Talk:Dan Seals (politician)

Miscellaneous

removed assertion that Seals hasn't maintained full time employment Chriscrosby (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that user:Dweber3venom is a Seals campaign volunteer or staffer. He has edited exactly two articles, Dan Seals and his opponent Mark Kirk. His Seals edits have been very positive and his Kirk edits very negative. They were also made within the span of two hours. Meditotal (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a warning about it. He does it again and he gets banned. In addition i've added both pages to my watchlist, so i'll see any changes. Ironholds 08:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the standard Infobox and External links for Congressional Candidates, as well as doing some wikifying as an example. The person who created this article can obviously use some help and pointers, and banning is a bit much for a beginner who did make a good-faith effort to contribute (it appears). 'Dweber3venom', here are some examples of similar articles: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox Congressional Candidate Flatterworld (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And now I've re-added the Infobox which should not be changed until if and when he is a candidate for another office, or until he is elected. That's why we have the 'election date' line. In this case, we had an intervening contested primary, sot should have been adjusted for that (he was then a candidate for Democratic nominee) and then changed back to nominee after he won the primary. imo :-) Flatterworld (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Living outside district

imo this is misleading and needs to be clarified. Because the most recent Illinois redistricting split communities block by block (even housing developments were split!), many people found themselves in a different district than the one they had moved into. Melissa Bean, for example, currently lives in the district of Mark Kirk/Dan Seals, as she lives on the 'wrong' side of the street now. Prior to re-districting, when they moved into their house, she lived on the 'right' side of the street. This is simply not a controversial issue as far as the local voters are concerned, because they're well aware of how these situations came about. It's not as if they're carpetbaggers or something. Flatterworld (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it's been pointed out that Seals moved into his house AFTER the districts were redrawn in 2000, so it's not like he used to be in the district and got drawn out of it. It is a big issue in the district, both off his primary opponents as well as Mark Kirk brought it up frequently Redking193 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an issue, but I just added the relevant info from the Illinois Elections Board to clarify that Illinois law does not have any kind of local residency requirement for federal officers Ggrisaffe (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to make it from Dan Seals' house to the 10th Congressional District in one block. The article is wrong. While campaign operatives have been using the verbiage for a while now, it is not the truth. The truth is he lives "near" or "close by." Padena

@Padena - Not sure I see your point. According to Google Maps distance from Seals' house to Lake Avenue is 0.3 miles (the 10th's border in that area is Lake Ave). Because of the way the streets are laid out in that neighborhood (w/ a dead-end, etc) it can be viewed as either 1 long block or something like 1 1/2 blocks. Cardinal91 (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest removing this section for more up-to-date npov. In the now-concluded 2010 Primary residency was not an issue among the several same-party candidates opposing Dan Seals. IMO it is no longer a relevant issue for 2010 General Election voters and does not add value to the page. The only reference cited in this section is to a Chicago Tribune article written by Susan Kuczka. While writing for the Tribune, Kuczka was thought to have appearances of bias against Dan Seals/for Mark Kirk Capitol Fax by Rich Miller, Independent Illinois Political Journalist. In 2009, Kuczka became Press Secretary for Seals' past opponent Mark Kirk's Senate campaign (after that article was written) Susan Kuzcka's LinkedIn resume. Cardinal91 (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I merged it into the 2008 section because it was brought up by Footlik, his primary challenger. It really hasn't been much of an issue since his first run, from what I've seen. Having its own section is undue weight. Flatterworld (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Partisan Edits

68.251.44.183 and 24.148.43.119 both removed validly source material because it does not reflect well on their candidate. To the surprise of no one, the only article they have EVER edited is Dan Seals. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information: good and bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meditotal (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added this to my watch page now, it's too bad that this kind of stuff happens here.--24.12.162.100 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I re-deleted a bit about a couple of students making a complaint. Please keep in mind we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Just because something is sourced doesn't make it worth adding. Student complaints aren't notable. As for complaining about others only editing this article...I checked your own contributions. Dan Seals. That's it. So your point is...?Flatterworld (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted most of the "controversies” section

I deleted the entire “controversies” section except for the residence issue, because the other entries were nonsensical “gotcha” sound bytes, born of Chicago right wing talk radio and partisans for Mark Kirk, and could not be characterized as “controversies”. by any informed, reasonable non bias person Characterizing his association with Dan Rostenkowski as a controversy is especially faux, since Rostenkowski,, post convictions, has served as a consultant to the local Chicago FOX NEWS affiliate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosand (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I redeleted the content. If someone objects, they should bring it up in this dicussion poagein order to come to a collective decision Cosand (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion should ideally come before rampant changes, not after. I've reverted your edits on the grounds that the content provides useful information, and that the controversies are perfectly valid. In addition before you talk about "partisan" entries you should really look at your own edit history; your other contributions seem prone to biased rhetoric themselves. Ironholds (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, as i stated, these entries were neither useful or valid. Their original entry, not their deletion, constituted bias vandalism, as is your current activity Cosand (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

They are both useful and valid. I am entirely neutral on the subject; I'm not even American, and have no particular interest in the US political system outside of Wikipedia. Please, as I've said, leave the article as it is until more people can comment to provide consensus instead of deleting a large chunk of content and then looking for consensus. Ironholds (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have no frame of reference on the content, which by your own admission you don’t, then you have no way of knowing that as I stated, these are tabloid snipits, not actual controversies. This being the case, please defer to my knowledge, as opposed to your admitted ignorance of the content. I re deleted the entries Cosand (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can keep this up as long as you like. The fact that you altered my deletions literally seconds after I made them, indicates your claims of lack of bias are at best, suspect. The entries are inaccurate (The citation on the Rangle NON issue, didn’t even match the claim made in the article) invalid and little more then tabloid /talk radio pap, and the product of partisan hacks. I re-deleted the entries Cosand (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I undeleted the info because, WP:BOLD aside, it is normally best to develop consensus for a large change instead of changing stuff and then seeking community approval. "at best, suspect" is the same as accusing me of being biased on the matter, which I'm not. As previously pointed out, your own edit history is hardly a record of neutrality; I suggest you look closer to home for any bias being brought to the discussion. I'm leaving it as it is for now despite common sense to allow other editors to chip in with their opinion on the change. Ironholds (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the section looks rather pathetic, particularly with its 'mini headlines'. I honestly doubt that anyone who actually lives in the district considers any of these to be true controversies.
As for the so-called district controversy...due to redistricting in Illinois, it's not uncommon for people to now live in different districts. Two years ago we had the same 'controversy' discussions about Melissa Bean, who now lives a half-block outside the district she represents. She still lives in Barrington, but Barrington is now chopped up into multiple districts. She didn't move, her district did. I wouldn't call this a 'controversy', simply a reflection on the redistricting which drew zigzag lines through towns so they would be divided. This isn't about carpetbaggers, just Illinois politics - look at the district map and you'll see what I mean. ;-) As for the rest of the controversies, I think they could all be summarized in about a sentence each, minus the 'mini headlines'. I know everyone's a bit on edge this close to the election, so let's just try to address what (frankly) should have been addressed weeks ago. Flatterworld (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough then. My issue wasn't so much the the deletion itself but with the deletion with no prior discussion. Ironholds (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you flatterworld for your input. If I was a bit strident and unilateral, it was only because the submissions in the article were so glaringly bias and tabloid, as to be a foregone conclusion that they did not belong in an objective article. I left the residency issue as is, because even though the concern is unfounded in scope, it is at least a matter worthy of clarification. If anyone feels it should go as well, I will leave that to the consensus. My apologies if I was overzealous Cosand (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite?

I removed the rewrite template because I believe with the recent changes this article can stand as it is, for now. Hekerui (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2010

Looks like all the same people are back. :-) I checked OnTheIssues, and while that site claims this is a 'hot race' there is no information yet on Seals or Dold. I also checked the links in United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010#District 10*, and not even the Chicago Tribune has much yet. I suggest you we keep an eye on these sources. We all want serious articles on both candidates, which means focusing on their issue positions etc. and not irrelevant controversies. That means we need 3rd party analysis of their issue positions, and I expect that will eventually show up, likely in the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times - and presumably some debates. There's no point (imo) to simply repeat whatever they have in their campaign sites. Flatterworld (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dan Seals (politician). 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/20110716163905/http://newssun.suntimes.com/opinions/1983552-474/news-district-congress-seals-business.html to http://newssun.suntimes.com/opinions/1983552-474/news-district-congress-seals-business.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)