. References to vandalism are unhelpful and potentially insulting.

With that said, on Wikipedia articles often focus on controveries, especially more recent ones, at the expense of a substanital discussion of a person's workaday accomplishments. This is a frequent problem here, as people find it easier and more interesting to write about more recent and flashier events. In the case of a legislator, their legislative accomplishments are certainly something that usually gets ignored or underexamined. But in the case of a newly-elected legislator like Roskam, there simply aren't any accomplishments to write about yet. Perhaps the disputed material could be included in a more condensed form if the editors here can look past their differences and forge a mutually acceptable version. Or perhaps an area for everyone to consider expanding could be Roskam's career as a state legislator. Gamaliel 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that. I have looked at his voting record so far and there is nothing even remotely notable in it. This is why I suggested a one sentence link to a source where his record is being documented. (I'll have to find one, but I am sure it exists.) High points of his state record would be a great addition to this article. Dean? Care to research that? --BenBurch 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found such a source and made that edit. --BenBurch 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to my past experiences with two of these editors, I am seeking formal mediation of this issue. You may all expect to see formal notices on your Talk pages within the hour. Dino 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but can you not se how wholly out of proportion this is? I am trying to work with you and to make suitable edits to this article. But if you want mediation, go for it. --BenBurch 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it. I think the article needs to be pared down considerably. IMHO there's way too much stuff on the campaign. The campaign is over. Keep the notable stuff, but parts like listing the dates and TV stations that featured the debates need to go. I'm not sure what purpose that ever served. - FAAFA 23:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the WP:BIO/N folks seem to think the article is much, much too long for the importance of its subject. We need to keep the debates ONLY where they are used to support other material in the article. What do you think, Dean? We'd really like to engage you in actual discussion here. --BenBurch 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]