Talk:Edward M. Burke/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

A number of clients

a number? "a number" is not the same as 37. especially when consiering the context, the next highest number for any of his peers is zero. what is your problem with stated the number as reported in rs, let the facts speak, trust the reader to judge the significance? Hugh (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There are WP:BLP problems with this and several other articles about Chicago politicians. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Particularly when it comes to biographies of living persons, such as Mr. Burke, we need to be careful not only to ensure that content is thoroughly sourced, but also that it is not libelous or promotional and is appropriately balanced (not biased toward a particular point of view). (This is not the same standard that applies to tabloids.) Additionally, in general we need to remember that not every detail that might appear in a newspaper article is of sufficient long-term or large-scale importance to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. This article reads more like a collection of allegations compiled from critical newspaper stories than it does like a biography. You complain about the omission of details, but it appears that you have been very selective in your choice of details to include. This Sun-Times article does state that Burke had 37 clients who did business with city government, but it also lists 18 of those clients. The 18 listed clients include major corporations (both Chicago companies and multinational corporations) and major local institutions; seeing the list of clients may give readers a different impression than they would get from reporting the number of clients and the indication that their main concern was property taxes. (This is not a collection of 37 slumlords, for example.) Additionally, the source indicates that Burke abstained on business related to his clients, and it describes some criticism of Burke -- both the assertion that "it's still a conflict of interest even though Burke recuses himself when matters involving his law clients come up" and the history of his redacting the records of past votes to make it look like he recused himself. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

thank you for reading some rs on this subject, that means a lot to me, it is good to have someone to talk to Hugh (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

yes, you're right, there's a raft of rs re: the subject of this article's post hoc edits of the voting record and his many, many more recusals than any other alderman, so much to write, so little time Hugh (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

now that's interesting, we both started with wp & both editted our 1st blp w/i a few weeks of each other, what do you know, funny, huh? Hugh (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I don't see the similarities you highlight. My WP registration date is not logged, but my first edit was in August 2004. My first nontrivial edit to a BLP was in November 2006; I had made some fairly trivial edits to BLP articles as early as February 2006. In contrast, you registered and first edited in December 2006, and proceeded to edit BLPs almost immediately. I did edit Richard M. Daley several times in 2007. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

on this talk page may we please confine our talk to the current subject? if you have broad-brush, non-specific concerns about articles about Chicago politicians perhaps the Chicago project talk might be a better venue for you. thanks Hugh (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess that would be a more congenial setting than the BLP noticeboard. Please recall that I started looking at these articles when I was alerted an an edit war that had erupted between you and an anonymous partisan of another Chicago politician, and that several users found serious BLP issues in that other article. Your insistence on reporting almost every bit of dirt and innuendo about these politicians in the articles about them, while not bothering to report basic biographical information that is readily available, is not in keeping with WP:BLP. There's no denying that there's a lot of corruption in Chicago politics. However, Wikipedia needs to be vigilant about not allowing articles about living people to become either attack pages or promotional billboards. Some of these Chicago politician articles are awfully close to being attack pages. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the specific numbers because the numbers are trivial details (in the long view, does it really matter that he had 37 city-related clients one year and 31 the next year? -- the fact that you found those two years' numbers in newspaper articles does not make them particularly important) and because the inclusion of these and many other basically negative details in the article has the effect of unbalancing the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"a number" what is that, 2? 3? i was raised there's no substitute for precision. why say "a number" when THE number is staring you in the face in rs? The context for the number of this one alderman's clients doing business with the city is after you read the number of aldermen with clients with business with the City (1). So of 50 aldermen, 8 of whom are attys, just 1 has clients who do business with the city, and that 1 alderman has not 1 or 2 but 37 such clients. I trust our readers to make their own judgements given the numbers Hugh (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What could possibly be so significant about the specific numbers that makes them worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? It looks to me like the most significant thing about the numbers of clients is that they were reported in a daily newspaper. As I know you are well aware, not everything that gets into the newspaper merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. The selective inclusion of small details that cast Burke in an unfavorable light is what makes the article unbalanced. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How does "37" "cast Burk in an unfavorable light" but "a number" does not? Under what wp guideline do you prefer less precision over more? Ok, I repeat myself, but for you, once more with feeling: The number of clients the subject of this article has with city business is notable. He distinguishes himself from his peers, by not just the disclosure of ANY such clients, but also by the sheer magnitude. Again, the next lowest number of clients of any alderman with business with the city is zero. Your edit is non-neutral in that it conceals the magnitude. There is absolutely nothing negative about the number 37. 37 is more precise than "a number." "37" is neutral, verifiable, and reliable. Hugh (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Separate newspaper accounts say that there were 37 clients reported in 2006 and 31 in 2008. Apparently you haven't found reports for other years, or you would be reporting that there were 29 in 2005, 36 in 2007, 32 in 2009, and 25 in 2010 (these are made-up numbers; I don't have a source). But what would the purpose of all that specific detail be? What difference does it make whether he had 5, 15, 29, 37, or 58 clients who did business with the city? Is there any encyclopedic significance to the fact that he reported 6 fewer clients in 2008 than in 2006? Focusing on those numbers has the effect of drawing reader attention to the disclosure information, presumably as a sign of corruption.

Two isolated factoids are insufficient to provide a basis for a quantitative generalization (we can't say, for exampled, that he reported "more than 30 clients per year for the period 2005 to 2010")... Taking a long view of the topic, it seems to me that the salient information is that he reported having multiple legal clients that did business with the city. The fact that no other alderman-lawyer had any such clients in 2006 is kind of interesting, but its implications aren't altogether clear because we don't know whether any other lawyers disclosed such clients in any other year. Note that some other contributor might have chosen to present the same information in an entirely different fashion by identifying his disclosed clients -- as an indication of either the prestige or the political influence of the firm. Regardless of the details you choose, selective inclusion of one or two details from a single news story is likely to result in undue emphasis. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If i can't find data for all years i can't include any? Can you please find this for me in wp guidelines? thanks Hugh (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The prestige of the firms that do business with both Burke and the city is irrelevant here. Let me see if i follow you here. Are you saying it is not notable that Burke is the only alderman who reported doing outside business with firms that do business with the city, and the number of firms Burke reported business with that also do business with the city is also not notable, because those firms were prestigious firms, so its like, perfectly reasonable, so it can't go in wp? 03:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

i know he's not living so not in your wheelhouse, but would you support an edit "Beethoven wrote some number of symphonies" so as not to be too promotional? Hugh (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"Roger Maris hit 61 home runs." too promotional? "Roger Maris hit some number of home runs." more neutral? no, less precise. Now, a thought experiment: imagine a alternative history of baseball in which the rule was there - over the wall is a homer - but NO ONE before Maris did it, and then Maris did it 61 times in 1 season - might you agree that the fact that he did it at all AND the magnitude are both notable and neutral and important to the reader? Hugh (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of the items in the article probably are very deserving of inclusion, but it's difficult to judge because of a near-total lack of context. After reading a statement about something that happened when Burke was in law school at DePaul, I took it upon myself to add the basic biographical details of where and when he went to high school, college, and law school -- that kind of basic biographical information is very important to have before you go into details of something that happened one day when he was in law school. Similarly, statements like "Mr. Wisniewski stated that filing to run as an independent candidate for alderman against Burke was why he was fired" stick out as peculiar when the article has no indication that Burke won his first election for alderman or ever again ran for or won re-election. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your contributions, I will make sure it is clear he won that election, good suggestion Hugh (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

done. thanks Hugh (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ghost payroller on Burke's committee from Burke's law firm

you deleted 3 refs, saying they're not about Burke:

"Burke named in case of ghost payroller". Chicago Sun-Times.
"Burke Devised Ghost Scam, Lawyer Says". Chicago Tribune.
"Burke Linked To Payroll Scandal; Ghost Worked For His Firm, Not City Council". Chicago Tribune.

in your opinion are the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times "tabloids"? cuz if so I gotta agree with you there's serious problems with wp articles about Chicago politicians. May I make a suggestion, I think I know what might help here, a section summarizing the copious rs on how the subject of this article has controlled the slating of judges in Illinois, might help our readers understand how a federal investigation could get so close Hugh (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC) May I make another suggestion, would additional refs from rs help with this? cuz I can get them. My understanding is that charges/conviction is not the threshold for inclusion, weight proportional to rs is - what is your understanding? Hugh (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Sun-Times is a tabloid, much like the New York Daily News. Both papers are known for being more sensationalist in their journalism than other local papers. The Tribune is not a tabloid. However, from time to time all local newspapers engage in local reporting that is aimed as much at arousing controversy as at reporting news. When we use newspapers as sources for articles, we need to be careful to avoid repeating sensationalistic content -- and details that may have seemed significant when the story was published but are merely trivia from a more historical perspective.

"the Sun-Times is a tabloid" thank you for your clear stmt of your pov, this is progress Hugh (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

let's read this together and discuss Chicago_Sun-Times#Awards_and_notable_stories thanks! Hugh (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

did you get chance to take a gander at the wp article on the s/t? Hugh (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not about whether or not the Sun-Times is a reliable source. (It is.) It is about the difference between (1) the judgments that a daily newspaper like the Sun-Times makes on what to include in the newspaper and (2) the judgments that Wikipedia must make regarding what is appropriate content to include in an encyclopedia. Not everything that has been reported in the newspaper belongs in Wikipedia. End of discussion. --Orlady (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"Sun-Times is a reliable source" thank you! Hugh (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the content of this section of the article (which I deleted for BLP concerns), it was a long section (making it appear to the reader that it was an important part of Burke's biography) containing a lot of very specific detail (for example: "Martinez said he received $53,143 in wages and $37,352 in benefits for doing little or no work for the committees between 1985 and 1992. Martinez repaid $91,000, sending the money out of the blue to City Hall in three installments starting in April 1995."). However, it's almost entirely about Martinez. The relevance to Burke is that Martinez worked for Burke's law firm, that Burke was chairman of the city committee on whose payroll Martinez ended up at one point, that Martinez claimed that Burke put him onto the city payroll, and that Burke was investigated but not charged. This is not totally irrelevant to Burke's bio, but it's not worthy of 243 words of prose in that bio. I excised it due to the BLP concerns it raised in the form I found it. That kind of major surgery is often necessary to resolve issues related to WP:BLP. If the information is restored, it needs to be much less detailed and presented with better context. --Orlady (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

the $53,143 number and the $37,352 number are key to understanding the $91K number. A former employee of Burke's, two ways, once on Burke's public payroll and once on Burke's private payroll, is contacted by the feds and stops by City Hall and tries to drop off bags of cash. this happened. that no charges were brought against the subject of this article is a notable episode in his story, well represented in rs. it belongs here. "proportion to rs" we are obligated Hugh (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The subject section of the Wikipedia article (which you restored) is a recitation of details (it made me wonder why the numbers stopped at round dollars -- why not include the cents?), lacking in perspective on the significance of the information. Undoubtedly the details were reported in the daily newspapers at the time, but it is far from obvious that Burke's biography needs to include the information that Martinez said that the Land Acquisition Committee, Disposition and Leasing Committee, and Traffic Committee paid him $53,143 in wages and $37,352 in benefits between 1985 and 1992. It is only clear that this information is here to cast Burke in a negative light. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"I excised it due to the BLP concerns" what blp concerns? blp is a big article. can u please be more specific? thanks Hugh (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sad you did not answer my question. to me it seems like when you cite blp what you mean more specifically is undue, and, as i think i might have mentioned, weight in wp content is proportional to rs Hugh (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Neglected viewpoints

Can you please be more specific? What are the neglected viewpoints, based on your survey of rs on this subject? Hugh (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

let's read this together & discuss Wikipedia:Controversy_sections#Controversy_articles_and_sections thanks! Hugh (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The "neglected viewpoints" language is a standard part of the "unbalanced" template, as that template currently exists. "Unbalanced" is merely the standard template that comes closest to describing the issues here.

The lack of balance that I saw earlier was a general shortage of information about the progress of Burke's career(s) and a lack of any clue as to why people would continue to vote for this guy. A person doesn't manage to hold elective public office for 43 years without having some positive attributes to recommend him to people. After I excised a lot of content, the current version still has some shortcomings in that regard, but it also lacks balance because it omits a balanced treatment of the negative aspects of his career. I'd love to see the various accusations against him described in capsule form (i.e., summarized briefly). The summary (or summaries -- a single summary might not do justice to the topic) could be provided either in the form of a succinct quotation from an observer of city government or a summary written by a knowledgable Wikipedia contributor (that's not necessarily WP:OR). --Orlady (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"lack of any clue as to why people would continue to vote for this guy" why is this our concern? Hugh (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"A person doesn't manage to hold elective public office for 43 years without having some positive attributes to recommend him to people." this reads like OR in the theory of voter behavior. i'd love to talk to you more about this but this is a talk page in content space. can we please limit our discussion to the article? thanks Hugh (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"A person doesn't manage to hold elective public office for 43 years without having some positive attributes to recommend him to people." positive attributes help one hold office, but so does money. a partial clarification of the apparent discrepancy you identify would be to include in the article better coverage of the fund balances in the subject's many political action committees, but something tells me you might get all apoplectic if i added those numbers. Hugh (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

wp does not require us to ensure that every article about a politician must read such that it is plausible that they would be elected and re-elected, unless there is some guideline with which I am not familar Hugh (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

When a biographical article about a successful politician makes it difficult to discern why anyone ever might have voted for him (other than the possibility of favors, which cannot possibly have been granted to the entire electorate), that's an indication that the article is more of a character assassination piece than a balanced biography. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

i'm interested in theories of voter behavior but it is not relevant here. here we are concerned with faithfully summarizing the events of one life as reported in rs. i'm not aware of any rs that reports on WHY the good people of the 14th ward vote like they do Hugh (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Say it's the morning after an election day. Say there's a living person with a wp article in the election. Are all wp editors obligated to review the election results, and make sure that the balance of "positive" and "negative" in your judgement reflects the election results? so if a candidate gets 70% of the popular vote the article should be 70% "positive" in your judgement and at most 30% "negative" in your judgement? or even, without knowing the %s, all re-elected incumbents should have 51% pleasant content and at most 49% unpleasant? and all this can be done without anyone looking at rs beyond the election results? Hugh (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

please know I completely understand how one could read this and think omg that CAN'T be true it MUST be blp violation. welcome to my world Hugh (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have compared this article with the one about Ed Vrdolyak (among others). The Vrdolyak article suffers from a serious lack of sourcing, but I feel that it provides a more coherent and balanced "story" of his career than the Burke article did. It would not make me want to rush out vote for the guy, but it does provide a big-picture view of what he is/was good at and how he conducted business as a politician. Note in particular that the article headings are objective and encyclopedia-like. In contrast, the Burke article was a litany of individual incidents, most of which were highlighted with tabloid-style headlines. --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"It would not make me want to rush out vote for the guy" where are you getting this? I must ask you to please site specific wp guidelines in your replies. we seem to be getting lost in non-standard criteria for undue. again: a wp article about a politician must explain his success at the polls? no. a wp article must faithfully summarize rs. if you would like to advocate for other criteria may I respectfully suggest undue talk. thank you. Hugh (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"tabloid-style headlines" sigh. i thought we were past this. if you have concerns thast some sources are not rs, I must ask you again to pls be specific. thank you! Hugh (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"balanced "story" of his career" from the wp pov there is no story other than as documented in rs. you seem to be comparing this article against some story you have in mind which you seem to think must exist. if you are aware of rs which states that the subject is heavily involved in animal rescue or whatever pls add it. thanks Hugh (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"the article is more of a character assassination piece than a balanced biography" not a balanced biography? another thought experiment on balance, bare with me. Say you BOUGHT a biography of Burke, you know, old school, a book, with money. Say you run into a friend from Chicago and mention that you read a biography, and your Chicagoan freind remarks "that's great! say, crazy how he skatedon that ghost payrolling dust-up, huh?" and you're like, wha? and you go back home and check your book, no mention of ghost payrolling, no Martinez in the index! confused, you check your local library, and find rafts of articles in numerous award-winning newspapers on the episode, and several long-form profile pieces in prestigious magazines that covered the incident, wouldn't you want your money back? Hugh (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"accusations" i ask again can you please be more specific? I don't know what you mean by accusations. All i see is summaries of rs. all i see are the events and activities of a life. Hugh (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"lacks balance because it omits a balanced treatment of the negative aspects of his career" i'm lost here. I have no idea what this means. can you please cite this idea in wp guidelines? that might help. 02:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Like the 14th Ward, most of the various items that make up this article are lacking in context. Example:

"In 1970 John J. Wisniewski, an administrative assistant with the City's Department of Urban Renewal, and a precinct captain in the 14th ward for 30 years, was fired from his City job. Mr. Wisniewski stated that filing to run as an independent candidate for alderman against Burke was why he was fired."

This is a description of an accusation against Burke. I want to know more about it, but I cannot access the newspaper article on which this snippet is based, nor have I been able to find online sources. I cannot determine whether or when Wisniewski ran against Burke, nor what investigations or actions followed from this accusation. It appears to me that this is based on a single newspaper article. Without further information/context, it doesn't look to me like it's a salient element of Burke's biography.

"I cannot access the newspaper article on which this snippet is based, nor have I been able to find online sources." thanks for sharing this. this is real progress. This must be very frustrating for you, not having good online sources. i am blessed with a wonderful public library in my home town, with awesome online databases, without which I could not do what I do on wp. since forming judgements of undue depends so critically on rs it seems like it would be very difficult to justify edits based on undue. thanks again Hugh (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to place this in the context of other facts of Burke's career. Did Wisniewski oppose Burke in 1969, then get fired (allegedly for that opposition) in 1970? Or did he announce in 1970 that he was going to oppose Burke in 1971? The sources and article indicate that 1971 was the last time he faced a challenger before 2007. What happened in that election? Was Wisniewski the only challenger then? (Was he the "veteran precinct captain" who tried to get the committeeman seat in 1968?) I imagine that your sources would provide some needed clarification. --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I have the impression that observers of Chicago politics have formed perspectives/opinions about Burke over the last 43 years, and that many of the incidents described here are key elements of the patterns they have observed. For example, observers might have said that he has a long record of hiring his relatives for city jobs (I don't think that's the case with him; this is just a made-up example) or that he has used his skill as an effective builder of alliances in city government to build an unassailable power base on the finance committee (that's also made-up, but it's a bit closer to what I think might have been said of Burke). Those kinds of statements (attributed to their sources) could form the topic sentence for a paragraph or section that describes various instances that are related to the topic sentence. The level of detail in the various descriptions of incidents still would be excessive (e.g., "$14,079 for the sidewalk, $31,420 for the wrought-iron fence"), but at least the various stories might connect to something. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

balance does not mean everyone has a some good and some bad in them, weight in wp content is relative to rs Hugh (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"Due and undue weight Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, IN PROPORTION to the prominence of each viewpoint. ... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources..." emphasis mine. I think it will help if you please paraphrase your understanding of this standard in your own words. thanks Hugh (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

i'm saddened you did not respond to my request. I believe the way forward here is to back up and make sure we don't have fundamental misunderstandings of undue. please help. I really need to hear from you in your own words what you think the role of rs is in undue. thanks Hugh (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof on restoration of contentious BLP content rests with the person who wants to restore it. Reliability of sourcing is not the only concern -- issues of style/tone, relative emphasis within the article, etc., need to be resolved before the content is restored. --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"I excised a lot of content" and a lot of rs Hugh (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please seek consensus on the talk page before deleting sections or references. Thank you Hugh (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

My excision of content was based on the types of considerations outlined at WP:BLP#Deletion of BLPs. --Orlady (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"the types of considerations" may we pls at long last move beyond types to specifics w/i blp and specifics w/i this article or are you too busy or what? i want to agf but i begin to suspect you feel your pov is best served by broad charges of wp policy violation Hugh (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

BLPN

FYI: I've posted at WP:BLPN#Joseph Berrios about the contention that has arisen here. --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

hmmm. that's closed, isn't it? may i suggest the best place for you to post your concerns with this article is on this talk page? Hugh (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The BLPN discussion is not closed (click on the link and see). I posted there because the editing of this page has become contentious, and I don't think it is healthy for the two of us to continue in the present fashion. I have removed content that I felt breached the standards for inclusion that are articulated (at great length) on WP:BLP. I am hoping for input from regulars at BLPN who can provide an informed third opinion on the acceptability of the content under discussion here.

As you have repeated several times on this page, reliable sourcing is probably the single biggest consideration in determining the acceptability of BLP content. However, it is not the only consideration. Tone and balance are also important. Burke is a public figure, and almost anything that has been published about him is probably valid content for the encyclopedia, but we need to avoid undue emphases and the content needs to be written in a dispassionate style appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

may i share with you that i am beginning to grow frustrated with your section blanking and rs deletions while refusing to answer requests from a fellow editor to be more specific in your justifications. yes, blp is big article. that's why I have asked you every day for the last several days to be more specific, more specific about the wp guidleline and more specific about the text of concern to you. Yes, section blanking and rs deletions is not a healthy way to collaborate. please stop and do the hard work of collaborating. i assume you are not trying to avoid the hard work of developing concensus. I assume you are not trying to drive me away. I assume you are not trying to avoid a thorough understanding of undue and how it relates to rs and how the ability to apply undue depends on good access to rs Hugh (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

strip clubs

would this fit in? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-city-council-strip-clubs-0415-20150414-story.html Victor Grigas (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure! Plenty of room. Try something, let's look at it. Or no hurry we could wait 'til tomorrow evening (it will pass). Thanks for keeping an eye out. Hugh (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221005343/http://www.elections.state.il.us/ to http://www.elections.state.il.us/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)