Talk:Tammy Duckworth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Debates

A lot of this discussion is nonsense. Simple, utter, cynical nonsense. I keep noting that current political candidates, especially the ones in Illinois are creating a enormous waste of bandwidth, as operatives from one party or another attempt to manipulate the entries for the candidate standing for office. This is NOT a forum for political hacks, astroturfing, namecalling or any of the other political dirty tricks that some people think is absolutely necessary in politics today. This is not a soapbox issue, people. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in these matters, and allowing chowderheads to go in an either delete polsitions, or to add in statements that the person for whom the entry was created did not say is the opposite of neutrality. Keep your political problems to yourselves. I strongly propose that entries for political candidates standing election for current office be either banned, or subjected to a lengthy vetting process, so as to verify tht the entries are accurate. This prevents illegitimate information from being presented as fact. And no, perception is not fact. Neitehr is what someone's campaign manager said the candidate said. What counts is what the candidate said, or how the candidate responded to citable news sources. It's isn't that hard to accomplish. I imagine that people might suggest that there is a freedom of information and the ever-popular 'everyone=entitled-to-an-opinion.' Yes, there is freedom of information as well as an entitlement to one's opinion. However, signing up to write and edit for Wikipedia means you are surrendering your own personal opinion in order to write the facts, and ONLY the facts that are from credible, cited sources. Anything else is personal opinion, and has absolutely no place in Wikipedia.Pete 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Information about the debates which Ms. Duckworth has declined should be added. These are noteworthy and important information regarding the November, 2006 election. see...[1] [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.94.134.222 (talk • contribs)

I think that would set a new precedent in Wikipedia. An encyclopedia lists what a person has done, usually not what they haven't done. Should we mention that Duckworth hasn't been investigated by the Illinois Attorney General? Should we mention that Duckworth hasn't violated FEC reporting requirements? How about the article for opponent, Peter Roskam, should we mention that he has refused to articulate his position on Social Security? That sounds like the mother of all slippery slopes to me. For now, I will delete your tag, unless you can come up with a very compelling argument. Thanks. — Possible single purpose account: Propol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.Propol 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on your precedents, the Eric Zorn blogs entries on the Roskam pages in particular, should you decide to remove the Tom Beven blog ( Mr. Beven has a website for his commentary, as Mr. Zorn does) entries from the Ducktworth page. Propol, you can't have it both ways, either you allow or disallow such entries. You can't chose only positive ones for Duckworth and the negative ones for Roskam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.254.185 (talk • contribs)

Also, the Beven information is corroborated with Chicago suburban news paper article. So its citation is correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.254.185 (talk • contribs)

I am sorry, but why are we wasting our time even responding to unsigned comments? If they aren't going to even have the stones to identify themselves, then we should simply purge their comments in the interest of avoiding possible sock-puppetry or sniping. Geez, like we don't have enough to argue about...Pete 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Header: Criticism of the handling of the Iraq War

I would feel a lot more comfortable if the statements of Duckworth's position of the Iraq War came in the form of direct quotes. The form this subject takes seems more like a lift from campaign staff flyers and talking points, and therefore opens us to criticism for a lack of neutrality.I am sure that we can find specific quotes to citePete 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

I rather meant my earlier remarks to serve as a warning that if the text in question could not be properly cited as being stated by Duckworth, it would be deleted. The text doesn't have basis in fact unless it is cited.Arcayne 23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Header: Criticism of earmarks

In August 2006, Duckworth criticized the use of earmarks and pork-barrel spending in Congress. Duckworth says that earmarks should be eliminated to rein in spending and to reform ethics, arguing that they often are divvied out in exchange for votes. Duckworth's opponent opposes earmark reform.[45]

This cited source is no longer available. Either new sources for the quotation need to be found, or the section needs to be deleted, as it is an unsupported statement. Entries about political candidates must be held to stricter criteria than that of, say films or comic books.Pete 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Since there has been no proper re-citation of the statements, they are being culled.Arcayne 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Header: Gun politics

There are numerous problems with this paragraph which are small in and of themselves, but when taken together present apparent bias:

•^ "Gun law heats up race for Congress" By John Biemer and Christi Parsons Chicago Tribune October 11, 2006 - this source is no longer available as a link. It needs to be either replaced or removed. Maintaining the integrity of our links allows WP to keep the high ground when confronting unscrupulous folk from using Ann-Coulter-style tactics and citing incorrect or absent material to add weight to their arguments.

• "Basically, whatever the NRA wants, Peter Roskam will vote for it." This quote citation is inaccurate. The direct quote was:

'"He's voted consistently against sensible gun laws and it's basically whatever the NRA wants, Peter Roskam will vote for," Duckworth said.' This is from the cited source numbered as #48. Consequently, the quote will be changed immediately.

Incidentally, there is an astonishing amount of paraphrasing going on in (at least) this paragraph. While I appreciate and applaud the intent of brevity, I think that direct quotations are going to serve the integrity of the entry as well as that of WP as a whole. We are better than that, folks, or we need to be.Pete 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Maintaining the integrity of our links allows WP to keep the high ground when confronting unscrupulous folk from using Ann-Coulter-style tactics and citing incorrect or absent material to add weight to their arguments.

Wikipedia editors are not limited to online sources. Please don't create new policy when editing articles. — goethean ॐ 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

. User: Goethean - They most certainly are when the entries and/or subjects are contentious - these are precisely the sorts of articles that require citation (aside from general fact, like birthdate, etc) regarding policy positions. Since unscrupulous editors (and I am not referring to you, Goethean) might claim to be able to cite sources that are offline (but which in actuality do not exist or are being taken completely out of context) and thusly manipulate via interruption the editorial process, it is the office of the editor to write clearly and concisely - consicely in this in stance referring to a clear path of legitimacy of the edit. I am not suggesting in this instance that you are acting disreputably, but instead that by arguing that an editor can choose biased sources or not even cite online sources you are opening the door to a wider field of abuses.

. Please don't confuse initiating new policy with enforcing policy already in place. In addition, please do not paraphrase cited sources. Maybe revisiting WP:RS as well as the article regarding writing good entries would be of assistance to you.Arcayne 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not limited to online sources. If there is a reliable newspaper that I read at the library and the article is not online, I can cite that article. I will give the title, author, issue, and the page. — goethean ॐ 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there is an enormous potential for abuse, I ask that you read again what I wrote. You might cite correctly, but allowing any editor to simply cite a source not readily available - and let's be clear: as this is an online encyclopedia, it follows that the sources cited should be searchable online. This prevents disreputable folk from citing sources incorrectly or making up sources as they go. As this is crunch time before the election, it is even more important to cite proper, verifiable sources. I am sure that absentee voters referring to this site from overseas (ie, stationed overseas, etc.) Your proposed method of citation requires us to rely on your honesty, and while I would not call that particular trait into question, I am sure that others might. It is far easier to simply find sources that are readily apparent, wouldn't you think?

Clearly, any editor interested in maintaining fairness in an election would see and agree to such a protective measure. In the interest of protecting the veracity of data, information not citable through an online source will be considered suspect, and purged. This is advisable to do so, especially when so many links in this entry have proven to be - at the very best - paraphrased. It is advisable for any editor to cite a source readily verifiable, and making sure the source marterial is not overly biased. this avoids issues arising out of WP:NPOV Arcayne 23:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but declaring "readily verifiable" only what you can access from an armchair is turning "reliable sources" on its head. Maybe you want to recheck WP:RS yourself? Anyone can put anything on the internet. YOUR proposed method of citation requires us to remove 99.9999% of scholarly literature references from Wikipedia, since they're not freely available online. The internet (and Google) is not in vain frequently labeled the all-wise trash heap. You're likely to find confirmation for anything on the internet, and for its precise opposite to boot. Your statement "but allowing any editor to simply cite a source not readily available - and let's be clear: as this is an online encyclopedia, it follows that the sources cited should be searchable online." is contrary what has been established as standard for Wikipedia AND contrary to good research practice. --OliverH 00:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear - when adding information in an article as fluid and moment-to-moment as current political campaigns, it is inadvisable to allow referenes that can be immediately verified for accuracy. While it is true that most of the internet is subjective trash, it is clear that most (say, 99.9999%) of the world's scholarly citable works are in fact online and available for free to the public. In fact, work that cannot be seen because of its age or rarity (like a Güttenberg Bible or ancient sanskrit) is more readily available than it would be in real life. Ergo, there is more scholarly work available online now than ever before, and far more than is available to the offline user. Of course, this requires the editor to actually use the Ol' Thinkin' Cap, and decide which sources are trash, and which are neutral, true to its parent material and reliable. Editors not prepared to do that should find another use for their time than WP. If an editor's idea of the depth and width of your research tools is Google, then perhaps it is a good time to revisit the definition of 'good research practice.'

It should also be pointed out that it is pretty uncommon for uncited sources to be permitted for use in encyclopedic and other, authoritative works. It is even more uncommon for uncited sources to be quoted by news agencies without terribly good reason (sensitivity of the source, etc.).

Allow me to be more clear: due to the volatile nature of political campaigns, it is imperative that accuracy is preserved. As has been found not only in this particular article but others, the material making it into the article do not match the referenced sources. The idea of tolerating non-cited sources which might go for days until the offline source is sought out and verified (if at all). I am reminded of competitive law students who will check out or remove from availability required material from the library. I think it is fair to consider the possibility that unscrupulous individuals might utilize non-citable or offline (therefore not immediately verifiably true) resources in the hopes that a mistruth might last - unverified - until after the polls close. They rewards for doing something like that would be substantial (is, swinging an election towards one candidate or another), while the consequences of this cynical practice are relatively minor (blocking).

In fact, I would go so far as to advocate that articles prior to an election be hard-protected the week of the election, to prevent 11th hour tampering, rampant vandalism and other unscrupulous nonsense. The basic reason for this is obvious, but no less important is WP's legal protections and reutation. That the current policies do not spell out clearly enough how to address the unusual challenges presented by political campaigns is only indicative that the issue needs closer scrutiny. WP policy is always developing, and might very well learn from the sorts of problems encountered with current political campaigns.

Lastly, I might suggest that adding a lengthy comment to this discussion area does not constitute a 'minor' edit, as you described it, User:OliverH. However, I make mistakes all the time, and giving you the benefit of the doubt.Arcayne 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to. What there is need of is you actually verifying your own research. It's beyond pale. I did not describe adding a lengthy comment as a minor edit, but actually correcting a small mistake within that comment that I had added previously, NOT marking it as minor. Maybe check the version history a bit better in future. And maybe think a bit more closely as to what you actually know. Your claim that 99.999% of scholarly research is available for free and online to the public is a testimony, if anything, of not knowing what you're talking about. Scholarly research is published in books and academic journals, and 99.999% of publishers expect to be paid for providing you with access to that content. Even with academic journals available in electronic editions online, the vast majority is subscription-based and you will have to pay for access. And even IF Wikipedia policy for reliable sources needed a closer scrutiny in the context of political campaigns, this here is not the place for it. Nor does a source become reliable on your sheer say-so, nor another unreliable because you lack the energy to go and verify it. To demand that sources should be reachable from your armchair, is, sorry, intellectual sloth and unfit as a standard for WP. --OliverH 11:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that some (and please note that I said some) academic and scholarly research does operate on a subscription basis. What does any of that have to do with a current political campaign? I find it hardly likely that Duckworth and Roskam will get into a heated debate over the value of Jessica Einhorn's essay, "The World Bank's Mission Creep," published int he subscription journal Foreign Affairs. I am not debating that some scholarly text exists offline. It does. And you failed tomention that for every - I repeat, EVERY - subscription-based journal, etc. there is an abstract of that article. And good news - most of those abstracts are also available online.

That being said (and re-said, as fate would have it), uncited sources, or sources from offline, unverifiable sources don't belong in articles where an unscrupulous individual (or cabal of individuals) with a specific political agenda could make use of damaging and grossly inaccurate information shortly before an election, with the goal of altering the outcome of said election. The need for scloser scrutiny by WP in political campaigns is not a perhaps thing.It is absolutley needed. How many edits and editwars have been fought just in this single article? How many IP snipers have come in to delete text or alter language with no repercussions except for maybe a clock,at which point they just move on to the next sock puppet and do the same thing? Too many timers is the only correct answer here, OliverH. You advocate a policy that is likely - no, scratch that - WOULD absolutely be used by people (either unscrupulous vandal monkeys or folks with a political axe to grind, or just some chucklehead with a god complex) to insert un-checkable information right before the election, and have the stink of it last while concerned individuals work overtime to confirm the veracity of the information. I am sorry; it is quite simply the wrong approach, and that you cannot see this is disturbing to say the least.

This contention I have with articles being neutral - especially for a candidate that I think deserves a solid hickory-stick beating for the negative campaign he has run - is that of simple fairness. I do not believe in the end justifying the means. I do not think that it is okay to win by any method. I protect Roskam because I have to, to be able to defend Duckworth. I have to defend Bush, in order to be able to claim the high ground when defending political figures more to my liking. This is not an 'armchair' concern. This is a fairness concern. If an online encyclopedia cannot provide links to online sources, well, the efficacy of that online encyclopedia comes into question. It is not about the energy involved in seeking out an offline source; it is about the envirnment that the informaton is provided. It is not intellectual sloth, as you put it, but rather demanding of a higher standard of proof that protects the subjects of the articles, the editors and WP from subsequent legal ramifications, but more importantly, it protects the casual user, who comes to WP to seek out information.

Do the leg work. The sources are there, and verifiable, intellectually honest sources are an absolute must for time-critical events like political campaigns and elections.Arcayne 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is absolutely ridiculous that you tell ME to do the legwork when you are too refuse to get out of your armchair. You can try to lecture us all here on how the world is flat, the fact is that the sheer fact that you declare offline sources to be unverifiable doesn't make them so. It merely underscores sloth and dishonesty on your part. And your efforts to rewrite wikipedia policy on an article discussion page underscore that. If you want to limit Wikipedia to the mindless drivel on the web, do so at WP:RS. This isn't the place. I have all sympathies for Duckworth, but what you are doing here doesn't do her a favor at all. It suggests that to support her, you have to engage in shoddy research and hand-picked sourcing, which, far from making the contents of the article more believable, makes it less credible. Limiting the sources to what is convenient for you to verify is, plain and simply, censorship. And I doubt she would tolerate your calling for that in her name. Offline sources are verifiable. They just require a bit more leg work. Which is why your calling for me to do the legwork is so ridiculous. The credibility of sources is not defined by being within reach of your fridge and your remote. Your ideas about the "efficacy" demonstrate well that it's not the verifiability that's the point here, it's sloth. Research requires work. If you're unwilling to put that in, at least don't hinder those who aren't. --OliverH 07:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are arriving at this archair analogy, but I think they would go further if you addressed your concerns a bit more politely. If you are unable to do so, I would suggest you have a nice cup of tea and sit down. Please do not attack me for suggesting the obvious. Then again, perhaps the obvious is not as clear as I have been striving to make it for you. Do I advocate a clarification as to WP 'rules of article engagement' where it concerns political candidates currently standing for election? Of course I do.The current rules do not sufficiently protect WP from unscrupulous folk with an eye on using the online encyclopedia as a free propoganda tool at the eleventh hour in an attemtp to influence public opinion and, perhaps, an election. Surely a reasonable person would be able to see the vast potential for abuse.

Am I suggesting that offline references lack legitimacy? Absolutely, positively not. I believe I have clearly stated previously that the problem with offline sources is the length of time verifying the veracity and accurate interpretation of that source. At no time did I attack the credibility of aforementioned offline resources. Allow me to repeat that here, because I am concerned that you have missed that key issue: I am not stating that offline resources are not credible; they may very well be. I am stating that these sorts of sources do not belong in time-sensitive, controversial, tendentious issues like political campaigns. Due to their nature, these sorts of articles require immediately citable sources, so as to avoid unscrupulous persons from using WP as a propoganda tool.

A very clear example of this would be someone this afternoon posting a report that a political candidate was once arrested for child molestation, and citing an offline source that takes a period of time to verify. It may be accurate, but what if it's not? The accusation has done untold damage to a public figure's reputation in the time before it is deleted as an incorrect source, and may very well cost them the election. What is the cost to the scumbag who uploaded the spurious information? Perhaps they are blocked or banned, a small price to pay for them, and untold damage to the reputation of WP. Granted, this is the worst-case scenario, but I think we have all learned through hard lessons to not be a pollyanna about these matters.

Am I calling for a ban on offline, non-internet-ready references in all cases? Absolutely, positively not. While finding a source for which there is not at the very least an online abstract is nigh impossible (or worthy of not, according to WP policy), I am suggesting that, in the instances of political candidates currently running for office, immediately-viewable resources should be required. I have already described above the possibilities for abuse, and they are nowhere near remote. If anything, 527 groups (like the Swift Boat for Truth thugs) and others have clearly demonstrated their willingness to use whatever tactics necessary to make sure their candidate wins. I am not even advocating that we ban them from contributing. I am strongly suggesting that these types warrant very close supervision. Allowing for offline source citation opens a door for the most extreme distortion of the parent source or citation of a non-existent of rare/unavailable sources, with little lead time before they can be verified.

I submit to you, that this is precisely the place to ensure that only credible sources make it online. There is little way to verify an offline source with the immediacy that a political campaign requires. I submit to you also, that this process of discussion is exactly how existing policy is adapted, and new policy is adopted. That the formal policy is constituted in WP:RS is an afterthought, a final product of what is made in the crucible of these discussion pages. In a very real way, this IS the place where that discussion should happen.Arcayne 18:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Arcayne, your proposal is not supported by Wikipedia policy. The 'child molester' thing is covered by wp:blp — goethean ॐ 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I submit, Goethean, that while the example (extreme as it is) may in fact be covered by WP:BLP, citing a source for what essentially constitutes an ambush that cannot be immediately verified is quite simply irresponsible. If it is a violation of policy (or a brazen lie), it cannot be immediately verified until after the damage has already been done. I am suggesting that we take steps to mitigate the possible damage. I am not calling for some massive re-working of how WP operates. Everything I have suggested follows both the spirit and letter of the Five Pillars of WP. I am suggesting that we exercise diligent caution, as there are larger matters at stake then a bad quote on a Spongebob Squarepants article.Arcayne 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorsements

Maybe we should list those organizations that have endorsed the major candidates, and include links to those cited endorsements.Pete 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

This is an encyclopedia not her campaign web site

This article reads like it was written by her campaign staff. I will probably be attacked for "attacking" a disabled veteran, and I acknowledge that Maj. Duckworth is a true American hero, but this article is very POV. --rogerd 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What specific changes would you like to see made to the article? I'm certainly willing to work with you. Propol 05:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

MY answer is most of it... every thing below "Military service" read like a Tammy Duckworth campaign flyer with absolutely no balance or NPOV. Now, for starters, and one that defies logical argument is the simple question... How do you Swiftboat..see Swiftboating for details, a real live war hero??? The implications are made with staining allegations and unverified speculations from bloggers and left leaning editorial commentators. No verified facts, just pure Ad Hominem attack with a good dose of | Non Causa Pro Causa .

Finally, Why is there is nothing about the nasty Campaign flyers Friends for Duckworth have sent out on this or Roskam Article, again ..Why? See WP:SENSE and try to add that factual information, it will be removed off this article very quickly as Popol lovingly protects this article from any negative contributions. Don't take my word or even believe me, look and see the entry logs and histories for your self. Joehazelton 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is completely filled with glowing campaign flyer copy about her and bashing and negativity about Roskam. It should be noted that Propol is a single purpose account, mostly editing on the Duckworth and Roskam Page. Propol protectes the Duckworth page, and dumps any thing negative and near slanderous entry on the Roskam article. It is painfully clear what is happening and should be noted that most of the information on both article is not encyclopedic and conforming to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV Also, Propol is very smart and aggressive to use wikirulez to get his way. See his histories and confirm, don't take my word for it. Beware, to question means geting bad from those that protect this article Joehazelton 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Joehazelton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Joehazelton, please stop your personal attacks against me. I have edited a couple of dozen articles and am hardly a single purpose account, you on the other hand...

I removed the section below from the article. I don't doubt it's accuracy, but I think we should try to find more authoritative sources. The unhinged press release deserves some kind of mention in the article. Making a play on words to ridicule an opponent and point out their prosthesis is utterly shocking. — Possible single purpose account: Propol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.Propol 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A target for swiftboating

It has been alleged that the same group of political consultants, media strategists and communication experts who swiftboated, John Kerry in 2004 will reportedly now target, among other veterans, Duckworth.

The Washington Post has confirmed that "Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies."

The headline of a press release released by the Roskam campaign on September 7 2006 described Duckworth as "unhinged". The press release described the language used in a Duckworth direct mailing as "shrill"

According to James Boyce, The Patriot Project was founded to defend John Murtha, Duckworth and others from being smeared as disloyal or unpatriotic.

Propol, this is not the first time that Roskam has made oblique reference to his opponent's handicap. Check out the results of this google search — goethean ॐ 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The best way we can filter out this nonsense is not by fighting fire with fire, but fighting fire with water; in this case, water being neutrality. We stay above the fray, and edit out of existence any attempt by these Swiftboating scumbags to use Wikipedia as their low-cost, propaganda-spewing, multimedia bullhorn. As well, we carefully edit (and possibly protect from retaliatory revison) these candidate's entries, making damn sure we take no sides in this matter. A lot of people use WP (probably inadvisedly, considering the nature of the site) to research political candidates. We must remain neutral. Otherwise, we are just another swiftboater. Pete 23:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Free Speech is not free folks; it requires vigilance. I don't care if Roskam's campaign manager swears that the candidate molests dead squirrels. We do not rise to the bait and open ourselves - and by association, WP - to subjective attack by unscrupulous, cynic-minded folk.-arcayne

As an addendum, if Roskam swore as to his opponents necrophilic bestiality, that would in fact be noteworthy. :) Arcayne 23:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Swiftboating

In an edit summary, User:Fisherking wrote Swiftboating a decorated war hero is illogical and just fanciful paranoia.

Ever hear of Max Cleland? — goethean ॐ 15:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny he's a democrat, now I have not heard of the Honorable Mr. Max Claland??? Besides, what's does that have to with this and the illogical charge of Swiftboating a Genuine War Hero like Tammy Duckworth, who honorable served this country? I have not seen any material, what so ever, showing any thing negative about Ms. Tammy Duckworth's Military service, which would be nessary under the defintion of "Swift Boating".

Show me and the fine readers and editors real (realiably sourced facts, Not editorial speculations, commentary, or idle gossip, from rags and blogs then you will have a point.Fisherking 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that Wikipedia reports on idle speculation all of the time. — goethean ॐ 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's rather the problem, isn't it? Too many people, inserting their own political agendas in a realm designed solely - I repeat: solely - for neutral commmentary and observation. This is an encyclopedia, not the Justice League. If you see biased entries, do (as you suggested I do) check the discussion pages, argue your point, and make the appropriate changes to return the entry to a neutral state. And of course, do not write anything that can be construed as biased, as well. Even if you think your guy (or gal) is getting a raw deal. We aren't in the justice business, nor are we in the "fair-and-balanced" business. We are in the fact business. I cannot see why it would be difficult to comprehend that. We leave our political and personal views at the door, and simply write the facts. I realize that we don't have a lot of role-models in that category, news programs and society being what it is, but to give in and allow WP to be used as a tool for the corrupt and self-serving is surrender. Tell the hard truth, and only the hard truth. If you are wrong, there are others that will help you (and the entry) get itself in order. Arcayne 06:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

attacks vs. criticism

User:NatusRoma removed the header reading "Attacks on Duckworth" and replaced it with one that says "Criticism from opponents". Is calling your opponent "unhinged" more accurately and neutrally described as criticism or an attack? — goethean ॐ 14:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the point, Goethean. NatusRoma acted appropriately by changing the header. The new header is a good start on distancing WP from the political fray, and not taking sides. Whether the candidate's opponent called her unhinged or a three-handled credenza is immaterial. What someone else says about the candidate is not germane to the entry. Period. The entry is supposed to deal exclusively with the facts about the candidate, the positions of the candidate, and WORDS of the candidate herself. Anything else is subject to interpretation, and we editors at WP are not in the interpretation business. We are in the fact business. I've addressed this with you before. You might have strong feelings about this candidate, and that is precisely why you should step back a little to regain your usually impeccable focus. You might think that you are acting in the best interests by including what can be seen as attacks, but we are required to be above the fray. By staying neutral (and policing ourselves thusly), we become empowered to prevent abuses by others with less-altruistic agendas.

Having discussed this here, I have replaced your reversion to the more neutral NatusRoma alternative. Please leave it be, or defend why your preferred header of "Attacks on Duckworth" is more neutral.

A side note: I am not sure why we are including anything other than DIRECT opposition by the candidate here. It doesn't speak to the nature, words or actions of the candidate, and their inclusion seems very much like bias.Pete 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

If I recall my thoughts correctly, "Attacks on Duckworth" seemed a bit too sensational, so I changed it to something with a more neutral tone. Naturally, like all biographical articles, this one should include critical comments about Duckworth where appropriate. NatusRoma | Talk 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you here, NatusRoma. I think we need to be vigilant in how we crop critical commentary. If it is criticism based upon what the entrant has done or said, then it is wholly appropriate. If it is notation of negative campaigning by the opposition that requires a reflexive repudiation or correction by the entrant, then that is also appropriate. The gray area begins there, though; where the notation takes on the appearance of bias against the opponent, or defense of the entrant. From there, it is a slippery slope to the inevitable name-calling, and of course, objectivity goes out the window. That is to be avoided at all costs.Arcayne 06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Something else I was wondering: is there a reason why Roskam's comments about Al-Jazeera were included in Duckworth's entry? She was not there, did not send the reporter from Al-Jazeera, and has made little in the way of comment about it (at least, none that was cited). Since it seems better inserted in the entry for Peter Roskam, it begs the question as to why it was entered here. Comments, please...Arcayne 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

She stands accused of being a proxy for terrorists. It is a notable fact about Duckworth that she has been the victim of a scorched-earth campaign. Any neutral contemporary or future biographical article will note this fact. — goethean ॐ 18:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite clearly, we will have to await that future assessment, as it is an obviously contentious matter at this time. It is neither your place nor mine to officiate the fairness of such accusations (which you rather paraphrased). It is not the place of WP or its editors to come to the defense of Tammy Duckworth or her election opponent; to do so flied in the very face of neutrality, as defined by the Second Pillar of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. The very fact that you are looking at her opponent's strategy as "scorched earth" indicates that you are unclear as to the inherent bias of that statement, as well as being unclear as to the meaning of "scorched earth". Perhaps it is time to have a nice cup of tea and sit down.Arcayne 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why?

A peer-review of this article was asked by the Biography project. The suggestions of the pee-review were not taken into serious consideration, but this is not the reason I comment here. My problem is that I came in here to archive this old-peer-review and I found it missing from the Biography project banner! Why? Don't you care about this article's history and the reviews, in case somebody decides to improve it some time in the future? I hope it was just a mistake, but, in any case, somebody should have noticed it. The peer-review history of the article is back now.--Yannismarou 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently reconstituted the {{WPBiography}} banner here; and didn't include the archived peer review because I didn't know about it. The "duh" question is why I didn't check; simply because so few articles have had one. If it wasn't already annotated, I didn't have any reason to assume one had been done. Sorry for the ire this may have caused. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 11:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Revisions

User:Arcayne, please discuss your deletions. Otherwise, I intend to revert your changes. — goethean ॐ 14:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for making rational changes to what was obviously biased writing; moreover, I apologize for not discussing them in advance. Speaking candidly, I am not interested in getting into a shouting match over what you feel are the enormous unfairnesses of peer-review. Rather than threatening to simply revert my changes, perhaps you could bring your own problems with said revisions here beforehand and we can discuss them. For my part, I will state my recommended changes and/or deletions before making them.Pete 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

Why are you so snippy? You deleted several entire paragraphs without discussion. That is generally considered vandalism and is immediately reverted. I thought that I would be polite and attempt to discuss your changes instead. I take your comments to indicate that you don't care to defend your edits and don't mind having them reverted. Why would you delete the section on Roskam calling Duckworth "unhinged"? A direct quotation from a press release is "obviously biased writing"? What about Roskam pointedly asking a crowd why Al Jazeera is in the sixth district? Pointing that out is "obviously biased writing"? And calling your opponent "unhinged" is not criticism. It is an attack. Call a spade a spade. — goethean ॐ 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am not going to get into snippy match with you, Gothean. I've seen how they end usually unproductive and amazingly stupid in scope and scale. So I will leave the weapons of distraction at the door if you will. okey-doke? :)

Let's address your concerns:First of all, the press release cited was unsigned and from the RoskamForCongress website. As you did not cite a major news source that reused the material, I must presume that it might not exist. So, you are quoting what could essentially be an extraordinarily biased blog that has only the most peripheral connection to Roskam. Its inclusion is an attack on Roskam, failing the litmus test for neutrailty (one of the 5 Pillars). Thirdly, what does Roskam's comment about Al-Jazeera have to do with Tammy Duckworth's entry? It tells us nothing about her, or her politics, or anything else of consequence. It does, however, tell us quite a bit about Peter Roskam...which is where this comment really belongs. And since he actually said it, it is neutral (we are not in the bias business, Goethean; we are however allowed to snicker when some fool puts his foot in his mouth). However, it does not belong in Duckworth's entry. It has nothing to do with her. As well, I have noted that you have again - without the peer review that you chastised me for - changed back the title of the header. the use of the term attack is non-neutral. And since Peter Roskam has not charged Duckworth with an axe or shot at her with a gun, then the proper term here is cirticism. You were over-ruled on this decision by two other editors (who took the time to comment), 2-1. It is changing back. Please, leave it be, or the matter will be escalated. Goethean, I don't know why you have to be reminded that this is not the Justice League, where you set out to right the world's wrongs. Roskam might be a scumbag. and his political machinery is almost certainly so, but aside from pointing it out as smear tactics, it is highly inappropriate to jump to the defense of Duckworth. Using the term of attack inspires violent imagery, and since there hasn't been an actual physical attack on Duckworth, it should be replaced with more neutral terminology. Leave it to others to point out what is and is not a spade. Our job is to simply show the hole that the spade created.Arcayne 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I must presume that it might not exist

What? I provided a link to it. Maybe my link was deleted, but a simple google search turns it up. I quoted no blog.

Actually, you quoted a news analysis, which is a half-step above a blog. My apologies for mis-naming the type of bias cited, as well as the non-existence of the citation (it was found after following an internal link within the source link). What is the issue with providing basic news story, unretouched by analysis? What is the issue with allowing the reader to arrive at their own conclusions regarding the candidates, without the filtered sources spinning their interpretation of the facts? And why not, if it is a simple Google search, use the clearer link instead of a dead or misleading one?Arcayne 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "attack" doesn't necessary mean "physical attack". My wording is perfectly factual and neutral. — goethean ॐ 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I might suggest that if I were to say: 'I am going to attack you because your edits are unsubstantiated,' you might take considerably more offense than if I said 'I am going to oppose your edits because they are unsubstantiated.' The difference in tone is crystal clear, and overrides a simple thesaurian choice, but I am sure you are aware of the semantical nature of your argument, as well as the nature of filtered source links. What is the matter with using the word oppose? Why are you determined to demonstrate bias and revert any neutral change back to stronger, obviously more biased language. Please don't waste time over semantics.Arcayne 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop accusing me of inserting bias into the article. My motives are frankly none of your business. I used the term 'attack' because it was the most accurate word to describe the situation. Here are some examples of newspapers using the word 'attack' to describe political attacks: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] google search

The point is moot anyway because the wording of the header has been changed. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed there was no need for you to bring it up as rebuttal. Let's move on.Arcayne 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fall 2006 Revisions

The text reads:

On October 24, actor and Parkinson's disease sufferer Michael J. Fox appeared at a fundraiser for Duckworth at Arrowhead Golf Course in Wheaton, supporting Duckworth's stance on embyronic stem cell research.[21]Duckworth's opponent attempted to pre-empt the appearance by holding a simultaneous press conference featuring a cancer survivor who was treated with his own cells.[22]

Since the Roskam conference was not recited from more neutral sources, I found a more neutral source, which adds neutrality to the entry without removing content. The article now reads:

On October 24, actor and Parkinson's disease sufferer Michael J. Fox appeared at a fundraiser for Duckworth at Arrowhead Golf Course in Wheaton, supporting Duckworth's stance on embyronic stem cell research.[21] Roskam organized a news conference just hours before his Democratic opponent in the 6th Congressional District race was to appear with actor Michael J. Fox in support of embryonic stem cell research. (italics mark the new text)

This new version will replace the old citation. the newer citation - as stated before - is better as it is pure news and not news analysis (and therefore biased).

What are you talking about? My version was perfectly factual. Roskam holds a press conference at the same time as his opponent has one with a celebrity. Obviously Roskam's was timed to take some of the momnentum from Duckworth's. That's not editorial opinion, that's simply reporting. And a newspaper reported it. And I quoted the newspaper. And you deleted it because you feel that it's somehow not neutral. Your logic is eluding me. — goethean ॐ 19:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder why the wording was changed from "Duckworth's opponent attempted" to "Roskam organized a news conference just hours before his Democratic opponent" Why is Tammy Duckworth suddenly being referred to as "Pete Roskam's opponent" on her own entry? I have to agree with Goethean that this is wrong. It is also redundant, rephrasing part of the previous sentence. Is it necessary to again refer to Michael J. Fox by full name and mention again that he was there in support of embryonic stem cell research?

This smacks of making it "neutral" to the POV advantage of her opponent.

---Couillaud 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I will make the necessary change. — goethean ॐ 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here Arcayne call ABC News a biased source (presumably, given your changes, biased to the left). ABC News is a legitimate reliable source of news for this article. — goethean ॐ 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here User:Arcayne 'falsified a quotation from a Tribune article. Here's the article. Don't do that. — goethean ॐ 19:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Arcayne has taken to deleting sections of text that are referenced to an non-working newspaper article link. However, Wikipedia editors are not limited to online sources. If the citation has a reference to the print edition of a newspaper article, that is a valid citation unless it is found to be inaccurate. Do not delete sections of text merely because a URL has stopped working. — goethean ॐ 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

. User:Couillaud - oops, that was a revising mistake on my part. Thanks for catching it, and please understand that no partisanship or bias was at all intended. I would have changed it, but it would appear that Goethean has already done so. The cited source was a news analysis,and not pure news, thus the language of having "attempted to pre-empt" Duckworth's press conference was altered to more accurate and neutral wording. Roskam didn't attempt to hold a press conference - he did hold a press conference. Nor did he pre-empt Duckworth's press conference - her press conference occurred, despite his simultaneous conference. The difference is clear.

. User: Goethean - while I happen to concur with your assessment of ABC News' neutrality, the relevant source you had cited was a news analysis - about a half-step away from a blog - from within ABC; essentially, a opinionated commentary. It would seem to me that quoting opinions evades the point of neutrality of WP. How hard is it to find pure news sources and quote from that?

And the failure to enclude the entire quote from the Tribune was unintentional. Please try to use more civil language, and not accuse your fellow editors of falsification simply because they seek a more neutral viewpoint than you. It was a mistake, not a deliberate or intentional effort to deceive or alter perceptions.

Lastly, if material cannot be cited, it cannot be included, especially if it is contentious material or sources where caution is prescribed (Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:RS). It seems disingenuine to argue that editorial citations are not required when there is - quite obviously a clear need for them.Arcayne 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A citation is not necesarily a weblink. Example:

Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empires, p. 455

is a perfectly legitimate citation. Similarly, if there is a magazine or newspaper article that does not have a corresponding internet edition, it can still be cited:

Yes, but - as you have pointed out in the past - a simple Google search can likely find the direct quote from that particular source. Gibbon has been published a number of times, and one edition's page #455 may not correspond to another's. I did a simple google search, and found no less than 10 pages regarding both Gibbon and the book in question. In regards to periodicals, there is almost always an online source to verify the veracity of the information. It just requires the legwork that should be automatic when citing a source. Anything less than a citable source is just laziness.

"McLuhan interview", Playboy, October 1966, p. 50.

That is another perfectly legitimate citation. It doesn't make the source or the cityation any less reilable because there is no online edition. Editors wishing to confirm the accuracy of the reference can make a trip to the local library and look it up. You should really take these issues up on WP:RS. — goethean ॐ 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was an online source: [9] and here: [10], and hey, right here (with mirrors) in WP, too: Marshall_McLuhan. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and it follows that the sources cited for articles considered contentious be provided online. It just requires research skills, not an arrogance that we should take editors at their word and trust - against precedent - that they are going to be unbiased and avoid weasel language.

Being an editor means one has to do some actual editing. That includes fact-checking for the best possible source, and not taking the first one that happens to agree with a personal viewpoint. You really might consider taking a closer look at WP:RS as well as Guidelines_for_controversial_articles, although this is not the first time that I have suggested that course of action.Arcayne 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted Heavy Deletion without peer review is vandalism

User:75.2.250.145, please do not delete large secions of text without discussing them beforehand. That is considered vandalism. Don't do that. You may discuss the matter to the discussion area and continue from theer. As well, you might consider that appearing anonymously (via an IP address and not a User:Name) can be suspect, as many rather unbalanced trolls use this sort of method to vandalize text. While you may disagree with the viewpoints expressed, you are required to submit to both peer review and WP policy. Please do not alter the text without allowing for the aformentioned peer review to occur. After all, WP is a collection of users.Arcayne 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was removing vandalism obviously put in by her campaign staff. 75.2.250.145 06:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As much as I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, I am finding it impossible to do so. Your account is an utter and complete lie, and you make mass deletions in the middle of the night. While some have an agenda here, you are the only one deleting entire paragraphs of text, and doing so without peer review. If you change any text or delete again, I will call for you to be blocked. I am sure that isn;t a new situation for you, Joehazleton. Please save yourself the trouble and find somewhere else to haunt. If you aren't this other person, then you should explain yourself, especially the fake account. (sorry everyone else - I think the above person is a toad, and the sort who makes our jobs harder.)Arcayne 08:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the other edit put in place by User: 75.2.250.145 - a news article in German - here is a pretty awful translation (sorry, my high school German is pretty rusty):

Triumphant advance disabled veterans - fall one Bush soldier Of Marc Pitzke, New York In the US election campaign stand as a candidate for the first time to Iraq veterans for the congress. Among them a republican, who defends the war - and a Demokratin, against it fights: It lost both legs in the Iraq. It is chanceless, it Favoritin. A symbol for that Opinion change of the nation. New York - Van Taylor, 34, was one first US Soldier in the Iraq. Still before beginning of the invasion the reservist advanced 2003 with the naval infantrymen to behind the fine lines. It survived some Fedajin ambushes, saved wounded comrades and was after own Data at the release of the soldier Jessica lynch taken part, those the Pentagon to the propaganda heroine clarified. It fought for three medals, turned after four months intact home and made in real estates. Also Tammy Duckworth, 38, served in the Iraq. Years after Taylor it was used one and a half as helicopter female pilot of the national guard. In November 2004 its Black Hawk was met by an antitank missile. Duckworth lost both legs almost and right arm. She spent 13 months in one Rehablitation hospital, learned to run laboriously with prostheses again and got “PUR-polarizes Heart”, the automatic US medal for injury or death at the front.

It does have something to do with the article, but I am wondering why the inclusion of foreign language article is here. Is there such a dearth ofnews stories on this topic in English that we must turn to the foreign press? Granted, there might be Illinois expats living in Germany, or Germans living in Chicago, but why would they care about a congressional race in the 6th district? All of this sounds hinky to me.Arcayne 08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You are a very confused man, Arcayne. I never created any German articles, I do not speak any German. I am not this other person you speak of and I have no clue why you think I would be. My edits are not vandalism. The majority of my edits are adding people to categories that they belong in. I removed sections from the Tammy Duckworth article that don't belong in an encylopedia. Also, the 6th District is not in Chicago.

I checked the other guy's edits you accuse me of being and I see that his edits were mostly related to Peter Roskum and Tammy Duckworth. Just because another person edits one of those articles, do you automatically assume that it's that person? I guess this guy had mostly anti-Tammy Duckworth edits, and you believe that my edit was anti-Tammy Duckworth, and that there is only one person in the world who is anti-Tammy Duckworth (There are more than one, and I am not one of them).

I suggest that you apologize to me for these accusations not only out of respect for me, but for you to savage some dignity for yourself. 75.2.250.145 19:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. perhaps I was vehement in my accusations, and I think that is just me being disgusted with the vandals running about thinking they can act without peer review; so maybe you felt the full weight of my ire towards that segment; were it unwarranted, I will apologize. It appears I was wrong in suggesting you were the editor that supplied the Germn news link. For that I am very sorry. That being said, I am not yet convinced you are a legitimate user. However, I won't post anything more like this here (as there are more appropriate venues to pursue this sort of suspicion), but my personal opinion remains unchanged. Please be very, very careful in the edits you make here from now on. You attracted the wrong sort of attention because your actions were unilateral.Arcayne 23:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Military question

I was just interested if it is standard practice for the US military to promote a serviceperson who has been injured. The fact that a pilot has been shot down does not seem to warrant a promotion. I imagine it softens the blow of permanent injury to have a higher rank (and higher benefits). I am not asking in relation to Tammy Duckworth per se (I don't have any opinion about her or her candidacy); I'm just curious about military tradition.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.120.201 (talk • contribs)

Ut's a good question, but I am not entirely sure of the answer. It mighthave a great deal to do with the circumstances surrounding how the injury were incurred. Someone losing an arm while in a firefight might be worth the standard Purple Heart; someone losing thesame arm while fighting off a tank battalion so that injured teammates could reinforce their position or call for reinforcements might be entitled to abit more, reflecting the highest values of the military service. Promotong such individuals tends to supportsuch values. As softening the blow of losing one or more limbs, one cannot eat with a fork using rank insignia; I would not imagine that there is any softening of the injury aftermath, nor do I think the military believes in this philosophy.Arcayne 14:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Robo Calling

This part of the article has a slant against Roskam and his campaign, and then misquotes Campaign Law. Please Discuss Removal —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:66.93.119.157 (talk • contribs)

According to the Elk Grove Times, The National Republican Congressional Committee has paid a Richmond, Virginia contractor to call Sixth district voters with a recording that says: "Hi. I'm calling with information about Tammy Duckworth..." The repetitive frequency of these calls has annoyed people and has hurt the Duckworth campaign's ability to speak to voters. The Duckworth campaign has characterized the calls as harassment.[64] This tactic may be a form of political dirty tricks. The Daily Herald reported that the NRCC spent $9,000 on robocalls to help Peter Roskam in a single week. This translates into approximately 180,000 calls.[65] Because the recording did not announce its patron at the beginning of the message, the robocalls were in violation of federal regulations.[66]

This is reporting what was stated in a newspaper, and does not mention Roskam at all (for which reason I fail to see a "slant" against him), only the NRCC, which spent the money for the robocalls. I'm not sure at all that campaign law is being misquoted (you offer no example of what that might be). I see no reason to remove it, as it was simply an account of the news of the day. If you have some followup that exonerates the NRCC, please include it. --- Couillaud 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The campaign law was having too announce who the phone calls were from at the beginning, that is not the case. They have to be included, but at any stage. I worked on a campaign, and have some knowledge of the law. So, I propose that it be removed. Also, does that portion below on Duckworth's page, why not Roskam's or on the House Elections, 2006 page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.119.157 (talk • contribs)

If you're going to continue this discussion, then I'd like to suggest that you establish a regular ID and sign your notes. It's easier than calling you "User:66.93.119.157".

As far as campaign law goes, I worked on campaign ads in my own state (Kansas), and the Federal law does indeed require that phone messages identify on behalf of whom the call is being made early on, not necessarily at the beginning, but at least before mentioning an opponent's name, in order to avoid exactly what the NRCC was doing, which was giving a false impression to voters that the annoying robocalls (which kept calling the same numbers over and over) that the call actually originated with the opponent. If you want to suggest that this issue be made more clear, then that's fine. But this may have played a significant role in Roskam's win, and there are still legal challenges to this behavior, so it is still relevant, and I'd vote against removal.

Do you still believe that this is "slanted against" Roskam, or is that objection withdrawn? --- Couillaud 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Couillaud, claiming that the robocalls were illegal goes beyond what the source says. Claiming that they were dirty tricks is editorializing. This is an encyclopedia article, not an opinion column; and while I respect your opinion, it has no place in an encyclopedia article. Please review WP:ATT, particularly the bits about original research and unpublished synthesis of published material. If a source doesn't say it, the Wikipedia article can't say it. Kzq9599 05:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Robocalling accusation from the Roskam article based on the two press releases linked here. The DCCC press release called it illegal, while the Republican release claimed they were only duplicating democrat efforts in other states and that the calls were in compliance with the law. No charges have been filed on this and both press releases are from law firms. This was a purely political accusation, a last ditch attempt to create a scandal by the Duckworth campaign. There is no need to include a one sided version of the story. --Dual Freq 11:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. There is no place for political theater in an encyclopedia article, except in an encyclopedia article titled, "Political Theater." Kzq9599 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the robocalling was "within the law", (actually, I didn't write that, but simply restored an earlier one), but that was only because the law was vague and the RNC exploited a loophole. The loophole was that while the law required that such calls identify their source, it did not specify that the source be named right up front, and it had failed to address the issue of redialing.

The RNC made a series of purposefully annoying robocalls that identified Tammy Duckworth in the opening few seconds but did not identify the source till the very end. If you were a target of the call, it would continually redial your number if you hung up before the end, and there were a series of three or four calls that would all go to that number within a few hours. The robocalls came at all hours of the day and night, which actually is a violation of FCC regulations. It targeted potential Duckworth voters. In addition to the Illinois 6th, such calls were reported in the New York 19th, Illinois 8th, California 4th, New York York 19th, and New Hampshire 2nd. This tactic was unique to the RNC.

There is no parallel on the Democratic side. They made robocalls also in races, but identified the source up front (as has been the practice), and did not engage in the harrassing redials. I do not believe that "dirty tricks" in this case is a case of "weasel words", nor do I agree with Kzq9599's description of it being "political theatre". This was a unique negative campaign tactic, was unfair and misleading, was limited to one side only, may have had a significant effect on the election, and I believe that reporting it is as a dirty trick is not one-sided. -- Couillaud 17:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

NRCC claimed to be duplicating DNC efforts in disclaimers and placement of the disclaimer. Maybe not done in this district / race, but these phone calls appear to be done by both sides. Please link to the article that explains that the NRCC or Roskam was fined / cited by the FCC for a violation. As for the rest of this article, the last part is a block quote farm. The ref style is not consistent and note 43 is blank. It needs some serious fact and NPOV checking. External links contain a link to a German language site and a blog. Oddly, this article mentions her opponent's contributors, but not her own contributors. There seems to be a lot of work needed here. --Dual Freq 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dual Freq said that "these phone calls appear to be done by both sides."

Please, I have cited specific races in which the RNC used this tactic (and there were a total of 53), and the only citation in response is a letter from an RNC lawyer that said in effect "So did the other guys", without a single citation. Please cite something that actually shows that this was a two-sided issue, and that Democrats used the same or similar tactics in specific races. Please see this [11] link for a list of races where Republican robocalls were an issue.

Tammy Duckworth ran robocalls herself, but they immediately identified themselves as from her camp, stayed within the rules, and cannot be compared to the RNC attacks.

If you wish to claim "both sides" used this same tactic, please cite specific instances where this was reported. As much as the Republicans were cited for this behavior, one would think they'd have a list of every Democratic violation.

As for "fined / cited by the FCC for a violation", are you saying that it's not a violation of rules unless you're specifically cited? Are we going to parse words so finely here? I did not say they were found guilty of violations, but that is what you are asking for. The point is, even if they were entirely within the letter of the law, they violated its spirit, and they still qualify as dirty tricks. FCC Title 47 CFR 64.1200(b)(1) states:

"All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages shall at the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call."

Please explain how the robocall was not in violation of this without resorting to "fined/cited".

If you go 75 in a 55, you're in violation of the law, irrespective of whether or not you get caught.

Please go [12] here to listen to some of the robocalls.

-- Couillaud 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing convincing there. This article does a fine job of giving one side of a political issue, a last ditch attempt to create a scandal by the Duckworth campaign. Since this is such an important public issue if it were illegal, the Democrat controlled congress would have demanded FCC prosecution for the "purposefully annoying" ads. Why would the NRCC make an ad that was "purposefully annoying". That wouldn't seem to help their candidate. I suppose the phone message said vote for Roskam or we'll call you at 2am. --Dual Freq 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated by Dual Freq, "I see nothing convincing there.". I never expected you would see anything, or more properly, hear anything to convince you. Your viewpoint is decidedly partisan in this matter, and it does not serve that viewpoint to see anything. You are willing to take the RNC's word that it was simply a widespread practice on both sides, but the only evidence available is that this was a Republican tactic.

Why would the NRCC make an ad that was "purposefully annoying"? If you had actually read the entire statement instead of parsing words again, you would understand that it was made "purposefully annoying" with the intent of making voters think it came from the Duckworth campaign. I note that while attempting to misdirect this discussion, you also fail to address the question I posed about the language of FCC rules.

article does a fine job of giving one side of a political issue. So, show us the other side. Show us where this same tactic was played against Republican candidates. Show us where Democrats have dropped the issue (tightening election and FCC rules is on the agenda). If this presents one side, it might be because there was nothing on the other side to show.

the Democrat controlled congress would have demanded FCC prosecution. Sure. The FCC, with five commissioners, all appointed by the current Republican president. If the Democrats haven't done what YOU think they should have done, then they couldn't have a case. I've heard Rush make that argument before, as if there were only one possible solution to the issue if it were really true. I think Democrats' idea of simply changing the rules to tighten the rules to make them more dirty trick-proof. --- Couillaud 04:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose Bush fired the prosecutor who was working on that. Your viewpoint is decidedly partisan in this matter, and it does not serve that viewpoint to see anything. --Dual Freq 11:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've cited information that Republicans were the only party to have engaged in the abusive robo calling. You have not rebutted.

I've cited the specific FCC regulation regarding the fact that it was indeed a violation of FCC rules. You have not rebutted.

I've pointed out that the robo calling tactic qualifies as as a dirty trick. You've not rebutted.

Your only response so far has been to make snide remarks and attempt to address the most peripheral issues.

By your failure to address the issue of this being (a) a dirty trick, (b), a violation of FCC rules, and (c) entirely a Republican tactic, I must assume that you have conceded the points by default, and that you are now, in effect, banging your shoe on the desk.

Couillaud 13:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You've stated your opinion that it was a dirty trick and you've claimed it was illegal according to your personal legal opinion / interpretation of the law. You've stated your opinion that the calls are intentionally annoying, but there is no benefit to annoying a voter that you want to vote for you. You can copy and paste FCC laws in here all day, I don't see any cited news articles that make your claims. Don't bother posting some blog article. I don't see any charges filed in court and I see no citations or official findings of wrong doing. I also seriously doubt this is a republican only issue as you've claimed. Basically you're saying Democrats made robocalls, but since they were not annoying and not alleged to be illegal by their opponents that makes it OK. --Dual Freq 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I must conclude that you DO concede the point by default. Your entire argument now consists of gainsaying my argument, and parsing my words in order to twist what I've said, and a refusal to provide any evidence to support your argument. You're just trolling now. This is less about accuracy and relevance to you than winning a political point, truth be damned.

I also note that after removing video links because "the election was over months ago", you then loaded the article with irrelevant information about where donations came from, an issue from BEFORE the election, as if such things didn't happen anywhere else, have never favored a Republican, and are in any way unfair.

Maybe instead of putting irrelevant information in both articles, we should instead REMOVE it from both.

Kzq9599 offered to discuss this when we disagreed on some edits, but has unfortunately vanished from any discussion, and now all that passes for such is this sophistry of yours.

I'm sorry, but this is not what I'm here for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Couillaud (talk • contribs) 02:14, March 27, 2007 (UTC)

Right, I conceded that your points are only your opinion. Political matters have two sides. In this case one side claimed the other has done something wrong, no news there. I'm waiting for the indictments on the crime of robocalling, but since you noted above a "loop hole", that indicates you understand it was not illegal. It was very public, and if it was illegal, opponents would have forced prosecution to gain further political advantage. The contribs are going back because they are used in other articles, like Roskam's, Weller's I'm sure others as well. (Goose / Gander thing) At least I didn't include some individuals , see also: Barbara Streisand or Susan Sarandon. Oddly, Duckworth's contribs are linked on Roskam's page, but not here. No mention of her individual contributors either or the fact that many of her contributers were not from her district or state. The Open secrets links indicated that as well. What about top metro area contributors like San Francisco and Los Angeles, those don't sound like they are in Illinois. Interestingly, Roskam's contributors are linked here, on this page to try to smear a little Mark Foley guilt by association on Roskam. This is supposed to be a biography not a press release archive for the Duckworth campaign. --Dual Freq 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A very effective way to ensure an edit war is to use the undo function to revert non-vandalism, cited material. Not very polite I must say. --Dual Freq 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was not reverted for vandalism, but for irrelevance. And you chastising anyone for impoliteness is a Kettle-Pot meeting. -- Couillaud 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'm appearing a bit testy, it's because this article has already been the target of vandalism by pro-Roskam editors during the campaign, and only very recently by some user calling himself "Tammyduckworth" (not a pro-Roskam edit, but a pro-war, pro-Bush edit, actually changing facts and quotes). You're suddenly adding and subtracting things, making it abundantly clear that you have a political agenda for doing so, and your entire argument in favor tends to take the form of deliberately misinterpreting others' statements, making snide remarks, ignoring and gainsaying the information presented because you can't present anything else to counter it), fine. Your only reason to insert the information about is to make it seem wrong that Americans take an interest in Congress as a whole. You act as if the right wing PACs never ask their members and contributors to give money to a candidate that does not represent them. Every major congresional candidate gets out-of-state contributions (and I thing that out-of-district, considering we're talking of Chicago, is stretching the matter), and unless Duckworth's out-of-state contributions were noteworthy and unusual, then the information is irrelevant. Personally, I think that the fact that so many out-of-state individuals supported Duckworth is a sign of her broader appeal, but I still think the information is irrelevant here, as it is on the Roskam article.

But it's already in the Roskam article, and copying and pasting it here is redundant. The Duckworth article links to the Roskam article, and this information is available if any reader were to want more information about the election. What is the value of the information?

As for a non-Wikipedia link "smearing" Roskam, that's not the responsibility of Wikipedia. It is an external link, and if you think it's irrelevant or misleading, you should remove it. I have no problem there. --- Couillaud 03:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This line is the one smearing Roskam about Foley, not an external link, it is in this article. "On October 3, 2006, Duckworth charged that Roskam should return the $40,000 in campaign contributions that he received from House Speaker Hastert and other House leaders who she accused of covering up the Mark Foley sexual harassment scandal.[22]" This line talks about one of Roskam's contributors, but any mention of Duckworth's contributors must be swiftly removed. The addition was relevant, if it is relevant to Roskam's article, I don't see why it is not relevant here. So because I disagree with your opinion and your original research FCC legal analysis I'm banned by you from editing this article. If I'm banned from editing this article because of some perceived POV, then you also should not be editing this article for the same reason. I have 9,200+ main space edits, and my edits to this article are certainly not biased, they are simply stating facts on the linked pages. Yet you compare me to an obvious vandal with 3 edits. Maybe my edit only seems biased in this article because the rest of the article is a press release archive for Duckworth. Keep up the good work keeping out any negative facts about Duckworth. Eventually someone else will see this article and force a cleanup, right now it is in bad shape as I listed above. --Dual Freq 11:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The information posted about the FCC is not "original research", as you claim, any more than quoting the Sixth Amendment. I have added links to two sites that show the FCC language. Interpretation of the relevant section is not difficult to anyone moderately fluent in English.

The statement made by Duckworth during that campaign was part of the news cycle, and your categorization of it as a "smear" is simply your spin on the matter. Your adding the extraneous information about other contributions seems more retaliation for that statement than any real desire to add relevant information. If the accusation was untrue, find exculpatory information. If the accusation was untrue, I'm sure there'd be a link about it in the Roskam article.

As for "banning", I do not have that power to ban anyone, and you've made edits since this, so I fail to see how you have been banned, particularly by me.

Gotta remember to sign these things.Couillaud 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you can properly copy and paste an FCC rule, the original research part is applying it to this situation, which still has not been cited. Where is the article that says that this law fits this situation? As for the "statement made by Duckworth", that's exactly what it is, a political charge made by an opponent during an election cycle. This article lends it undue weight by, assuming it is the correct and full story. --Dual Freq 22:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I CAN copy and paste an FCC rule, since you needed citation, and you disbelieved that any rule was violated. But that is extremely interesting logic to claim that noting that the RNC violated said rule is "original research"; methinks you are stretching the definition to the breaking point.

OTOH, your unique claim that "being in violation" ONLY applies if you get fined for it falls under your interpretation of "original research" much better than my plain-text reading of the FCC rule: by your standard, if you aren't found guilty and fined, then it just didn't happen. The FCC rule (which I have cited in the article) is very clear: the calling party must identify itself or its patron at the beginning of the call. The actual robocalls are documented: they start out referring directly to Tammy Duckworth, and do not identify that they are from the RNC until the end of the call. I stated that the robocalls "were not in compliance with FCC Title 47 CFR 64.1200(b)(1)", and you've asked for a citation with the statement that I have characterized them as "illegal", which is untrue.

I'm not sure what kind of citation you're asking for. I can provide a link to the calls themselves. I can provide the reference to define what a robocall is. Your request is unclear. If it's because you still think I'm using the word "illegal", then you're in spin mode without even reading the statement.

As to Duckworth's charge about Roskam's money: was it true? If not, or if there was a counter-claim, can you cite a source that says so? If you can't, then your earlier claim that it was a "smear" (which I should remind you is a weasel word) could fall under that umbrella you opened called "original research". At the very least, it's violating NPOV.

There are areas of this article that do need to be cleaned up, and they're beyond the time and ability for me to do. If you're going to help, thank you. But I object to the changes that you say are necessary for POV reasons, when what you're doing is removing things that might show Roskam or the RNC in a bad light. If the information is true and relevant, then the information should be there. Couillaud 05:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation needs to say that the calls are illegal according to that law. Additionally, half the paragraph is cited with a dead link Elk Grove Times article so I can't verify that portion. Simply linking to a law and claiming the calls violated it is not a proper citation. Combining two sources, one that says the calls did not say who the caller was at the beginning and another that states the FCC law then combining them saying the calls were illegal according to that law is Original research, Synthesis of published material. I am not a lawyer and for all I know there are specific campaign laws related to campaign advertisements that exclude them from FCC rules. All I see cited here is a press release from DCCC lawyers claiming they are not legal and a rebuttal press release from NRCC lawyers saying they are legal. Since the two law firms differ in their statements, and no charges have been filed, no indictments made and no fines issued, I have to assume that no crime was committed especially since this was so widely publicized by the DNC and DCCC. As you said above they were "within the law" and you cited some loophole which again indicates it was legal. So if they are not illegal, only alleged to be illegal by the opposition, what is the point to the paragraph? Supposedly illustrating some dirty trick? Trying to prove the election was stolen? It is no surprise that a Republican won in the Republican dominant 6th district containing most of the historically Republican DuPage County. The only surprise here is that the race was as close as it was, that is the notable part of this election. Blame robocalls, electronic voting or some other conspiracy theory, but that doesn't change the historical profile of that district / county. --Dual Freq 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not accept your personal interpretation of the facts, nor of what constitutes a synthesis of published material (and neither did the Admin I contacted), but there is now a link to the statement. You won't like it, and you'll complain, but you'd do that anyway. I've provided references, you keep making arguments. I've made my point to the readership in general, since you won't listen. Unless you can show the section is untrue, leave it alone.

The rest of your statement is simply trolling, and does not properly belong on a Talk Page.

-- Couillaud 04:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A for effort, but Congresspedia is not a reliable source per WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet plus it doesn't say anything about the Illinois calls being illegal. Nice try though. I must have missed the admin posting here saying that your opinions were facts. --Dual Freq 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As we've all missed the statement somewhere that you are Lawgiver of Wikipedia. I put the link the Congresspedia as a courtesy, because the word I got was that a citation is not needed simply because Dual Freq says it is. Nice try yourself, but airball. The citation of FCC rules and a description of the act itself was sufficient, and does not constitute original research. Some day you'll grow up to be a good attorney for the RNC, or if they don't want you, a tobacco or oil company. You're getting all the fine techniques of modern sophistry down already.

We all know the reason you're here, which is because you hate everything Democratic, and want to change everything here that might reflect badly on your single-term congressman. All your citations of Wiki rules are excuses. Defining my edit as "original research" is stretching the definition, and if my opinions are not fact (I never said they were), then neither are yours. This ain't Fox News; here, "fair and balanced" means more than "the loudest guy is right".

You never followed up on your "smear" claim before. I assume you never found a reference when challenged, but that you still want a news story hushed because it's "wrong". Is that fact or just your opinion?

Counting the number of edits you've done as a statement of superiority, and quoting Wiki Policy with your opinion of what it means is no better than anything you've accused me of. Make all the changes you want. I'll just politely revert them when you go too far. I have time to do this. -- Couillaud 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS -- Most of the biographical information on this site (marked as citation needed) came directly from the bio on Duckworth's own website ([13]).

All you have done is accuse me of supposedly being POV, partisan and now you assume I "hate everything Democratic". I will no longer respond to your overt trolling. Feel free to continue to talk to yourself and call everyone who disagrees with you an "angry republican". You can disregard my warning above, but that doesn't make citing wiki's or other user created encyclopedias right. I keep forgetting that you are some kind of political operative supposedly working on campaign ads, perhaps next time I will not waste my time dealing with similar people. --Dual Freq 05:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that Dual Freq's interpretation of WP:SYN is correct in this case (and in my opinion). I have held this consistent position in other articles, and have noticed quite a bit of resistance from certain quarters. This policy has been clarified a bit recently, and a lot of people are going to have to give up their little pet statements, because they are OR. - Crockspot 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Election Passed

Since the 2006 election has passed, some of the information needs to be changed into the past tense, or perhaps even deleted. Ms. Duckworth's positions on various issues should be summarized or simply removed, or replaced with references to other sites that focus on those questions. Wikipedia should not be a campaign site, and, in the future, any candidates for public's office material should be biographical in nature, with a brief summary of major positions included for academic interest purposes. 4.243.152.122 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

Since she now lives in Illinios, and ran for Congress from that state, shouldn't be in WikiProject Illinois? 4.243.152.122 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

done. --Ybbor^T 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

removal of video links

Dual Freq removed the video ad links on this page, with the comment that the "election was over months ago". I don't know if that is proper justification for removal. I believe they are still relevant to and provide background to the article itself. If the links are broken, remove them, but if not, I believe they are a valid and relevant supplement to the article.

--Couillaud 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal is per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, and If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. The CNN ones are definite copyvios, the campaign videos may also be copyvio unless they were posted by the copyright holder. I also see no reason linking some old campaign videos unless they are somehow notable enough for their own article like the Daisy Commercial. Wikipedia is not for campaign advertising, the links should have never been there in the first place. Also see WP:EL for blog links and foreign language links. --Dual Freq 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been an issue with the negative campaign tactics (including ads) that were used in this campaign, some of them might actually be apropos to the article. I plan to examine the links, and I may wish to put one or two back if they are appropriate. And campaign videos generally fall under fair use rules. -- Couillaud 02:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Lordbyte's edits

edit 1, edit 2.

Let us count the falsehoods. Duckworth is local, while the edit implies that she is a carpetbagger. Duckworth was the Dem candidate because she won the primary. People voted for her. Not because she was "hand-picked" by "Chicago Machine Democrats". Four of your links are to opinion-editorial pieces, which are not reliable sources. The other two links go to blog posts, also not reliable sources. One of which is a URL that doesn't work. I am reverting back to before User:Lordbyte (shockingly, a brand new user!) touched the article. — goethean ॐ 15:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Goethean lack of good faith

A carpetbagger, by definition... or perhaps a Parachute candidate See Duck test

Truth one. She is have little connection with the 6th district considering she lives out side and spent most of her adult life out site the 6th.

Truth two. She was hand picked by the Chicago Machine and Dick Durbin and Rahm. Don't distort that truth, any fool can read that Christine Cegelis,, the local Dem, was thrown under the Wheels by Rahm Emanuel and The DCCC and in fact spent far more money and still barely won. The insult the political intelligences of grown adults.

Truth Three, The uncivil and arrogant crack that "Shockingly a brand new user" and "I'm reverting back before (I) touch the article" is sheer insult and arrogance as well as inductive of your contempt for any one who should dare challenge the bias of this article, in light of facts. Grow up and be civil and not a WP:DICK.

Truth Four I'm reverting your revert due to the fact your augments don't hold water. Lordbyte 20:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Goethean & LordByte

Okay, Goethean, please play nice and don't be so insulting to newbies when you revert edits, okay? You are correct that Lordbyte is using fallacious references to buttress his claims of "fact", but he is a new user (as we all were once), and that can be done without inciting a new edit war. Please?

Okay, LordByte, learn the rules of Wikipedia before you start making edits with such sweeping and unsupported claims. You are a new user, having been here for all of four days and have made no edits except to this one article, and your edits have been negative and inflammatory. To many Wikipedians, that smacks of someone who is here with a specific agenda, and in this case, a political agenda.

As for your arguments:

(1) Do you know how many U.S. Representatives (or candidates for office) don't live in their constituencies, and how many states have a requirement that they do? Do you know whether the fact that Duckworth didn't live in the 6th District was actually an uncommon detail? It is already recorded in the article that she didn't live in the district, but accusing her of being a "carptebagger" or "parachute candidate" (which is the same thing) requires a bit more research than you've done.

(2) No, again, it NOT obvious and not a "truth" that Duckworth was "handpicked" by Durbin and Rahm. If you wish to make this claim, you need to back it up with factual references. Blog entries and op-ed pieces just do not meet the standard.

(3) Yes, Goethean is being uncivil, but that's Goethean, and has mostly earned the right, so that's just the risk you take when you so carelessly edit articles about which he cares. He's usually right, but I agree he could be a bit less snippy. However, your own response shows an almost equal arrogance of assuming facts not in evidence.

(4) There is almost literally an army of editors here who will unmercifully revise and undo your best-crafted arguments and statements, sometimes irrespective of the truth. You can undo their edits, but they will follow yours with their own undo, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. If you truly want to make a substantive change, argue it out on these pages and get a consensus over what can be said with backing proof, and what constitutes opinion. I can't guarantee you'll go away satisfied. I gave up arguing with a Roskam partisan earlier who modified things and has been around Wikipedia long enough (and was enough of a lawyer) to quote and misapply Wiki rules wherever it suited. It happens, and a lot worse than what you've seen here.

Right now, everything you've tried to add basically falls under opinion. Prove it, and it can stay. I'm going to revert your latest revert, simply because you are placing negative accusations in it, without proper factual sources, which means doing more than simply saying "Any fool can read" and "Don't distort the truth".

-- Couillaud 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, I will go do my research and hope I can find information to back up the truth of my statements (For I know them to be true and have read in print from reputable newspaper sources of my statements). You should understand, that 6 months down the line from these events of Duckworth November 2006 defeat, such “online information” will not be available any more, due to fact the most newspaper web sites have archived and have made unavailable such fact’s… So, I will list conventional citations, as to the article author, name of newspaper (or other reliable source, per WP: NPOV and WP: BLP) But, theses sources will not be “available online”. This must be acceptable.

Second, How does USER:Goethean earn the right to be a jerk??? He has more experience and I would think he should be held to higher standard then a “Neebee” like me??? You implied he can operated at a lower level of Civility with this apologetic statement …”Goethean is being uncivil, but that's Goethean.” This shows were you head is and your agenda? Also, consider my response; see Tit for tat.

To show I have good will and willing be civil, I will apologize for my statement to Goethean. I hope Goethean can civil and do the same.

Third, consensus don’t mean truth… this is myth and misapplied logic and fallacy. If we should consider consensus as valid, then I get enough people to think like me, though well written, but false ideas. Then change the Wikpedia article about Earth to add it is common knowledge that the Earth is flat. Consensus is not Truth, and this thought is not acceptable logic.

So, I will go and do my research, and I will be back.Lordbyte 00:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, I live in Glen Ellen,Illinois and I am familiar with 6th district race last fall and know some of the facts pertaining to the players in that race.

Lordbyte 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia allows you to use sources that are not online; not a big surprise, as we're still not quite there at digitizing everything and putting it on the web. You should look up the rules for quoting sources for that.

By "consensus", I mean a general agreement or consensus that the fact as stated can be supported by available evidence and sources. For instance, most people believe that Buck O'Neil signed Ernie Banks (to use a non-political Chicago-related example); the majority still believe that, though available research shows that Buck O'Neil was not even a Cubs scout when Banks signed with them, and therefore could not have signed him, and that Wid Matthews was actually the scout. I can gain consensus for the fact by showing that the available evidence supports my statement, while the other belief has no supporting evidence. If you say the Earth is flat, I say "Prove it." If you say, "I have more people who agree with me than you do", I say "prove to me by available facts that the Earth is flat." If a million people believe an incorrect thing, it is still an incorrect thing.

Your statement that Duckworth was "chosen" by "machine politicians" is not supported by citing a blog or an op-ed. If you find someting (you can find a well-researched article in the Tribune, or records of the DCCC involving the 6th District, that would be a more primary source. You are making a heretofore unheard claim, and it needs to be backed up with more than just your personal knowledge. I'll quit belaying the issue on that now.

Goethean, LordByte is being somewhat civil, and has apologized for his remarks. Please make nice about "falsehoods", when they were simply newbie mistakes of making unsourced and undersourced statements without knowing the rules of sourcing.

For the record, I'm in Kansas City, am not a political operative, and I don't know squat about a lot of the inside baseball of party politics, in Chicago or elsewhere, unless I dig. I know that Duckworth was heavily supported by Durbin, but I don't know that she was hand-picked; in fact, what I read before primaries is that she (as were several others around the country) was recruited by non-mainstream Democrats who wanted candidates who did not walk in lock-step with the old guard. While she did court Rahm's and Durbin's endorsements and help, that fact (and Cegelis' accusation) does not prove that she was chosen by the Machine. It IS a fact that the DCCC gave up on this very close race in its last week while the RNC was pouring vast amounts of money into Roskam's final push. That fact alone makes me wonder whether how much "establishment" support she truly had.

I'm glad we've averted an edit war for now. -- Couillaud 02:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lordbyte, I would also like to comment that your choice of language to make your point is the type of charged words that POV pushers use and is unlikely to win you much support. Words like "hand-picked" bring connotations of smoke-filled backrooms. While Ms. Duckworth may indeed have been the candidate preferred by some Democratic politicians living outside (I'll not judge that one way or the other), it is clear that there was an open primary in which she had significant competition. She won the race, according to the article, but with only 44% of the vote. I am guessing that neither Durbin nor Rahm snuck into a polling place in the district and cast votes for her, so the FACT is that she was selected by voters in the district. If you want to make a bigger point about the impact that outside forces had on the race, be my guest. But stick to real facts, not "facts" that the op ed writers and bloggers toss out freely. They get readers by being very POV and colorful, and that is fine. This, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a preliminary review of articles that backup my contention of the following...

• a. Duckworth was hand picked by Rahm and Dick.
• b. That the national Democratic Party tossed Cristine under the wheels.
• c. The reason why Duckworth was pick was due to her war injuries and military record
• d. That is Duckworth is , by strict definition a carpetbagger, as well as a parachute candidate

I would assume that Chicago Sun-Times and Chiacgo Tribune columnist writen articles are sufficiently sourced, as to meet the criteria of wikipedia.

"Neatly packaged, Dem to enter House race: Recruited by Emanuel, Duckworth booked for national TV interview".
Lynn Sweet Special to The Chicago Sun-Times.
December 16, 2005 Chicago Sun-Times.
Page 12.

"Say no to the Duckworth 'machine'"
Kenneth Brummel The Chicago Sun-Times
December 21, 2005
Page 52

"Emanuel courting vet for Congress"
Lynn Sweet The Chicago Sun-Times
November 14, 2005
Page 26

"6th Dist. Dems in slugfest for House:
Duckworth backed by national leaders -- and some locals resent it"
Eric Herman The Chicago Sun-Times
March 10, 2006
Page 12

"Residency an issue for 6th District rivals"
Lynn Sweet The Chicago Sun-Times
December 2, 2005
Page 14

"Emanuel leads charge for Dems"
Lynn Sweet The Chicago Sun-Times
November 2, 2006
Page 31

"Time for Emanuel to support Cegelis in 6th"
Dick Simpson Special to The Chicago Sun-Times
November 29, 2005
Page 39

"Quit trashing Cegelis"
John Hedges The Chicago Sun-Times
December 8, 2005

"The House that Rahm built"
NAFTALI BENDAVID The Chicago Tribune, (Chicagoland Final Edition)
Nov 12, 2006
Special Section

"Iraq vet touted for Hyde vacancy"
John Biemer, Tribune staff reporter (Near West Final , NRW Edition]
Nov 16, 2005
Metro

Proof and citations that Tammy Duckworth was a parachute candidate in a carpetbagger chosen by Rahm This alone should give credence to what I am saying.

This just some of the local chicago source, if I need more, let me know, there is the Washington Post, NY Times and others.

Thanks Lordbyte 09:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First thing I notice is that you still want to use the terms "carpetbagger" or "parachute candidate", both of which are highly charged, pejorative weasel words. By themselves, those terms will turn most editors against you on general principal. Also, from your list of contentions "a" through "d", it's pretty clear that you have a definite negative agenda toward editing the Duckworth article.

Wikipedia has rules regarding writing from a neutral point of view, and has related standards regarding what may be written about living persons. Most would agree that you need to more closely adhere to those.

Your issue basically is one that 'some people contend is true, but have not proven. Accusation is not proof, and in the case of a living person, the requirement for proof is much more stringent, 'cause Wikipedia is afraid they might sue.

You still did not answer my first (and a very important) question about how common or uncommon it is for a candidate to live out of district. "Carpetbaggers" traditionally are candidates who move into a district to quickly establish residency, not someone who simply lives six miles outside of a district. Robert Kennedy and Hillary Clinton both faced such accusations when they ran for Senator from New York, and were much closer to the definition.

Yes, Duckworth may have been recruited by established Illinois pols. That does not make the pols a "Political Machine" (an accusation you have since dropped, to your credit), and does not by definition make her a carpetbagger. When you apply your own (or an editorial writer's) personal interpretation of what makes something true, that is when the doctrine of no original research rears its head.

Second thing I notice is that you are still quoting a large number of op-ed pieces. Those are not legitimate sources, as the writer had a particular axe to grind, Lynn Sweet (who is a columnist, not an investigative reporter) being a good example.

I'm going to have to come down on the side of saying that this is not (or at least not yet) suitable for the page; that the fact that Duckworth's primary opponent used the pejorative terms, that newspapers reported those accusations, and that if you turn your head just right and squint that you can see it too, just doesn't reach the proper level of proof.

If this was your entire reason for signing up with Wikipedia, then I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience. As for my remarks about Goethean having "earned" the right to be snippy, I was being facetious, and it didn't come out that way. We have rules on civility, and he violated them, and then you followed with some of your own. I'm guilty of it myself occasionally, especially after having been provoked.

You can write about the contentions made by Christine Cegelis during the primary campaign, but you cannot report them as absolute fact, because they are simply points of contention.

FWIW, I've weighed in with my two cents. Anyone else care to comment?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Couillaud (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC). Sorry 'bout that. I keep forgetting. Must be getting old. -- Couillaud 17:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't what to go though the expense of paying for the archived articles, all from mainstream newspapers and all subject to editorial review by their editorial boards. So, for logical defense of my statments, I invoke the wikiedia famous Duck Test Which is simply this...

The duck test is a common analogy in the United States. The duck test can be explained this way: If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is indeed a duck. The duck test is a form of inductive reasoning. A person can figure out the true nature of an unknown subject by observing this subject's visible traits. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse arguments that something is not what it appears to be.

Tammy don't live in the 6th district. Tammy was recruited by outsiders, ie Rahm Emaual and Dick Durbin, even though She never held public office prior to her run for office ( some say presumptuously), and now has full and complete backing by the Powers of the DCCC, over that of an established local candidate, Christine Cegelis? Why? What did Tammy have to offer over that of an established local candidate like Christine?... It would seem to be Tammy’s war injuries and war record only, not her political history or experience as on office holder.. .so by definition,

Carpetbagger

see definition two

"An outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality."

So, I will stand by my previous statements that...

• a. Duckworth was hand picked by Rahm and Dick.

• b. That the national Democratic Party tossed Cristine under the wheels.

• c. The reason why Duckworth was pick was due to her war injuries and military record

• d. That is Duckworth is , by strict definition a carpetbagger, as well as a parachute candidate

The logic is simply if it was not true, Christine would have been the choice and in all liklyhood wouild have won the local primary, less the outside influence of the DCCC (Rahm and Dick + big money) to chose Tammy Duckworth.

Any one, less a partisan person, would see this as such.

Now I have, again supplied plenty of proof, and these newspaper citation, which you say are “blog” are still subject to the same editorial review as any other “article” in these publications, and theses newspapers I cite are one of the most respected and largest in the country.

So, you objections would seem to have little merit, based on my presented arguments. Thank you.Lordbyte 11:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Carpetbagger" or not? Not.

Lordbyte, you still failed (A) to provide documented proof and (B) show whether this was an unusual or common political occurence. Tammy Duckworth is not a "carpetbagger" by strict definition, as you say; she is barely that by broad definition, and what you are arguing comes dangerously close to a charge of "Original Research" in that you found a definition and have square-pegged this situation into it.

One of the most key elements in calling someone a political "carpetbagger" is that they have moved into an area from elsewhere and have no connection to the area from which they want to get elected. Duckworth fails this test, as she has a connection to Chicago, and did not move in. She was always eligible to run for office in that district.

You're now making the suggestion that if we don't see it the same way you do, we are "partisan"; this, after having shown yourself to be a Cegelis partisan. You believe we should be all swayed by your arguments. You need to understand that Wikipedia requires verifiability, not "arguments".

And as a person who used to work in journalism, I can tell you that op-eds are NOT subject to the same level of proof that news stories are, and that blogs are rarely subject to ANY editorial scrutiny.

If you make the changes, the same result will occur; someone will revert your edit. It might be me, or it might be any one of three or four others. I will at least try to be polite about it.

-- Couillaud 14:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lordbyte, I agree with Couillaud. You are stating some facts (that Duckworth lived three miles outside the district and that she had financial support from outside her district, for example), then applying them to a definition which YOU conclude she meets and then stating that your opinion is a fact. An opinion supported by facts still remains an opinion.

Someone who lives within the same "locality" from which they are elected does not satisfy the definition of "carpetbagger" which you quote. It is my opinion that someone who lives within 3 miles of the district boundary line and in a city which itself is within district, lives in the "locality". In my opinion, you are creating an artificially narrow definition of "locality" to fit your argument. You apparently disagree, which is fair, but that is your opinion, not a fact. We are free to disagree with each other but I think you will find plenty of editors who will consider your changes inappropriate. -- DS1953 ^talk 14:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(Full Disclosure: I logged a couple dozen hours at DuPage GOP headquarters making calls and knocking on doors for Roskam in '06.)

I've mostly been watching this argument from the sidelines, and I have to come out against the use of terms like "carpetbagger" and "parachute candidate." "Parachute Candidate" and "carpetbagger" have extremely negative connotations. This violates mainly the spirit of WP:NPOV, but also the letter. Some selected quotations from said page: "[The Neutral Point of view] is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject," "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization"

My suggestion: focus on how much attention the Roskam camp paid to her being outside the district (I would still avoid the negatively connotated buzzwords). Just about every time I was at Roskam headquarters I heard it. It shouldn't be too hard to find sources (if you don't mind waiting 'till summer, I can probably help you find some). More importantly, it puts the fact in perspective by talking about how it was used during the campaign.

As a humorous personal aside, I should note that this whole "Duckworth lives outside the district" thing, was extremely odd for me. I myself live about 5 miles out of the district. "Let's send Roskam to congress!" [cheering] "Roskam supports our values!" [cheering] "Let's let the sixth district decide who represents the sixth district!" [silence on my part]. "Hey Ybbor, why did you stop clapping?" :D --Ybbor^Talk 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Full disclosure: if you helped Roskam's campaign, <Personal attacks removed>. — goethean ॐ 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to remain WP:CIVIL, and Assume Good Faith. My political activities makes my comments no less valid and have no bearing on the encyclopedic article. --Ybbor^Talk 01:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't worked on anyone's campaign in more than 10 years, and I think that goethean's comment was a violation of WP:NPA. We simply don't need that kind of talk in wikipedia. --rogerd 04:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request from Tammy Duckworth to withhold date of birth and mother's maiden name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The following request was confirmed as coming from Tammy Duckworth (if necessary, I will forward proof by email to any administrator upon request). The result of the discussion at the biography of living perons noticeboard (archive link is here) and in keeping with WP policy/guidline, consensus is to remove the exact date of birth and her mother's maiden name (as requested). Thanks, R. Baley 22:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) For the most recent iteration of this issue, please see the archived biography of living perons noticeboard discussion link here. Essentially, regardless of whether or not the subject of a WP:BLP is a public figure, Wikipedia's policy on date of birth states that if a subject objects to the inclusion of their date of birth, simply list the year of birth instead. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Hello. This is Tammy. I am requesting that all editors please leave my birth date and mother's maiden name off the page for protection from identity theft. I truly respect the free nature of this excellent page and know that I am now a public figure (if only a minor one). However, I would be grateful if we did not make it so easy for someone to have access to my personal information that is commonly used to verify identity. Thank you all in advance for your help. cheers, tammy. (IP address removed, R. Baley) 05:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Discussion of the issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With all due respect, running in a highly visible congressional election, Illinois's 6th congressional district election, 2006 does not qualify you as a "minor public figure". Also, you are the Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs which makes you very much a public figure and a major one at that. See NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) to remove any doubt about your rights regarding this. Now, if the information is not accurate then you may have rights, assuming you can break though the protection Wikipeida has in regards to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Not to sound cynical, the sword can cut both ways.TEAMCrocko 00:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)—This user is a suspected sockpuppet of banned editor Joehazelton— Is there a published source cited for the birthdate and mother's maiden name? I didn't see one in the article, but maybe I'm missing something. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Ah, I see the mother's maiden name comes from the Washington Post. Still looking for the birthdate. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Birthdate cited as well. I'm afraid the information is encyclopedic and has been published in multiple reliable sources, so I think removing it would only damage the article to no good effect. Even if we removed it here, it would make little difference in deterring identity theft, as the information could easily be found elsewhere. I've changed my opinion, see the WP:BLPN entry. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC) NOTE: This discussion then shifted to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive26#Tammy_Duckworth_.28closed.29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybbor (talk • contribs) 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

2009 Discussion of the issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Back in 2007, Tammy Duckworth requested that her date of birth and mother's maiden name be removed from the article. Much of the debate, especially in the early going, centered around just how prominent a public figure she is and whether she was entitled to special treatment. At the time, Duckworth had recently been appointed Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs, and was less than a year removed from a run for Congress that received international attention. It was ultimately decided to accede to her request, and the information remains excluded. At least one person who supported granting the request specifically mentioned revisiting the issue if her profile rose. Since then, Duckworth was mentioned as a possible replacement for Barack Obama in the Senate. In fact, she was supposedly a favourite of Dick Durbin (and possibly Rahm Emanuel) before the Blagojevich arrest. Thereafter, she was mentioned in published reports as a possible Veterans Affairs Secretary and a possible candidate for Rahm Emanuel's House seat. Ultimately, she was appointed Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs (she was confirmed April 22). I don't take a position either way, but I think it is time for a second look at this issue. A part of the discussion is above, but the full discussion is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive26#Tammy Duckworth (closed). -Rrius (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC) She's a public figure, and the birthdate information should never have been removed in the first place. I say put it back in. As for the mother's maiden name, that seems pretty irrelevant. Why was it in there in the first place? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC) I do not see that her new appointment has caused her public profile to rise (other than brief period when her appointment was part of the news cycle) sufficiently to revisit. Looking at the previous discussion (ignoring the politically motivated POV arguments), the reasons that applied then seem no less relevant now. As for the argument that she is a "public figure", she is Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; IMO that does not make her a terribly high-profile public figure, and I don't think her her previous position in Illinois did so either. I also do not believe that her name briefly being bandied about as a possible nominee for positions that were ultimately filled by others, while it might make her more noteworthy to Wikipedia, does not make her more a public figure. -- Couillaud (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Her appointive postion in Illinois was never the primary basis for considering her a public figure. She was a Democratic challenger in a Republican district who received national and international press attention. She is clearly a public figure. Also, you are ignoring the fact that she is now a person mentioned for important elective office in Illinois when such offices come open. She was repeatedly mentioned as a candidate for U.S. Senate and for Rahm Emanuel's House seat. It is frankly a matter of fact that her profile has risen. The question is whether she has passed a point where there is no longer any reason to honor her request for special treatment. I leave that question to other editors, but it is nonsense to argue she is not a public figure and that he profile is no higher now than in 2007. People less notable than her have their exact birth dates listed and have their mothers' maiden names included when their parents are discussed in their "Early life" sections. To boil it down, is it reasonable to believe that including one or both bits of information poses a substantial risk creating identity theft? -Rrius (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC) I will repeat my earlier statement from just above yours: "I also do not believe that her name briefly being bandied about as a possible nominee for positions that were ultimately filled by others, while it might make her more noteworthy to Wikipedia, does not make her more a public figure." I am not ignoring the fact that she was briefly mentioned in a number of articles as a possible appointee to the House or Senate as you feel I did, I am discounting its importance in this issue, as it was a "fifteen minutes of fame" kind of thing. If she had actually been chosen for those offices, then yes, the situation would be different, but it is not now, IMO. Ms. Duckworth made the request personally for this, the issue was heavily discussed, and a decision to abide by her request was reached in accordance with Wiki rules. I see no compelling reason to change that, and unless you can offer some evidence that her noteworthiness, fame, etc. have changed significantly during that time, I see no reason to revisit the issue. -- Couillaud (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) If this info is available online, why can't it be posted on this article? I call it censorship.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC) I see no reason to provide her actual day of birth, esp as per her request and the prev resolved dispute about it, but i think mentioning the month might be helpful in being able remove that really weird-looking "(Age 40-41)" desig atop the article, when we know she's 41 (and 1/2 ;-) now. I'm also gonna reword desig for mom & dad, to avoid people (frequently) trying to put in the maiden name (that Tammy requested be removed) Beansandveggies (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

March 2012 Discussion of the issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is this still censored? She has been the head of the Illinois DVA and is a candidate for elected office yet again. 72.94.174.90 (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Tammy is a public figure without any doubt question or debate, 99% of all the other Senate and Congressional biographies have birthdays listed so the question begs why does Tammy Duckworth deserves this special treatment. I think it's silly that her birthday is censored which is inconsistent with Wikipedia philosophy. So, considering there is a consensus now to add the birthday I went ahead, being bold, I added it back.Themightywind (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)—This user is a sockpuppet of banned editor Joehazelton— I assume you're familiar with the process of WP:BRD, in which you've been bold, it's been reverted, and now it's back to discussion. If you're not, please give that link a read and take note that the process is bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-revert. Turning to the issue at hand, I disagree with your statement "there is a consensus now to add the birthday". The consensus to withhold her birthdate information was originally formed back in 2007 at this location here. In the conversation thread just above, it was brought up again in 2009, with no clear consensus to change the outcome. Very recently, an IP address editor suggested it should be changed again in March 2012, followed by your comment yesterday. Again, this does not even remotely indicate that consensus has changed - not by a long shot! If you would like to proceed from here to revisit the consensus issue, I would recommend that you look into the WP:RFC process, in order to draw more attention to the issue and invite new editors to come here and comment on the prior consensus and as to whether or not the article should now change to include her exact date of birth. If you have questions about how to do that, just let me know. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC) I strongly support inclusion of her birth date. She's running for public office (again) and frequently appears on national TV programs. She's not a private citizen, and more notably her public figure status is something she has specifically sought out. Furthermore, if she wins in November, her birth date will be published in the Congressional directory and elsewhere, whether she likes it or not. Arbor8 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Hello, Arbor8. I'd certainly agree that Duckworth is a public figure. Did you read the prior consensus discussions and were aware of the policy arguments that took place previously (see link above), including the point that Duckworth (herself) objected to her full date of birth being included for identity theft related concerns? Are you familiar with the relevant policy? See WP:DOB; I'll copy the relevant portion here: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Hence, given that she complained about including the exact date of birth, consensus was to follow Wikipedia policy: err on the side of caution and simply list the year. Nonetheless, if you'd like to work with Themightywind and start an WP:RFC on this issue, please feel free. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Yes, I'm familiar with the relevant policies and the specific history here. Do you know whether Ms. Duckworth continues to object to the inclusion of her birth date? I'd certainly be more inclined to defer to her wishes, at least pending the outcome of the election, if we knew they were current. Failing that, I'd like to go ahead with an RFC. Arbor8 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC) No clue on whether or not she may have changed her mind since then. With regard to an RFC, do you want to work up a proposed version on how to phrase it? I assume it will include addressing the policy consideration above as it's a key component to where consensus has stood up until now. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Ms. Duckworth is a big public figure no question about that. Also the argument of identity theft is non sequitur for I can find her birthday and other information on the Internet in approximately 10 seconds, so that the argument that her birthday information endangers her privacy, which Tammy is a public figure has no expectation, of is a moot point. Now since she is in involved with a campaign for November 2012, Tammy should have no expectations of her basic information i.e. her birthday to be private. If Ms. Duckworth wants privacy she should withdraw from public life and become a private citizen if that's so important to her. Again Wikipedia is not about censorship particularly information that is in the public domain i.e. particularly if public figures birthday.Themightywind (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)—This user is a sockpuppet of banned editor Joehazelton— Duckworth is a public figure and can not have any expectations that reliably published sources must withhold information like her exact birthday; indeed, it's been published on the Internet in news stories and articles, and that is readily verifiable. Further, everyone here agrees that Wikipedia is not censored. Her exact birth date, however, has not been "censored" for any arbitrary or impermissible reason; quite the contrary, it is based on a policy. That policy contemplates that Wikipedia may include "full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources," but that if a person objects about the inclusion of their date of birth, we are to "err on the side of caution and simply list the year." You can read that policy at WP:DOB. Given the policy, what are your policy-based argument points that lead you to the conclusion that we should overturn the prior consensus? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC) If we can confirm that Ms. Duckworth continues to object to the publication of her birth date, then I don't see any reason to include it. However, omitting such basic information about a clearly notable person on the basis of a five-year old complaint seems silly to me. Arbor8 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC) If we can confirm she no longer objects, then we have every reason to include her date of birth. Concluding that her objections have probably evaporated, however, seems silly to me. If she did not want her exact date of birth on her Wikipedia BLP then, why would she want it listed now? WP:DOB does not require that a subject must periodically re-assert an objection to their date of birth being listed, lest such rights expire. If we're going to make assumptions here, we should err on the side of caution and assume they don't want their exact DOB listed until we hear otherwise. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC) who cares what she thinks? Tammy is a nationally known political figure and candidate for a Federal office (congressional district 8), and don't have the expectations of this level of privacy considering her status as a national known public figure. This website is about truth, not about censorship. Themightywind (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)—This user is a sockpuppet of banned editor Joehazelton— As mentioned previously, the relevant policy is WP:DOB. It says that if a subject objects to the inclusion of their exact date of birth, we simply list the year instead. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC) The mentioned policy wp:dobONLY applies to private or semi-notable people. Tammy is a full blown, nationally known Public figure and will be speaking on National TV at the DNC convention this fall. The DOB policy don't applies to national known congressional candidates. If Tammy don't like the public attention, then she should get out of National politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightywind (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC) —This user is a sockpuppet of banned editor Joehazelton— WP:DOB does not make exceptions for whether or not a subject is a public figure; it applies across the board. If you disagree, please point out your reasoning and rationale, preferably using quotes from the policy. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Silly me, I did point out the reasoning and rational. Besides, The DOB policy is not clear on PUBLIC FIGURESThemightywind (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)—This user is a sockpuppet of banned editor Joehazelton— NOTE: This discussion then shifted to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive160#Tammy_Duckworth. --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

November 2012 Discussion of the issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Duckworth is now a duly elected Member of Congress and a representative of the US government; as such she is no longer a private citizen, but a public one, and it is the duty of Wikipedia to inform people about her, including her birth date. In short, if she didn't want her life publicized, she shouldn't have run for election. To summarize, I recommend we update her birth date. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 22:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC) The relevant policy, WP:DOB, says that if someone objects to the inclusion of their date of birth, we are to simply list the year of birth. This privilege is extended to any BLP subject who requests it, regardless of whether or not they are a public figure. Wikipedia didn't have to provide such a courtesy in formulating the policy, and public figures have no protection against others publicizing the information, but Wikipedia chose to do so, hence we follow the policy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC) She is a MEMBER OF CONGRESS!!!! The birthday is fair game and Wikipedia should not be engaged in censorship. Your argument is lame. Policy is this...WP:BLPPRIVACY "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." The DOB is fair game.24.13.94.139 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Simply dismissing an argument as lame is no way make your case. I do believe we should look back at her request; she wrote it back before the election, when she was a private citizen. Now that she has been elected to Congress and her information is public knowledge, and I feel that unless she requests it be removed again for some reason, which I seriously doubt she would, it should be added to Wikipedia. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 05:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC) For interested editors, please have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive160#Tammy Duckworth. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Censorship is pointless now, since Tammy Duckworth is a public firgure and the whole world knows her brithday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.192.113 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Read the thread above and you'll find that the applicable policy is WP:DOB, not censorship. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC) It's convenient to ignore this policy WP:WELLKNOWN if you insist on playing wiki lawyer. Censorship is what you want. Regardless of what Tammy want's the policy don't cover this and she is a major public figure, a congresswoman and has absolutely no expectation of that type of information to be private. Furthermore, the insistence to censor such information smacks of partisanship by you. 68.57.192.113 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC) ...whereupon the matter was referred to ANI after 1, 2, and 3. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Redacting my words in this discussion is not very nice. It would appear Wikipedia is all about censorship. Censorship is what you want. Any fool can Google "Tammy Duckworth Brithday". Regardless of what Tammy want's the policy don't cover this and she is a major public figure, a congresswoman and has absolutely no expectation of that type of information to be private. Furthermore, the insistence to censor such information smacks of partisanship by you. 68.57.192.113 (talk) Wikipedia is a private organization had has the right to respect peoples wishes, even if it may be construed as "censorship". This is not your public library where all information will just be given to you; if you wish to find Duckworth's DOB, than feel free to go to Google. Crying foul and censorship will not get you anywhere here, because until Duckworth wishes for her DOB to be published here, it will remain unpublished. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 07:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC) The problem with your Ownership argument is at YOU don't own Wikipedia and don't have any more say then me on this subject. The problem with your augment is that's not what Wikipedia advertises itself to be. "Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia.." but what I see here is CENSORSHIP of legitimate information on a major political public figure just because Tammy got some kind pull in wiki. The only reason why is you are partisan to this person at the expense of this principle. I wonder if she or some of her friends are paying you for this censorship. Any rate, this is really a small place with petty bureaucrats who lost their way.68.57.192.113 (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC) True to form, you keep lambasting and maligning the intentions of any editor who tries to follow the WP:DOB policy here by declaring their intentions to be about partisanship, censorship, petty bureaucracy, etc. You've been pursuing this line in an obdurate fashion for years now Joe, yet you are no closer to your goals in imposing your will here in your demands that displaying Duckworth's exact date of birth is "fair game." Your choice of words in your arguments going all the way back to 2007 are telling; it is you who is the one who is emotional about this, and it is you who are the one who puts your desire to see Duckworth's DOB listed here over all other principals and norms. Why? Just because Tammy Duckworth herself doesn't want to see it listed, and personally requested as much? So it's personal to you to? Duckworth does not have some sort of "pull" on Wikipedia, by the way. We are simply following the rules when we redact the DOB, and would have gladly done so for Peter Roskam as well had he asked. You seem to have a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, however, so until you find a way to make peace with this, you'll just be endlessly butting your head against the wall here. I can't help you in that regard I'm afraid. Peace and good luck with that, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Its deeds,not words I judge on and the deeds are simple. You are censoring legitimate, widely publish information about a extremely notable politician and public figure with weak and lame arguments is self-evident. Further more, the personal attack on me in-order to dis-credit and divert the argument away from your Censorship is self-evident as well. All of this shows how truly weak Tammy Duckworh is as well and the lack or integrity to the basic principle. of Wikipeidia. Finely, it don't matter there is about 1/2million adults in dupage county and any one who opposes the liberal leet here are all labeled "Joe" also show the weekness of those who run wikipeidia. P.S. What about policy WP:WELLKNOWN I guess I make a poor wiki lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.192.113 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) There are plenty of "self-evident" truths here for editors to take a look at, but lets "judge deeds", as you've said. You've repeatedly try to force the material into the article without seeking consensus to overturn the current WP:DOB policy. How do you justify that? If you disagree with the policy, or its interpretation, you are free to take your concerns to the relevant noticeboards again, yet you choose not to. If you think somehow WP:WELLKNOWN trumps WP:DOB, why not make your case at the BLP noticeboard? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC) And you repeatedly Censored legitimate information. What justification you have to censor such basic and well published, public domain information, again read the term "Encyclopedia" in Websters and WP:WELLKNOWN Luckily, there is the Blue water internet as well as Goggle and the fact that most educated people think Wikipedia is a festering swamp of petty bureaucrats in training and places of lies, dam lies and Wiki-policy anyway. Just more poof here, by your deeds, and action, and the argument I am having here, shows who's right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.192.113 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC) WP:DOB, as interpreted on the BLP noticeboard at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive160#Tammy Duckworth, is the "justification", while WP:WELLKNOWN says nothing about date of birth. Again, more dodging the question on your part and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - take it back to a noticeboard or you're just spinning your wheels here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC) The question is Censorship and you're dodging that question. The question is.... is the Birthday of a Highly Visible, public figure, an elected Congresswoman, need to be censored, considering its splayed all over Google and the internet. Apparently, Tammy Duckworth has no problem with Goggle publishing her birthday? Whats going on here? Any thing else is minutia and not relevant to this argument of censorship by Wikipedia. Finely, I'm not going to try to wiki-lawyer an expert Wiki-Lawyer over inane, and contradictory wiki-policy which make no sense any way. It's a waste of time. Tell Tammy her birthday is out there any way. 68.57.192.113 (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC) For any editors who come along later and read this thread, you can find the long running history (since 2007) of this issue over the subject's date of birth at the top of this page in the thread Talk:Tammy Duckworth#Request from Tammy Duckworth to withhold date of birth and mother's maiden name. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 Discussion of the issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IMO if the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress includes the date (when it is updated), then I see no reason why we should not - the date seems to have been provided to other news organizations, so we have WP:RS to verify it. – Connormah (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Hello, Connormah. The date is readily accessible via internet searching; the reason why we don't include it is because the subject requested it, hence WP:DOB says we should simply list the year of birth instead. You can find more information on this if you read the linked noticeboard threads above. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC) This topic should be re-opened with an RfC if possible. If the date is given to news organizations and appears that readily through a web search, and through official congressional directories, it should appear here. The subject seems to have asked a few years back, a time when she was less notable as she is currently - she will be sworn in as a congresswoman, a highly public position. If privacy concerns are that important, then I don't see why the date was given out to sources such as The Washington Times and most likely the Biographical Directory of the Congress. Basically, the date should probably appear here if it appears readily via reliable sources. – Connormah (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC) With regard to the date appearing in the news and/or congressional directories, are you picking up some sort of indication in the sourcing that the subject volunteered the information? If so, please link it so that we can take a look; it is my understanding that while Wikipedia provides the WP:DOB courtesy, news and other organizations are not bound by those policies, hence it is public record and they will do as they please. There is no indication at present that Tammy Duckworth "gave" that information to them. With regard to notability and the status of being a public person, Wikipedia's policy at present does not restrict the courtesy of asking for your DOB to be withheld to only private persons; it applies to both private persons and public figures. You can see that being discussed previously on the BLP noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive160#Tammy Duckworth. The WP:DOB policy is a subsection of the WP:BLP policy article, which generally errs on the side of caution in favor of an article's subject. As a result, how do you propose to address the policy issue here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC) A WP:RFC probably wouldn't hurt here - inevitably, there will be others that will try to insert the date since she is a well-known figure now, a congresswomen. The request was made in 2007 from what I can see when her notability was not where it is now - we could try contacting her office maybe to address the issue, but I think wider comment may be helpful here. – Connormah (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC) If someone is able to contact her or a trusted staffer in her office and confirm she no longer objects, that would clinch the issue right there (assuming reasonable authentication); I suspect that will be a tall order, however. With regard to an RFC, wider community commentary is usually a good thing, but we have to address the underlying policy aspect. As this is part of WP:BLP and has been raised a couple times before at the BLP board, a competent RFC should take place there rather than here. The core of the issue revolves around how we interpret and apply BLP policy in this regard; resolve that, and the answer becomes obvious (whether to include or exclude). Are you interested in drafting a proposed RFC? Something which includes the history, yet invites reconsideration of the issue? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I think an RFC on the subject would be a good idea, since like Connormah said, in 2007, she was nowhere near as notable as she is now. In fact, if someone really wanted to know her birthday, the Congress bioguide linked on the page states it. Canuck89 (have words with me) 22:53, January 4, 2013 (UTC) I wasn't aware that it was linked. Can you point out for me where that is on the article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC) It's in the external links section. I also support an RfC, GAR, or some other method to review the current situation and establish a consensus. Edge3 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I didn't think to look there. At present, there is a consensus, based on the original 2007 BLP noticeboard discussion, and continued along through the years including the most recent BLP noticeboard airing of the issue in 2012. Theoretically, a public figure far more prominent than Tammy Duckworth could post a request tomorrow on their BLP article asking that the month and date of their birth be removed, and according to Wikipedia's policy, that courtesy would be extended to them (if it was authenticated). Consensus is always subject to change, but it is a BLP policy issue, hence we're talking about either 1) trying to get the policy changed outright or 2) changing the way the policy is interpreted and overturning precedent. In either case, I think an RFC should take place on the BLP noticeboard as that is the policy forum where the consensus was established. Is anyone interested in writing up a proposed RFC that includes what has gone before but invites reconsideration of the issue? I've seen support for an RFC by three editors now, but nobody has put forth a draft. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I'd be willing to start an RfC, but I'm too busy to do it right now. I'll try to address it by the end of the week, if everyone doesn't mind waiting a few more days. Otherwise, someone else can start the RfC. Personally, I don't think that WP:BLPN would be the appropriate forum for this, since the edit war has somewhat died down. We can agree that WP:DOB requires that the full date of birth be removed, but we can't agree on whether WP:DOB is constrained by other guidelines such as WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:OPENPARA. We are seeking a clear consensus on how to interpret all of these policies in a harmonious way. WP:RFC states that we can do this here (on the talk page) or in a separate page. I'll take a closer look through the policy pages to see where we should discuss this further. If the GA nominator decides to take this to GAR, this issue can also be revisited there. What do you think? Edge3 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I'll wait until you've got time to work on it. If you feel we really should host the RFC here rather than at the BLP board, that's okay with me as we can post an appropriate link there about the issue being revisited with an RFC here. When you're available, let's first parse out a draft here too so that we can nuance the finer points of what we're attempting to resolve, we don't want a hastily worded RFC result in a lot of comments by drive-by editors who don't know the extent of the issue. Finally, I'd like to point out something important about the edit warring that has taken place here for many years over this issue; if you take the time to work back through the history, you'll find that the battle to edit war the DOB into the article has always been fought by one stalwart individual who has repeatedly returned via sockpuppeting. The socks are easy to spot because they edit almost exclusively over the Duckworth issue, repeatedly reverting on the article itself while posting on the Talk Page their outrage over "censorship" and/or admins allegedly collaborating with Tammy Duckworth herself for "partisan" reasons, or some other similar nonsense. If a named account, they'll typically have a long dormant period between creation and when they show up to edit war, as the sockmaster told admins in 2009 that he has "dozens of accounts ready" for when he needed them. If an IP address, they always resolve to the greater Chicago area (where the individual is known to live). If you'd like me to supply you with specific examples of his IPs and/or blocked sockpuppet accounts warring over this Duckworth DOB issue, let me know. The point is, if we're going to have an RFC, you can expect that individual will probably try to participate (via continued block evasion) to affect the outcome. No worries, but it's important that you be aware of it.  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC) May I point out the her DOB is listed on the Italian wiki linked to this page (in addition to the Congress Bioguide I noted above)? Have we yet realized that with her being elected to the US Congress, that our efforts at censorship are mostly pointless? Canuck89 (have words with me) 04:10, January 17, 2013 (UTC) Complying with WP:BLP (specifically, " If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth... ...simply list the year.") is not "censorship". Duckworth's date of birth is readily available on the Internet for anyone who chooses to search for it; other parties are certainly not obligated to render any such courtesies. The fact that there may be links on the article right now to an Italian Wiki article or a congressional guide is not a valid argument for vitiating WP:DOB; on the contrary, it would support their removal. If you think Wikipedia's BLP policy should be changed, there are avenues for that, plus a well thought out RFC may ultimately result in consensus changing. Someone could also make an erstwhile effort to see if the subject can be contacted and asked if they would like to cancel their previous request. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tammy Duckworth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I will review this article. Edge3 (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have partially reviewed the article against the good article criteria. I will follow-up with a complete review once the preliminary issues are resolved:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There are too many quotations in the article, especially in the "Political positions" sections. The "Recognition" section has a boxed quote that has unclear significance. It needs to be cited and further explained, if it is to remain.

   Fixed.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Please reduce or remove the citations in the lead paragraph. (WP:LEADCITE)

   Fixed.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Missing citation on first paragraph of "Post-military career". References also are not consistently formatted, especially the dates. Bare URLs in citations 9, 19, 28, 32, and others. This isn't a GA issue, per WP:GACN.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Please expand both subsections of "Congressional elections". The 2006 section could use some significant expansion, unless someone can demonstrate that there really isn't much to say about that election. As for 2012, the section is longer, but surely the civil suit isn't the only noteworthy part of the campaign?

   I've expanded both but I feel the 2006 election should be kept short since it has it's own article.

   B. Focused:

   Perhaps the "Political positions" sections could be merged and condensed.

   I've seriously cut down this section but I feel trying to put it in another section would be irresponsible.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Ongoing content dispute about the inclusion of the date of birth. Please resolve this soon. I should point out that WP:OPENPARA says in part: "The opening paragraph should have...dates of birth and death, if known" (emphasis added). I'll look into this policy further, but it seems that including the date of birth might be necessary for this to meet WP:GACR, since the date of birth is known.

   The article's been protected so there'll be no more warring over her DOB.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm placing this on hold for now. Edge3 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Further comments:

• Early life, education, and military service
  • Ref 5 (Slevin) doesn't support the statement: "Because of her father's work with the United Nations and international companies, the family moved around Southeast Asia. Duckworth became fluent in Thai and Indonesian, in addition to English."
  • In the statement: "Following in the footsteps of her father and ancestors, who served in the Revolutionary War, World War II, and the Vietnam War..." — Ref 4 doesn't mention that she had an ancestor who fought in the Vietnam War.
  • "The explosion 'almost completely destroyed her right arm, breaking it in three places and tearing tissue from the back side of it.'" — Quotation not contained in ref 11.
• Post-military career
  • "She worked to develop state programs giving tax credits to employers who hire veterans who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Desert Storm; more state grants to service organizations; and backing for below-market mortgages for veterans." — This statement almost copies word-for-word the phrasing used in ref 16. Please rephrase or use a quotation.
  • The Recognition paragraph begins with "Duckworth credits Dole..." without mentioning who Dole is until linking to Bob Dole in the third sentence.
  • "Duckworth credits Dole for inspiring her to pursue public service while she recuperated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C." — Not supported by ref 22, which only says "Duckworth has cited Dole's experience as an injured veteran-turned-politician as an inspiration for her candidacy."
  • "Former Republican Presidential candidate and Senator Bob Dole dedicated his biography One Soldier's Story in part to Duckworth." — First, it's an autobiography, not a biography. Second, perhaps it would be better to cite the book directly?

--Edge3 (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments:

• Congressional elections
  • The section for 2006 contains only one citation, which verifies only the final results between Duckworth and Roskam. The rest of the paragraph needs to be cited because there are statistics that need to be verified.
  • "Duckworth defeated former Deputy Treasurer of Illinois Raja Krishnamoorthi for the Democratic nomination on March 20, 2012, then faced incumbent Republican Joe Walsh in the general election." — Not supported by ref 30.
  • "Duckworth was considered the favorite, as the district had been redrawn to be significantly more Democratic than its predecessor." — Missing citation.
  • "On October 11, 2012, during a live debate between the two, Walsh brought up the fact that Duckworth had been named in a civil suit filed by two employees against Patricia Simms, director of the Anna Veterans' Home in southern Illinois." — Refs 18 and 19 seem to be irrelevant.
  • "... the first member of Congress born in Thailand." — Doesn't seem to be supported by the source.
• Political positions
  • Entire "Veterans affairs" section directly copies text from ref 38
  • Perhaps her stance on education isn't noteworthy? It's sourced to her campaign website's press release.
  • The first "Iraq War" paragraph implies that the positions Duckworth expressed in her press release were also expressed in her response to Bush's weekly radio address. Please separate the two and clarify the difference.
  • I'm not sure whether the quote in the "Iraq War" section is necessary.
  • In the "Gun control" section, none of the three citations have working links, and the quotation does not have a reference.

I now conclude this review. Because I have identified close paraphrasing or copyright violations, I fail this article's GA nomination per WP:GAQF.

I have also noticed that edit warring occasionally resumes over the inclusion of Duckworth's DOB. Most recently, an anonymous user re-added the DOB today. This edit cannot be considered vandalism, per WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Thus, the article currently fails GA criterion #5, which is also grounds for quick failure.

Even if there is no edit war, I would argue that the GA criteria urges that the full DOB be included, per WP:OPENPARA. (For the path, see GA criterion #1, which requires compliance with WP:LEAD. Go to the WP:LEAD#Biographies section, which in turn points directly to WP:MOSBIO. See WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph.) I should note that WP:GACR does not require me to check for compliance with WP:BLP. Because there seems to be a conflict between WP:GACR and WP:DOB, which is further complicated by the existence of WP:WELLKNOWN, this GA nomination cannot proceed without further clarification on how the guidelines and policies should be interpreted when we mix them together.

I recommend asking Tammy Duckworth if we can include her full birthdate on the article, since that would allow us to sidestep this debate entirely. Once all of the other issues I listed above are addressed, I recommend submitting this for renomination or, if you challenge my reasoning, reassessment. --Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancestors vs forefathers

This is a really well written article. Kudos to all who have contributed. It was only when I came to the use of the word ancestors that I felt that not quite the right word (nor the right tense in the subordinate phrase) had been used. Ancestor has the connotation of legal terminology on the one hand, biological descent trees on another, and spiritual and ethnic roots on another. In the context of military prowess and service to one's nation, it seems to me that either forebears or forefathers is the better term. Given that all the said fighting forebears were fathers rather than mothers, forefathers seems to me to be the right word here.124.186.93.5 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC on providing full date of birth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

FYI

 – A discussion on the BLP: Presumption in favor of privacy policy is underway at BLP Talk: Proposal on date of birth.

As Tammy Duckworth has previously requested to have her birthdate excluded from this article, we have complied as per WP:DOB. This decision is the result of a consensus developed over several years, as documented on #Request from Tammy Duckworth to withhold date of birth and mother's maiden name.

The request may have carried more weight in 2007, when Ms. Duckworth had less notability as an official in the Illinois state government. However, now she serves on the US Congress and has less of an expectation of privacy, as per WP:WELLKNOWN. I am initiating this RfC to request that the community allow this article to display Ms. Duckworth's full date of birth, as per WP:OPENPARA and WP:WELLKNOWN. WP:OPENPARA states that "The opening paragraph should have... dates of birth and death, if known". Since the date of birth is known, the MOS urges us to include it. Furthermore, WP:WELLKNOWN suggests that we should publish information that is "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented", even if the subject does not want it mentioned.

For reference, the birthdate is published on her official, Congressional bio ([14]). Edge3 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Do not include. I see no good reason to go against her specific wish. It is not vital information and the MOS does not override our responsibility towards living subjects of biographies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• do not include - have you read the threads above? This issue has been discussed ad naseum. Why does her birthdate matter to you? If she specifically asked to have it removed, in hopes of a little bit of security-through-obscurity, we can certainly do this for her. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  FYI, a newer thread in January 2013 suggested that an RfC may be necessary. Just because the issue has been discussed ad nauseum doesn't mean we can't discuss it now. Edge3 (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why not include it? As Edge3 noted, it's not that hard to find her birthday, since its published on her official Congressional bio. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 03:58, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think it's up for debate to say that at this point her full DOB is extremely easier to readily find presently rather than around 6 years ago. I see no reason not to include it at this point as the circumstances have obviously changed from 2007. In addition to the Congressional bio, it is worth mentioning that multiple 2012 election publications also include the full date. – Connormah (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Include. Consensus can change. Widely available information from multiple reliable secondary sources. Published in her own congressional bio, which obviously renders her six year old request moot. Gamaliel (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Include - Agree with Edge3 that this subject clearly has become more notable, which suggests it might be more appropriate now than it was previously to include the birth date. At the same time, agree with User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· that there is very little value to readers to know her exact date of birth, and there are legitimate personal privacy concerns as suggested by WP:DOB. All-in-all I think the bottom line is that, for better or worse, it's probably not reasonable for US members of congress to expect that their birth date should not be public knowledge. NickCT (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include per the prior rationales in the archived talk page threads unless the policy issue is resolved. WP:DOB states that if a subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, simply list the year instead. It's obvious from looking at WP:BLP that WP:WELLKNOWN was not intended to trump WP:DOB which comes immediately afterward. Regardless of the stature of the subject (let's say it's the President for example, rather than a first term Congresswoman), or Internet exposure of the information (let's assume even the simplest of Google searches will return the exact birth date), WP:DOB makes it possible for any subject to request their exact DOB be omitted and Wikipedia renders that courtesy. There is nothing in the policy about second guessing the subject's intentions or putting an expiration date on their request. If it's important to include the exact month/day here on the subject's Wikipedia entry, we should either 1) contact the subject and ask if they would like to rescind their prior request or 2) amend the WP:DOB policy such that it doesn't give subjects that unconditional courtesy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BLPPRIVACY also states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." - I thinks that this can be argued at this point that this has become the case. If anything, it seems that people are coming to this article and asking themselves, "why is the full date missing?".. – Connormah (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BLPPRIVACY is the sentence immediately preceding WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Thus, we display a subject's DOB if it has been widely published, or if an inference can be drawn, but if a subject complains, we err on the side of caution. Again, a policy change should be sought to put the matter to rest. Additionally, it is unlikely the subject herself personally created the biographical entry at bioguide.congress.gov. That database covers every congressperson since 1774 and is likely maintained by non-elected Government service employees who are charged with assembling the information for congressional records. On that last point (the readers), I certainly agree with you, I'm sure people do come to this article and wonder why the month/day is missing. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some more sources that state the full date, just for reference: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] – Connormah (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Including a link to an article on Rense.com with the headline "HI Paper Erases Obama Indonesia Birth In ARCHIVED Story"? Really? Dezastru (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include My rushed thoughts are that if the information is PD, we should summarize it here. I have not read related policies though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Include: It's the right thing to do, perhaps not by Wikipedia standards, but by encyclopedic standards. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 16:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Include More well known than before, already published in many sources.--Otterathome (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Include Found in multiple reliable sources, and as a former Federal official (2009), her birthdate was public record in many places now. Inane to withhold something so widely found. Collect (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC) [22] clinches it for me. Collect (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include I have trouble understanding why anyone wants this information on a garden-variety biography. It is not typical for encyclopedias to include birthdates unless there is some particular reason, such as a national holiday on the person's birthday. I suppose that an encyclopedia written by astrologers would include birthdates for everyone, but who else cares about this? Does knowing that the subject is born on January 4th or 5th or 6th (or whatever the date is) really improve your understanding of the person? (Again, for non-astrologers.) The exact date is pretty close to trivia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Birth dates may may be trivia, but almost every other biography on this encyclopedia provides birth dates, as instructed by the MOS. The question here is whether there is a compelling reason for this article to go against the MOS by providing the year only and not the date. Edge3 (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think that complying with BLP really counts as "going against the MOS". If you think that these are in conflict, then I suggest changing the MOS to reduce trivia and more clearly comply with BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Do not include. WP:BLPPRIVACY is clear about this: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Additional reason to not include I recently emailed Duckworth, and received the following response:

From: Duckworth for Congress <info@tammyduckworth.com>
Date: July 31, 2013

Thanks for checking with us - we really appreciate you seeking the congresswoman's input. 
Rep. Duckworth still prefers that her birthdate not be published.

Please let me know if there are additional steps we should take to weigh in.

Thank you,
Eve, Duckworth for Congress

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You've already voted. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include Privacy can only apply to information that is at least somewhat private. Otherwise, elected officials (and others) could constantly be challenging sourced info on WP on the grounds of so-called "privacy." Arbor8 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Include the information is readily available on her congressional bio. Her concerns about identify theft fall flat unless she can prove she's more likely to have her identity stolen than any of the countless other individuals have who have birthdays listed on Wikipedia. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted, Duckworth's Wikipedia bio is the only Congressman Bio, which Wikipeida has no birthday on it.Seeroftruth (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include Based on Wikipolicy WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:OPENPARA as well as her birthday is published on her official, Congressional bio ([23]) IF she don't like it on wiki, then don't be a congressmen, Her request, considering her status as a "ELECTED PUBLIC FIGURE" precludes and superseeds her desire to keep her bday off of Wikipedia. Duckworth's desire to keep her birthday off of Wikipedia is unreasonable and should be ignored, based on Wikipolicy as stated above, as well as basic Encyclopedic standards. Seeroftruth (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:BLPPRIVACY#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources, which states, quite clearly: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." That's pretty clear, and there's no "tough cookies" clause. Why exactly do you want to ignore a reasonable request, esp from an elected official who lost two legs while serving her country? The insensitivity in the responses above is rather stunning- plz remember BLPs are people too.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Its rather stunning considering, even Duckworth's Official bio on Congress.gov includes her birthday demonstrates how ridiculous her request is. Also, such compliance with such a ridiculous request, calls in the question the fairness and non-bias place Wikipedia should have on Political Bios. as well, it should be noted that Duckworth is the ONLY one of the 500 Plus Congressmen listed on Wikipedia? What makes her so special is to warrant this special treatment?Seeroftruth (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a ridiculous request, and publication elsewhere doesn't mean much. We don't have to dig into details as to why she doesn't want it listed here - it's a simple fact that she doesn't. We would do the same for any other figure on wikipedia who made the same request - so if 500 congressmen request it tomorrow, we should delete their birthdates too. We're not giving her special treatment, we are giving her standard treatment accorded to all bios and enshrined in our policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This is not a valid topic for an RfC, as any calls to "include" are moot per WP:BLPPRIVACY, which is part of a policy page. BLP policy cannot be occasionally be set aside as guidelines can, so if there is objection to how the Wikipedia currently treats date of birth and the subject's wishes therein, you would have to make your case at Wikipedia talk:BLP and gain consensus for a policy change first. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Policy: or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object -- I suggest her official Congressional bio is "linked to the subject" and that she did not object to the DOB being in it. Collect (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you need to brush up on your reading skills a bit. The first few sentences describe what we do in normally in regards to date-of-birth and BLPs. The Next sentence tells what the exceptions are; a) the subject requests removal, or b) the subject's notability is notable. Condition "a" is satisfied. Case closed. The only thing this hinges on is whether the person requesting the deletion is verifiably the subject...if that is going to be a nitpick, then all we have to do is point her or to WP:OTRS. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • WP:BLP also states: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." See WP:WELLKNOWN. We're not attempting to "set aside" the policy, but rather interpret it in a way that allows us to comply with all policies and guidelines. Edge3 (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Include This is an encyclopedia, not a data base of information. Its sourced and its notable. And we cannot simply remove reliably sourced and notable information from an article simply because some random ip or new account "claims" to be the person in question.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the email cited above? That was sent to me from her official congressional account, after I posted a query on her official web page. If you have doubts, I encourage you to write her directly and ask her yourself, or I can forward the email to you. I'm an editor in good standing here, I don't know Duckworth and have never heard of her until this discussion, and have no reason to make sh*t up.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your email is not a reliable source for her information, nor would mine be. And if being a editor in good standing, which you are, is enough of a reason to add or remove information from Wikipedia, then we wouldn't need sources or proof at all.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That is an absurd argument. We are talking about exluding information not adding it, and removing information does not require reliable sources but a consensus of editors in good standing. What is your reason to assume that someone other than Duckworth would email Obi Wan Kenobi to have the birthdate removed. AGF applies. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If you notice, the staffer who responded to the email even asked if there was more they could do. Are we really going to force them to send a formal request in triplicate to WP:OTRS? The only other possibility is that I'm making this all up, which, frankly, is absurd.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be extra clear, Duckworth's staffer did not initiate the conversation with me. I asked a question on her official website, and her staffer responded a few days later (having presumably talked to her). That exchange was way more than enough for me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• DO NOT Include per the WP policy on BLP DOBs, and the policy on the misuse of primary sources in BLPs. These policies are crystal clear on this issue: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth ... simply list the year." (from WP:DOB) and "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth ..." (from WP:BLPPRIMARY). I agree with Tarc, we should not even be having this discussion. If you don't like the BLP policy, feel free to begin a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Until that policy is changed, any further discussion here is moot. -Wine Guy~Talk 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Except it's not solely primary sources that we're relying on. Multiple secondary sources that I have linked above do include the full date. – Connormah (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• The sources argument isn't important, what is important is that the subject has made their wishes known, and per policy, the full DOB can be kept out. There is no wigle room here; if you want wiggle room, then goto the BLP talk page and propose a change in policy. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Yes, I should clarify a bit. My point in referring to BLPPrimary is that many here are arguing that since her DOB is listed on her official congressional webpage that it should be fair game. I would suggest that her webpage falls into the category of being both a primary source and a public record; while there are other sources, the congressional page is specifically excluded from consideration according to our policy. Regardless, the WP:DOB issue still applies. That the information is available elsewhere should not give us latitude to casually throw BLP policy out the window. –Wine Guy~Talk 19:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Whether or not the congressional page is a primary or secondary source is irrelevant, as on the first page of a Google search you find her full date of birth in the Washington Times. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include As a Member of Congress, she has no reasonable expectation that this information would be kept private. --rogerd (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Include. If she wants her birthdate offline, tell her to make an official complaint to the Office of the Clerk regarding the presence of her birthdate in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Despite Tarc's claim, we have no need to change policy: we are operating an encyclopedia here, and the republication of basic information already published elsewhere may not be censored per our Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy's WP:NOTCENSOR policy. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This is the point, she is now a "public figure", as well as standing member of Congress, where her birth day is a valid constitutional issue regarding Duckworth's qualifying for office ([24]) so Duckworth's DOB is relevant. Also, why should Duckworth have any expectations of her DOB censored on Wikipedia, since "ALL" of the 500plus members of congress, who have articles on Wikipedia, have birthday details listed. Besides, is Duckworth entitled to more special treatment, in contrast to the other 500plus Congressmen who's birthday is publish on Wikipedia and have no problems with it.? This slavish devotion to Duckworth's unreasonable request is inconsistent with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy's WP:NOTCENSOR policy and Commonsense.Seeroftruth (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do not include. You want it in? Then change the policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Include. Her date of birth, on a quick Google search, is on biography.com, the Washington Times, imdb, Women in Combat: A Reference Handbook, and others. The first two of those are the second and third hits on Google, in the snippet Google displays. While policies should, indeed, be upheld, slavish adherence to policy in the face of WP:COMMONSENSE does nothing but harm the encylopedia - this is exactly the sort of thing that the people who like to say "Wikipedia is Inaccurate!" devour. WP:IAR is also policy (and one of the Five Pillars, at that), and when, as in this case, following a policy is bad for Wikipedia, we need to IAR until the policy is changed, not say "change the policy" as we blindly follow it off a cliff like lemmings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I'm no fan of slavish adherence to policy, and I'm a big fan of WP:IAR—but not when it comes to privacy issues in BLPs. I agree that it is common sense to include the exact date in this case, and it gives us good reason to revisit the wording of WP:DOB. That discussion is taking place now at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposal on date of birth. It's a shame that people seem intent on hashing this out on this individual article, rather than fixing the policy which clearly needs refinement. One other note, listing the year of birth is in no way, shape or form inaccurate unless the wrong year is in the article. –Wine Guy~Talk 20:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include I agree with Nyttend and the Bushranger-Ballotpedia had an article about Tammy Duckworth and her birthday is mentioned there. In 2007, I can see excluding her name because Tammy Duckworth was not in elective office at that time; however in 2013 with Tammy Duckworth in the US House of Representatives and her birthday mentioned in the Congressional Biography this has changed greatly since 2007. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Include- There is no good reason not to, and misstating the intent of WP:DOB is not giving a valid policy reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Proposal to Move Discussion – Can we move this to WP:BLPN? This issue really is a policy one and BLPN can recommend a policy change. Otherwise the resolution is confined to this single article, and subject to even more discussion. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not a policy issue. What's happening is that people are incorrectly interpreting policy in this specific case, given this particular set of circumstances, and that is a local matter, not a global one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If they are incorrectly interpreting policy (and the issue has arisen here 5 different times), then let's get the policy clarified. (In fact, there have been 2 dozen BLPN debates over the years.) If this is a local matter for a Congressperson, what about a state government representative, or non-government "famous person", or someone "not-so-famous", and how about non-United States BLPs? Why do we have so much debate if the policy is clear and people are clearly "incorrectly interpreting policy"? BLPN is the best way to go for the community. – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure it should be moved, however a seperate discussion on changing the policy should be done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include per WP:DOB and the subject's wishes. Incidently, does anyone have decent secondary sources publishing the date? So far all I've seen are primary sources like the officla bio and minor or contentious secondary sources like Washington Times. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ...how exactly is the Washington Times "minor or contentious"? As for "the DOB is a privacy issue", that horse not only bolted long ago, it was so long ago that the barn has collapsed from old age and removing the full date on the grounds of privacy isn't just locking the door after the horse left it's building an entirely new door just to lock it (without rebuilding the rest of the barn). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Include. The information is out there, and including it here is not a threat to information security. Andrew³²⁷ 18:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Include since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy of birthdate for a US congressperson , when it is included in her official congressional biography and in numerous reliable sources. Edison (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DOB does not state that cases in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy are exempt from the policy. Dezastru (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include heck, we should ask her office if she minds at this point. The request is stale give the time that's past and that she publishes it. Hobit (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We've asked her office, and as you will see above they responded that she preferred it to be excluded.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Seems very strange. But I can't see a justification for not publishing something due to privacy concerns when she has it published. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do not include - The WP:DOB policy says, "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." She HAS complained about inclusion of this information in her BLP, so we should follow the policy. No one has explained what overriding public interest would be served by superseding the policy and including the information in the article. Does it really make that much of a difference to know the precise date of the birth, rather than just the year? Is so, how? Someone argued here that her date of birth is relevant to the position of public trust she holds—her main point of notability—on constitutional grounds (since the Constitution requires that members of the House of Representatives be at least 25 years old). That argument would only be relevant to whether Wikipedia should publish the precise date of birth if there were some question as to whether she had reached the requisite age by the time she took the oath of office – a moot point since she was over 40 when she took the oath (and we only need show the year of birth to establish that in the article). Several have noted that her birthdate is published in her Congressional bio, but WP:DOB says, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth [that have been published]] by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." Publication of someone's date of birth on their personal Facebook page, or on their personally-managed website, or in an autobiographical book or article would be examples of "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably inferred that the subject does not object." An official Congressional bio is not such a source. There are many scenerios under which a person could reasonably object to the information being published in their Congressional bio yet not have had the information removed, not the least of which might be the Streisand effect. And for those who say that 'the information is already widely available, what harm could including it in Wikipedia do?' the difference is that the reach of Wikipedia is far, far greater than that of many other sources. Wikipedia info box material appears at the top right of Google searches on people, while info from newspaper articles, scholarly books and articles, and other more reliable sources is typically buried in search results. Dezastru (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment SO much double talk, but in the wikipolicy WP:DOB its the fact Duckworth is a standing Congressman, as well as her DOB sprayed allover the Internet like here Duckworth's Bio Considering Duckworth is noteworthy, her birthday is not bound under WP:DOB. Seeroftruth (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The policy says "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Thus, the subject's birth date is bound by WP:DOB and we are properly following policy by honoring the subject's request to omit the exact month/day while simply listing the year instead. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The policy you quote only applies to non-public figures - and Ms. Duckworth is very Public Figure, as well as as an elected Congressman. Plus you convietly discount this "...Public figures

Policy shortcuts:

WP:PUBLICFIGURE

WP:WELLKNOWN

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it (bold mine). If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out..."Seeroftruth (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DOB applies to both public figures and non-public figures. If you disagree, please point out exactly where in the text "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" that you perceive that the WP:DOB policy excludes public figures from this courtesy. WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN appear in the section immediately preceding WP:DOB and speak to "allegations" and "incidents" that are noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented. The examples included therein are about divorces and affairs... negative things which subjects often dislike any mention of it (and we don't censor allegations and incidents just because a subject asks for it). A person's exact month and day of birth, however, is not a scandalous "incident" or allegation". WP:DOB follows the text of WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN and makes it clear that if a subject requests removal of the exact birth date, we simply list the year instead. Hence, we are following policy here (and have been doing so for many years now) when we omit Duckworth's exact DOB. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that "WP:DOB follows the text of WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN and makes it clear that if a subject requests removal of the exact birth date, we simply list the year instead." If we are excluding a piece of information that is well-documented in a "multitude of reliable published sources", then how are we compliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE/WP:WELLKNOWN? This policy does not grant an exception to dates of birth. Edge3 (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We are fully compliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN right now with the month/day of birth omitted. WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN say nothing about publishing the exact month and date of birth because WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN have nothing to do with a subject's DOB. The policy issue of DOB is governed by WP:DOB, which appears immediately after WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN and makes it a condition that if a subject (which can be any subject, regardless of whether they are a public figure or a non-public figure) requests removal of the DOB, we remove it. By contrast, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN speak to "allegations" and/or "incidents" that are "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented", going on to say that they belong in the article "even if" they are "negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The examples given are divorces and affairs. How is a subject's month/day of birth an "incident" or "allegation" that is noteworthy and negative like a divorce or an affair? Why should we think WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN were ever intended to be interpreted the way you're trying to construe them? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The examples provided on WP:PUBLICFIGURE/WP:WELLKNOWN are not meant to be exhaustive. It is possible that they were meant to provide guidance on specific issues that were on the minds of the editors that drafted the policy and the community members that approved it. As stated in WP:BURO, policies are reflections of evolving consensus and should not be subjected to strict interpretation. Even though DOBs aren't explicitly mentioned in WP:PUBLICFIGURE/WP:WELLKNOWN, DOBs may still be subject to the general mandate of this policy, in the same way that DOBs are also subject to other considerations like WP:OPENPARA.

Our discussion archives suggest that there is no absolute right to privacy with respect to one's DOB. In this discussion we can see that the editors of the BLP policy were aware that Wikipedia's guidelines should reflect different degrees of notability and fame. Edge3 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Saying that although DOBs "aren't explicitly mentioned in WP:PUBLICFIGURE/WP:WELLKNOWN, DOBs may still be subject to the general mandate" of those policies would make sense to me if WP:DOB did not exist. WP:DOB does exist, however, so we are correct in looking first to what WP:DOB has to say on whether or not to include DOBs. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• comment Please weigh in at the broader policy change being discussed here Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Proposal_on_date_of_birth. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include. This is a tough call because, practically speaking, regardless of what we publish, the information that she's requesting be excluded is out there. Never-the-less, WP:DOB seems clear to me:

  If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

  Please note the highlighted or - that is not an and. That means if either condition is true -- either the subject complains OR the person is borderline

notable -- then we exclude. Well, the first condition is undeniably true. Therefore we do not include, per the subject's request. Our hands stay clean that way, we're compliant and consistent with our own policy, and no harm is done. --B2C 05:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment ::: Commonsense dictates the DOB should be added to Duckworth's Bio as it is the cass with the other 431 congressmen with published DOB, on Wikipedia. Why is Tammy Duckworth the only one who who does not have a Birthday published on Wikipeida. What makes Duckworth so special to get this special treatment by Wikipedia contrary to 434 of her colleagues? Seeroftruth (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have figured that common sense would have deduced that probably very few, if any, of Duckworth's colleagues have similarly requested that their birthdates not be included in their bios, which would explain why Duckworth is the only one who does not have a birthday published on Wikipedia (if she actually is the only one). The rest are free to request that their birthdates likewise be excluded, and under Wikipedia policy, we should generally accede to those requests. Dezastru (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include There is no point in removing information which is a click away and listed on the official Congress bio, and as such massively public and officially recognized as correct. Therefore there is no privacy concern whatsoever. There are many requests from BLP subjects we can kindly accomodate, but being gagged from telling the obviously public is not one of these. To whoever cites policy: Here WP:DOB fails spectacularly, and in fact it is now under discussion, with consensus leaning towards its narrowing. I am not a big fan of WP:IAR, but this is a correct case for its application: when rules have it wrong, reason needs to get it right (and then to change the rules accordingly). BLP exists to avoid chances of clear unnecessary harm, not to slavishly self-censor at every BLP subject whim. -- cyclopia^speak! 14:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Include Absent a recent request, it is safe to assume that her more recent publication of her birthday in her official biography obviates any prior concern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC); Under "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources" in biographies of the more than borderline notable persons, the policy only requires partial compliance ("err on the side") of the request (by including only the year) when privacy and weak sources are all there are. Here, we should follow the usual practice of high quality biography sources and include the year, there is no reason to "err" at all. The subject here is very notable and the prominent, high quality secondary sources (which we have) - and which obviate any privacy issues - should be followed by including the date. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Several have commented here that Duckworth has published her birthdate in her official congressional bio, the implication being that she does not really object to this information being readily available to the public. But has she? Do we know for a fact that the online bio cited by Edge3 as being her official bio is really her official bio, meaning that she approved the content prior to its publication? Is it not reasonably possible that a functionary working for her employer prepared that bio without consulting her about the content? Is there any other information available which might suggest that her own preference would be to exclude this information from her public bio? Such as we see in the biography section on her official House of Representatives webpages and in the biography information on her Facebook page? I don't see her birthdate mentioned in either of those bios which are far more likely to have been prepared according to her instructions than the bio at the previously mentioned http://bioguide.congress.gov webpage. Dezastru (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that what we know is that the Historian of the United States Congress views the date as part of her official biography, and that she works in the United States Congress, and we follow reliable sources on what they view as pertinent information. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources"

Duckworth's "employer" technically is the people of Illinois, not Congress. A lot of information related to her service is already publicly available. But that doesn't matter here, since we hold all sources to the same standards of reliability. I don't want to misrepresent the opinions of others, but I think the main argument now is that Wikipedia generally includes information that is published in a multitude of reliable sources, even if the subject dislikes any mention of it. Edge3 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

fwiw, her employer is the United States : she is paid a US government salary, and receives US government retirement and and health care benefits. See United_States_Congress#Privileges_and_pay. She is chosen by the people of her district, and is of course ultimately paid indirectly by them in combination with everyone else in the country through federal taxes. It is not unknown that a person's employer keeps in publicly available records material which the person would otherwise not publicize--for example, as a government requirement, the salaries of key corporate employees. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That is true -- unless the information is the full date of birth and the subject has asked that it not be published in Wikipedia. (And I'm pretty sure that Duckworth's paychecks are issued by the US government, not the state of Illinois.) Dezastru (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include – Wikipedia is basically all (or most) of the information available about a subject unified to one central source. If the information is out there—especially on a relatively high-profile subject and more especially if it's from a official, online source—we should include it. ~HueSatLum 04:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Include -- if it's good enough for her official congressional biography, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Failure to exclude it from the congressional bio suggests that if she controls the content of her bio, she's being very selective about where she wants it published; and if she doesn't control the content of her bio, then perhaps she shouldn't have run for Congress. Then she would still have complete control over her personal information. She is a public figure now, and there are good things and bad things that arise from this change in status. She accepts the good things. She should be an adult about this and take the bad with the good. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include per longstanding BLP policy on dates of birth. Andreas JN466 08:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include

"As Tammy Duckworth has previously requested to have her birthdate excluded from this article, we have complied as per WP:DOB."

This tells me what I need to know. Duckworth made the request properly and the policy that is established is to honor that request. If editors want to make distinctions between individuals who have a "public profile" and those who ordinary are ordinary citizens, then they should work on changing the policy. We shouldn't ignore a valid request and break policy and create exceptions in order to refine a policy. That is working backward.

It could be that the WP:DOB is changed and no longer applies to celebrities or people with a public persona and then this article can be revisted AFTER the policy has been changed, not before. To ignore policy because of subjective evaluations of "Well, the information has already appeared in X" or "The policy wasn't really meant to apply to people who are Z" sets a bad precedent. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not what DOB requires. "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources" is not categorical: Request does not equal exclude. Although, it would have been very easy to make it so: "do not include." Instead it is written as an appeal to editorial judgement: "err on the side of". And its concern is "privacy" and "primary source" use. This means that editors may choose not to "err" at all, and instead follow high quality secondary sourcing, and the usual practices and discipline of high quality biography to include. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DOB states "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Thus, if a subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, we simply list the year. Thus, a request does oblige us to exclude, which is the way WP:DOB has been applied for years now. Newjerseyliz has it correct in saying that if editors want to make exceptions, they should work towards changing the policy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No. It does not say "do not include". It asks for editorial judgment -- we are obliged to consider the request in kindness, respect, consideration, privacy concerns, and in light of the high quality sourcing on the subject -- and when in doubt to "err on the side" of the request (in part, only, by including the year). But we need not err at all. Not for non-existent privacy, where high quality sources already include. If you want the policy to read "do not include," or "must not include," you need to change the policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. It does not say "use your own editorial judgement". It says if the subject complains, simply list the year. If you want the policy to read "use your own editorial judgement", you need to change the policy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. I did not say it did: its a matter of WP:Consensus not my own anything. It does not say "if the subject complains, simply list the year" If you want it to say that, you need to change the policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't need to change the policy to say "If the subject complains, simply list the year." The policy already says "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year," which is the way it has been interpreted here on this article for many years now. If you want it to say something else, you need to change the policy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You would, as it appears you want to enforce a consensus cannot change rule. Consensus can change. Moreover, according to what you quote (and the facts and sourcing we have) we need not "err" at all, here, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker. Our Wiktionary entry on wikt:err on the side of caution implies that we have to assess the risks and choose the least risky approach. Under normal circumstances when the DOB is not widely published in other sources, the least risky approach is to protect privacy by excluding the DOB from Wikipedia. But in the case of Tammy Duckworth, whose DOB is widely published in government and news sources, the privacy concerns are negligible. By excluding her DOB, we are exposing ourselves to a different kind of risk -- the risk of being criticized for withholding publicly available information. This risk should also be considered, since WP:DOB does not categorically say that we must exclude the DOB. Edge3 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The risk that we will be "criticized" for withholding publicly available information? It seems to me we could advance many bizarre arguments about how we might be criticized for doing or not doing something. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

How is there any risk involved in "withholding publicly available information"? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if I would call it a risk, but any Wikipedia article that ignores and fails to reflect the pertinent information identified by high quality reliable sourcing in the scholarly discipline at issue (here biography) -- indeed, to go so far as to "err" (introduce error) -- is a failure of WP:NPOV (and depending on the evidence compelling the decision WP:OR) and must be a very exceptional case, with exceptional facts/need, subject to well considered consensus -- (and these cases do exist and having participated in such discussions on the side of "err" it can be warranted, but not, given consensus, here in this article, with this subject profile, with this quality of sourcing). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont see anyone having suggested that we should introduce a fake DOB. I still dont see why short of astrology birthdates are pertinent information about politicians. And if it is then people can find it elsewhere.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - we are not "introducing error" by listing the year of birth instead of the month and day, nor is it a violation of WP:NPOV to follow policy and omit something. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not the error. The error is refusing to follow the information in high quality sourcing. As you are not a professional biographer of a Congressperson (under our rules) but the Historian of Congress is, following his/her judgment ensures that error does not occur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Refusing to follow the information in high quality sourcing" is a blatant distortion of the situation here. We know that the subject's date of birth is readily available in reliable sources; WP:DOB, however, says that if the subject complains, we err on the side of caution and simply list the year instead. Whatever the Historian of Congress wants to do with DOBs and their website is up to the Historian of Congress. Editors such as ourselves are making edits here on Wikipedia, where we follow policy, precedent, and consensus. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You explicitly are refusing to follow high quality sourcing. That's why it's a decision that runs afoul of NPOV and OR -- nor is it, here, required by policy. And, yes, as I've repeatedly said it is subject to consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You are explicitly distorting the situation here. This is not a NPOV or OR issue, period. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Every representation in an article on the Pedia is an issue of NPOV (and depending on the evidence OR). To maintain otherwise is a "distortion." Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. There is no NPOV-violation or OR-violation issue here to deal with with regard to whether or not the subject's month and day of birth is included in the article. The subject complained and we erred on the side of caution by simply listing the year, as WP:DOB instructs. Perhaps you should take this to the NPOV noticeboard if you feel that strongly about this alleged distortion of WP:DOB and NPOV. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't have to since consensus appears to be include. And it does not look like we will err, at all. (Besides, not following high quality sources on the subject is an issue of NPOV) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we being held at knifepoint to follow the DOB policy exactly as it instructs or something? If anything a case can be made to IAR because it appears that we have the consensus to do so at this point. – Connormah (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In a way. Actually, we are being told there is nothing to discuss. But nothing about DOB policy (and NPOV is the superior policy, regardless), requires only one outcome (in the given circumstances), given consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice analogy about being held at knifepoint Connormah, but other people genuinely see this situation differently. If you think there is a consensus to ignore or override WP:DOB, you can call for an uninvolved admin to take a look at it and consider taking action. Right now, there doesn't appear to me to be a consensus here to do that; this is not a vote and many of the "include" comments fail to discuss the WP:DOB policy issue. Take note that after dozens of other editors have commented about this issue for weeks now, nobody else has claimed we are violating NPOV policy here by omitting the month/day either. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. The discussants don't have to cite every policy which supports the consensus to follow the high quality sources. (See, WP:NOTBUREAU) That is what we do on the Pedia. (Also, RfC's run for at least 30 days, usually) - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The "discussants" can cite or comment on anything and everything they want, but at the end of the day it's not about a vote but instead the strength of the collective arguments and the underlying policies. Any determination of this issue is going to have to involve WP:DOB, while the claim that we're violating NPOV is obviously a fringe view here. You disagree? That's fine, we can agree to disagree, and someday we'll see what the closing admin has to say about NPOV. I'm heading out for lunch right now and on to several other activities today, so I will circle back here later. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. NPOV, underlies all the arguments that call for following the high quality sources. You're the only one who argues NPOV is irrelevant (that policy is non-negotiable, overrides other policy, and must be followed in every edit). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been arguing that "NPOV is irrelevant", instead I've argued that claiming we are violating NPOV policy by omitting the month/day of the subject's birth is a fringe view. I don't think anyone else here would agree that we have somehow been violating NPOV policy all these years either. If you think otherwise, by all means please point them out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you now agree that NPOV is relevant. Since I have not argued that NPOV has been violated for years, then that is irrelevant. Nonetheless, the issue is now joined because of the high-quality sourcing that has been brought forward during this RfC that includes the birthdate, and the position is made that we need to properly follow that sourcing in article content. That is an NPOV issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't "now agree" that NPOV is relevant; what I said earlier is that this is not an NPOV-violation or OR-violation issue. I made that comment here in direct response to your comment here that the longstanding decision to omit the month/day of birth "runs afoul of NPOV and OR". Since you've elaborated more below on what your take on NPOV is here, I'll respond further there. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you misunderstood. It runs afoul only given the proper evidence. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, the NPOV argument is quite novel. I think you are suggesting that including the DOB is compliant with WP:NPOV because we would be providing the information published in other sources, fairly and without bias. Is this correct? I would also add that we should heed the WP:COI policy, which tells us that external interests may not supersede the core aims of Wikipedia. I'm not saying that these should be the primary arguments in favor of including the DOB, but they do help by enriching the current discussion. As AzureCitizen said, it's the collective strength of the arguments that matter, and we should be considering as many viewpoints as possible. Edge3 (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well remember that the NPOV discussion arose because there was a question about first principles. NPOV is a first prinicple, so its not going to be brought up all the time but it does not become a dead letter. Including the birthdate, because it is included in high quality sources on the subject is the governing principle addressed in NPOV. If we don't cover the issue like the high quality biography sources, we intentionally introduce our own bias. WP:DOB has as its subject primary/weak sourcing and privacy (and is subject to NPOV), and it is not written in the mandatory ("shall not"), it therefore guides consensus on when and which sources to fully represent, on this issue. If consensus (and the evidence) is that there is high quality sourcing that includes that date of birth (making it -- by sourcing -- pertinent to the biography), and that privacy is not thereby a salient issue, consensus may do so, according to these policies as currently written. We thereby avoid introducing our bias in our coverage, because we handle the issue as the sources do. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my analogy was a bit off, however I don't see that the DOB policy should always be a "be all, end all" argument, especially in this case, where circumstances in favour of inclusion are clearly evident. We can't ignore these and just go with the policy. – Connormah (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Connormah: I certainly think there are more editors here who think we shouldn't extend the WP:DOB courtesy to public figures whose exact birthdates have been widely published in reliable sources. There is an initiative going on right now to change the WP:DOB policy on the relevant discussion page. After dragging on for many years, I think it would be better to have a policy change and then implement the change here, rather than make a change here first and ignore the policy. What would the compelling reasons be for doing this backwards? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Thank you for elaborating more on your perspective on how NPOV plays into the month/day DOB issue. I better understand what you are getting at, but beg to differ on the contention that "If we don't cover the issue like the high quality biography sources, we intentionally introduce our own bias." The concept that we must convey and/or handle all issues "as the sources do" is constrained by policies which tell us to omit certain things when certain conditions apply. You see WP:DOB as being more of a flexible guideline (you're not alone there) and I see it as being more directive in nature (the way it's been interpreted here for quite some time). This is why resolution of the underlying WP:DOB issue is so important. You made the point that it is not written with a mandatory "shall not", but Wikipedia doesn't have any policies that contain "shall not". In it's plainest and most direct meaning, WP:DOB says that if the subject complains about it, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. If the single word "err" was replaced with "consider erring", it would make a huge (180 degree) difference in the interpretation... but for now, it still says "err on the side of caution and simply list the year." The way I see it, if we don't cover the subject's exact month/day of birth like some high quality biography sources, we're just following WP:DOB policy in that regard. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Shall not" and its various iterations is certainly a part of Wikipedia policy beginning with WP:V's "Wikipedia does not" and "must be" (see multiple iterations here and at "Wikipedia is not"). WP:DOB cannot be divorced from other policy and in particular the core content policies (V; NPOV; and OR). It must be read and construed in light of them. "Wikipedia:Privacy of personal information and using primary sources" also cannot be divorced from its purpose and its concerns. It is not rational to read "list the year" as a command when privacy complaint it made, because that is not how it is written, nor what it fully addresses, nor in keeping with NPOV's requirement to treat information as high quality sources do. When a privacy complaint is made, the issues that it invokes is 'what is the sourcing' and 'what is the privacy concern.' Where the sourcing is primary/weak or in doubt, and the privacy concern is demonstrated or in doubt, the Pedia errs on the side of excluding the information. But when the sourcing is high-quality and of such a degree for the given subject, making the privacy issue ephemeral, then there is no reason to err at all and we do what we normally do -- follow the sourcing. The reason we follow the sourcing is because they are the determinant to what is relevant, and what is not Wikipedia's bias. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker argues that: "Including the birthdate, because it is included in high quality sources on the subject is the governing principle addressed in NPOV. If we don't cover the issue like the high quality biography sources, we intentionally introduce our own bias.... If consensus (and the evidence) is that there is high quality sourcing that includes that date of birth (making it -- by sourcing -- pertinent to the biography), and that privacy is not thereby a salient issue, consensus may do so, according to these policies as currently written. We thereby avoid introducing our bias in our coverage, because we handle the issue as the sources do." The argument conveniently ignores the fact that there are other high-quality biographical sources on Duckworth that include her year of birth but do not include the full birthdate (such as in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, an article in Mother Jones, and the Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World (2011) pp 430-1). Following AlanScottWalker's line of argument, why isn't handling the issue as one set of sources does while ignoring how other sources do introducing our own bias? Particularly when doing so involves overriding one of our policies (WP:DOB)? Dezastru (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we are writing encyclopedic biography. That is why WP:NPOV and WP:V make source evaluation a consensus issue and DOB makes sourcing an issue, at all. Do we follow the historian of congress in the congressional biography or do we follow newspapers or news magazines writing political profile, and giving resume snippets. What is the highest quality source for the information in issue for an encyclopedic biography. These are matters only consensus can decide. (As an aside, the Wall Street Journal political profile cannot be a usable source at all on the matter, as it does not discuss even the year she was born). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Do we follow the historian of congress in the congressional biography or do we follow newspapers or news magazines writing political profile, and giving resume snippets." We aim to judiciously select content from sources that allow us to develop articles that fit best with our policies and goals. We never slavishly follow any individual sources. If a particular source is generally of high quality but includes some information that would conflict with our policies or goals, we do not include that information. As for "resume snippets," have you actually looked at the congressional biography you keep citing recently? (You were right that that WSJ article didn't include the year. I didn't initially mean to include it. I've stricken it from the list in my previous post.) Dezastru (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just following the source, as the New York Times presents its information as ". . ." resume ". . ." snippets. And, yes our goal here is encyclopedeic biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - When I initiated this RfC, my argument partly relied on WP:OPENPARA, which says that the opening paragraph should have "dates of birth and death, if known". I think it's important that we consider the provisions of this guideline in addition to WP:DOB, since all policies and guidelines are supposed to be reflections of the community consensus. I think that some good advice on the relationship between policies and guidelines may be found on Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. Some have suggested that the BLP policy trumps MOS in most cases. Indeed, user Wine Guy has proposed that the MOS be modified to clearly state that the BLP policy may take precedence over MOS. However, over the past 18 days, there has been no support for this change. Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Include. Given that certification of date of birth is an essential (if normally perfunctory) step towards demonstrating eligibility to hold federal elective office, there is no legitimate expectation of privacy here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI about reopening prior RfC

Resolved

 – See discussion above. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A discussion about reopening the RfC on Duckworth's DOB is here WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tammy_Duckworth_RfC. – S. Rich (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

proposing a BLP policy change

Due to the results of the RfC on this page, I have proposed a corresponding change to WP:DOB. You may be interested in the discussion here. Edge3 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Angela Lee Duckworth

Does Tammy Duckworth have any relationship to Angela Lee Duckworth?125.24.64.71 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Franklin Duckworth's branch of service

The body of the article says Congresswoman Duckworth's father was a United States Marine Corps veteran & buried at Arlington National Cemetery. The source document is the story of the internment of Captain Duckworth and the heading of the article states that his branch of service is the United States Army.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/fgduckworth.htm

Captain Duckworth's tombstone is also available online at http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=49175716 which shows his branch affiliation to be US Army.

Spanky2016 (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Spanky2026

This needs clarified. Most sources say Army. Currently the article lead says Army and the body says Marines.2600:8805:5800:F500:51AF:8D8C:EC60:FE94 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tammy Duckworth. 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/20070608120650/http://www.rotary.org:80/newsroom/print/cen_050615.html to https://www.rotary.org/newsroom/print/cen_050615.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110606171021/http://www.niu.edu/mediarelations/news/2010/april/duckworth.shtml to http://www.niu.edu/mediarelations/news/2010/april/duckworth.shtml

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

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} 10:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tammy Duckworth. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110521063019/http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=community&id=5400678 to http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=community&id=5400678

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} 19:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thai Connection and US Values

What stance has Representative Duckworth taken on Thailand's Coup and dictatorship. With personal connections, no doubt she greets Thais often and gives speeches to the Thai community. Has she condemned the Thai junta and the jailing of people in Thailand based on speech? What stance has she taken and if she hasn't condemned the dictatorship how does she justify her silence or support of it considering people in Thailand are being detained for the slightest criticism of the junta and Thai royal family. 203.131.210.82 (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You tell us what her stance is. Questions of how people justify things are not relevant here. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. -- Jibal (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Audit

Re. this text: "The Department's lack of controls and record keeping was in place before Duckworth came into office," I'm still not finding that in the source. The source says "And then-Illinois Auditor General Bill Holland in 2009 released a fairly critical audit of the department, mostly during Duckworth's tenure, saying that it lacked internal financial controls and records and generally was run in a somewhat sloppy fashion." Where in the source does it say the issues were in place before Duckworth's tenure? Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The source mentions, "flaws in financial controls that surfaced under both Duckworth and her predecessor" -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The article says "Despite flaws in financial controls that surfaced under both Duckworth and her predecessor, no action was taken, Crump said." This seems to be an opinion attributed to Crump, who was suing criticizing Duckworth. Regardless, the sentence "The Department's lack of controls and record keeping was in place before Duckworth came into office" is much stronger than what the article says, which is just that there were problems with the predecessor and with Duckworth. Besides, the article says "And then-Illinois Auditor General Bill Holland in 2009 released a fairly critical audit of the department, mostly during Duckworth's tenure, saying that it lacked internal financial controls and records and generally was run in a somewhat sloppy fashion." It seems clear the article (and the audit) are saying the majority of issues were during Duckworth's tenure. I don't think our article as it stands neutrally describes the sourcing, and it should be changed. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"Mostly" - it's of course too bad we don't cover the report apart from that quote you give (that "mostly" quote is barely informative let alone NPOV) but "mostly" definitely means not all under Duckworth, and the source goes on to say it was under her predecessor, also, so it is precisely NPOV which requires us to relate that information to give the full context, if we use that source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, because it is a BLP issue as to Crump, Crump at least as far as that source is concerned did not sue anyone, so you should probably redact that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Official Senate Portrait

Senator Duckworth's official Senate portrait has been released.

https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/imo/media/image/Official_Portrait_2017.jpg

I'm not good at the image uploading process. Could someone else take the wheel? That way we won't have to use her old House portrait anymore (been over a year now).

Cheers! Woko Sapien (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This article violates Wikipedia policy.

"Reflecting the strength of the arguments that the subject is a public figure whose personal details are already widely available and reported in high quality sources including those of the government, the consensus weighs heavily toward the fact that while the subject does not desire her DoB to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it should be cited in the article. Reflecting the strength of the arguments that the subject is a public figure whose personal details are already widely available and reported in high quality sources including those of the government, the consensus weighs heavily toward the fact that while the subject does not desire her DoB to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it should be cited in the article."

This is so much bullshit, and highlights a serious problem with Wikipedia's enforcement of its policies. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that the date of birth shall not be published if the living subject of the article asks for it not to be published. No "arguments" by editors or "consensus" can override policy. Nothing in the above quoted drivel is relevant. -- Jibal (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No Wikipedia policy requires what you claim. She is a well known public figure and her birth date is public and well established in reliable biography sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh... I just stumbled across this page again, after hearing that Sen. Duckworth is expecting! I participated in the RfC over 4 years ago, and I'm surprised to see that it's still somewhat discussed today! Edge3 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think this is the first-time its been resurrected and someone may try to include her children's birth dates, which, no, should not be included. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Edge3 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP policy on minors

Maine has the notability but does it really make sense to remove Abigail’s identity from the prose?--Fradio71 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Name

Article seems to lack subjects actual name...Ladda Duckworth. (sources:all of them. google it.) 86.142.118.91 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. From a cursory Google search, it looks like her full name is Ladda Tammy Duckworth. If that's the case, that's what should be used in the lead sentence per MOS:BIRTHNAME. Surachit (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Rovingrobert (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Natural born US Citizen

There is no dispute that Sen. Duckworth, like many other Americans who have 1 or more American citizen parents when born abroad, is a US citizen. John McCain, Ted Cruz, and George W. Romney among others were all born abroad, but the natural-born-citizen clause of the US Constitution is not explained on the their pages. Many Americans, like a friend of mine who's father was a USAF officer were born on foreign military bases or embassies, or other just when the parents were overseas for some other reason. There is no reason to have the "Under long standing US law, she is a natural-born citizen because her father is American" sentence in the "Early life and education" section. --rogerd (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Concurring opinion with Rogerd: A senate non-binding resolution was passed in 2008 declaring John McCain a "natural-born citizen." Obama presented a birth certificate which officially (as per the State of Hawaii) as born in the USA. The authenticity of that document has been disputed but SCOTUS declined to get involved. Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship for fear it would become a problem.

There are two likely explanations for the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution: 1) to prohibit "high-born" Royals from seizing the US Presidency or 2) to require the president, after ratification of the Constitution, to be a "native-born" American. If the former, Tammy Duckworth is elgible; if the latter, Tammy Duckworth is ineligible. Until a court hears the case against Tammy Duckworth, it is a matter of dispute and not suitable for encyclopedic content. If she doesn't actually end up on the ballot for Vice President or President of the United States, it's not relevant at all to her. I strongly suggest omitting any reference to the issue until it has some legal context attributed to it. Opinion of Congressional Research which makes no mention of the circumstances of Tammy Duckworth nor an article that tongue-in-cheek references the aforementioned opinion is adequate for encyclopedic reference. --FordGT90Concept (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree about #2. Cruz's, McCain's and George Romney's eligibility were never seriously questioned, despite the fact they were born in Canada, Panama Canal Zone, and Mexico, respectively. McCain was the nominee of a major party. --rogerd (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rogerd:, @FordGT90Concept: I disagree with Rogerd because of the "Where's the birth certificate?" fake controversy of the Obama years. (Note they don't apply to Cruz the standard they applied to Obama.) The facts ought to be clearly stated before someone attempts to again resurrect this non-issue. But if there's a consensus otherwise, then the consensus should prevail.

Billmckern (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Obama was born in the US (although some disputed it), and Duckworth (and the others I cited) were not. BTW, even if Obama had been born outside of the US, (which he clearly wasn't), he would be a natural born citizen because of his mother's citizenship. However, the two situations are unrelated. My point is this is not a big deal and not worth even mentioning in the article, anymore than it is Cruz's, George Romney's, or McCain's. --rogerd (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It is a significant enough issue to mention in this article if the reliable sources we use have deemed it a significant enough issue to mention. Otherwise, I agree we should leave it out. After all, if Biden doesn't pick her as veep, the whole convo is moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What reliable sources? You cite one article by National Review, which is ok, but that it hardly overwhelming evidence that many people are questioning her qualifications. Again, she isn't the first person to potentially be in the running for the top 2 jobs to have been born overseas. --rogerd (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Rogerd, I think you missed my point. If the reliable sources aren't questioning Duckworth's eligibility, then we shouldn't say anything about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. Then why do we have to make a statement saying she is eligible when it is obvious? AGAIN, she isn't the first person to be born outside the US by a US citizen parent who is considered for a top 2 job. --rogerd (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rogerd: Obama's critics falsely claim he's not a natural born citizen because he was born in a foreign country (Kenya) to an American mother. But they do not raise the same issue against Cruz, who was born in a foreign country (Canada) to an American mother. If they argued consistently, Obama being disqualified for a supposedly foreign birth to an American mother would also DQ Cruz, who was born in a foreign country to an American mother. That's my point - inconsistent argumentation.

Billmckern (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest removing the sentence about Senator Duckworth being a natural-born citizen from the body of the article and making it an explanatory footnote. (Also, long standing ought to be changed to long-standing or longstanding.) —⁠99.203.54.139 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I could live with that. --rogerd (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to tell who is arguing what and why, but my editorial opinion is it's idle speculation (perhaps, parlor game to some) of little to no relevance here, at this time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point that it is unnecessary to point out that she is a natural-born-citizen, because it is obvious, and others have been born abroad under similar circumstances. Then some people brought up Obama, which is a red herring. --rogerd (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Only SCOTUS or COTUS could declare her a "natural-born citizen" which it has not done so. The statement is as it appears at this time, is false. She is a citizen through birthright; that does not mean she passes the "natural-born" clause which SCOTUS has not created a test for yet. --FordGT90Concept (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Harris was picked, not Duckworth, so the mention of this topic at all is moot. The statement should be removed in its entirety until if/when she seeks the Office of the President again. Even then, no mention of the issue should be given until a lawsuit has been filed against her giving it evidentiary record. --FordGT90Concept (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2020

Change "Duckworth was endorsed by Barack Obama who actively campaigned for her." to "Duckworth was endorsed by Barack Obama, who actively campaigned for her." Sbam13 (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

She's been nominated as Vice Chair of the DNC by President-elect Biden HMShadowLeader (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done in Tammy Duckworth#National politics. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

Tammy Duckworth was promoted to the Army National Guard rank of Major after she sustained her injuries (https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/directory/tammy-duckworth/). Her about info in the sidebar should reflect this information, changing her rank from "Lieutenant Colonel" to "Major." 74.64.68.127 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The linked article is out-of-date. Lt Col is higher rank than Major. RudolfRed (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022

Change "through her father's status as an American citizenship" to "through her father's status as an American citizen". Mark S. Krikorian (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)