Talk:Tammy Duckworth

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Arcayne 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.

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