Talk:James Philip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-critical content[edit]

I have no idea what bills he's sponsored, co-sponsored, worked on, or other directives he's spearheaded. Generally Assembly webpage is no help. Any ideas? —Rob (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I'll try to summarize potentially useful sources here.

  • Patterson, John (2002-12-06). "What will Philip's legacy be? Some say state senator will be known for his blunt comments". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-01-16.– First elected in 1966, state senator from Wood Dale. Led Republican-led reform of Chicago schools, instituted tax cuts for suburbs. James Edgar summarized Philip as "opinionated". Also had tougher penalties on crime.
  • Neal, Steve (1990-01-19). "Few are neutral about GOP leader Philip". Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved 2008-01-16.– Frequently clashed with Chicago mayor Harold Washington, although perhaps due to a reference to the city as "a rathole" (which changed with the election of Richard M. Daley). Hard worker, "one of the most important Republicans in the Midwest". Allowed Illinois to carry electoral victories for George H. W. Bush (president) and Jim Thompson (governor). Pushed through legislation approving I-355, Lake Michigan water supply, and a golf course.

Please add more above. Thanks. —Rob (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

I've protected this because it seems to have been the focus of a revert war over the same criticism almost since its creation. Please discuss on talk how to add material that isn't criticism, so that this becomes a genuine biography. Otherwise, it's a violation of COATRACK. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Semi-protection would be a more appropriate option at this point for this article. There were frequent deletions of material by anonymous IP accounts (68.7*) that are suspected sock puppets of User:Joehazelton. Currently all critical content has been removed from the article despite there being multiple reliable sources, such as the Chicago Sun-Times, ABC, and Medill News, among others. Also, I was working to add additional information to balance the article, noting non-contentious items such as Pate Philip's professional background and the fact that a state park is named after him. I can see no reason why this type of information should be deleted. Propol (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The continued use of Ad hominem attack on this bio and passing it off as "Encyclopedia" is an insult. This editor continues to push his one sided agenda. This editor's use of guilt by association and "sock puppet" accusations, to quash any meaning full discussions and character assassination with scarlet lettering any editor that opposes him on Republican office holder's bio should be a clear indication of this editors intent. This editor has used this for a long time, as the cornerstone of his augments. His style of writing is as that as an attack copywriter for a Democratic mail piece, rather than a NPOV. Then this editor, tries to justify it all with bulling and tactics of a Chicago street gang. All of which is clearly not the original intent of Wikipedia. Also, as it was stated my me and others, this article is a classic example of Coatracking WP:Coat and a violation of many other policies and regardless of all the minutia of alleged facts used on this biography of a living person still has to conform to policy as to WP:COAT , WP:BLP , WP:NPOV , WP:WEIGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.176.242 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than run-on talk page comments whose content rivals the best of Rush Limbaugh, anon IPs haven't contributed much, if anything, to the article. Pate doesn't seem to have a website, so at the moment, his comings, goings and doings are largely unknown to me. I will, however, post some articles here as I find them. Semi-protection would be better here. —Rob (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rob and Propol, the problem wasn't what the anon(s) were adding, but the criticism without any other biographical information to put it in context. Perhaps you could work on the talk page, or offwiki, on putting together a more three-dimensional biography. He's a public figure, so there must be material available. Here, for example. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To festoon this man's bio with total negativity and Ad hominem bilge, is inconsistent with the goals of wikipeida to have an "Encyclopedic" article. So, until editors can prove that they can write a NPOV,article, with out sharping up a partisan axe, the article should be protected.68.75.176.242 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I can appreciate that you're frustrated, but complaining about personal attacks by making them yourself probably won't get you too far. The best thing would be for you to create a user account and help to find material that isn't negative so that the legitimate criticism can be added in a less barbed form. I'm going to adjust the protection so that it'll automatically unlock after two weeks. That should give people enough time to find more sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the anon, I see that more personal attacks from you have had to be removed. I'm going to semi-protect this talk page against anon edits. If you want to take part in the discussion, please create a user account, which will allow you to bypass the semi-protection in a few days. I'm leaving this note here for you because you're using dynamic IPs and have no fixed talk page. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet[edit]

Pointoflight is a suspected sock puppet of blocked User:Joehazelton. Further, Pointoflight is a single purpose account. The user is deleting any critical information from the article, despite there being multiple reliable sources cited. Propol (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some one should stop Propol's harassment of me. Propol is out of control and need to be told to stop this unwarranted abuse. This is outrages and shows the kind abuse that wikipeidia tolerates.Pointoflight (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven allegations and hearsay[edit]

Unproven allegations and hearsay around the trial of Scott Fawell is not relevant and should not be on this bio. Again stop the Ad hominem/guilt by association attack nonsense.Pointoflight (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this section?[edit]

Disputed text[edit]

During the corruption trial of former Gov. George Ryan's top aide Scott Fawell, "Pate" Philip was called as a witness. Prosecutors asked about Philip's 50 year high school reunion--a 1999 $15,000 bash at Navy Pier set up by Scott Fawell. Philip said he never asked for any special treatment, but was happily surprised by it. It was only after the Chicago Sun-Times revealed the party that Philip paid for it out of his campaign fund.

"You had a freebie didn't you?", asked prosecutor Pat Collins.
"It would appear that way," said Philip. [1]

Also during the trial, prosecuters released a document including ten pages of favors granted to former Senate President Pate Philip. [2]

Philip spoke with Larry Hall, who wore a hidden recorder and taped the conversations as a part of an undercover government investigation. Philip agreed to try to get Hall's sister a job with the secretary of state's office in exchange for Hall's fundraising activities. Prosecutors allege Hall gave $1,400 to Philip's campaign shortly after the conversation. [3]

Philip has been criticized for looking into the voter histories of students applying for legislative scholarships, which are funded by the taxpayers of Illinois. In 2001, all five of Philip's scholarships went to Republican primary voters or to students whose parents voted Republican, and the same trend was observed over the prior five years. [4]

Note the date of publication....07-MAR-03 All water under the bridge... just more disinformation.Pointoflight (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the date, but the source. We need to see that this story was actually published by a third party, not just placed on the student news service website. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I can't figure out what importance part of this section has in the article. He wasn't charged with a crime. He was called as a witness. Quoting a prosecutor in the context of a courtroom is a bad idea - it's his job to specifically insert bias into questioning to make a point. —Rob (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is in conflict with wikipeida policy of WP:BLP This a blatant example of Ad Hominem/Guilt by Association attack that it's laughable. The POV, political pushers are using the the tried and true tactics of Smear and Red Herring. Pointoflight (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to exercise some caution here, given that there are complaints. First, I see that the source of two of the points is the Medill News Service. These are articles written by journalism students, and we therefore ought not to use them for any controversial material that doesn't exist elsewhere. If it can be found elsewhere, we should use the other source, in my view.
Secondly, it's not appropriate to have those quotes boxed off to highlight them. All Philip was saying when he said "it appears that way," is "that's what it looks like." He wasn't say "yes, I agree." And anyway, he wasn't on trial. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your first point, the Medill News Service is highly reputable and qualifies as a reliable source. All of their articles are subject to fact-checking and editorial review. This is not some personal blog. For more info, see the article at Medill School of Journalism, which states the Medill News Service serves newspapers, web sites, television stations and radio stations, which all pay a quarterly fee to help cover production and communications costs. Clearly, Medill is considered professional.
Second, if you want to drop the quotes, I can agree to that, but the main point (Philip was accused of improperly accepting benefits) should remain. There are multiple reliable sources, the Chicago Sun-Times and ABC TV. Propol (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some users have noted that Philip hasn't been convicted of any crime at this point. First, that doesn't diminish the fact that he has been accused of wrongdoing in multiple reliable sources. Second, investigations and prosecutions are still ongoing. Philip could still face charges. Propol (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IT is THE POINT!!!... There was not even an "indidment" The charges were investiged and dropped. End of story. The only reason why you want to add this is to smear by "implied guilt". This not consistent with policies of Biographies of living persons WP:BLP This is just partisan pushing.Pointoflight (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The student news service's clients are listed here, and there really aren't that many. I mean no disrespect to them, and I'm sure they're a fine service, but where we have a dispute on a BLP, we need the best sources possible. If those allegations are correct and notable, someone else will have published them.
Regarding the main point, can you rewrite it in a more disinterested tone? It needs to be quite dry, straightforward prose, and there's probably no need for so much detail. The question I don't know the answer to is how big a part of this man's life or career this was. If not a large part, then we shouldn't be making too much of it here.
I've protected the page on the version without this section until it gets settled. Perhaps you could suggest a version of the section here on talk, and see whether others agree to it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a very small part of his life, towards the end of his political career. Not even notable in regards to his decades of public service.Pointoflight (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was quite notable in his career. In fact, Philip and his colleagueLee Daniels both retired as these controversies became public. Both remain subject to further investigation. Propol (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say, the facts don't bear that up. Also, those "investigations" are dead. Pointoflight (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The facts do support that Philip has been accuse of wrong-doing:

  • Chicago Tribune article states: In or about April 1994, Ryan related to Fawell a conversation that Ryan had with State Senator Pate Philip (ofDuPage County) in which Philip wanted to assist SOS employee Russell Nisivaco, a member of Philip's political organization, who was suspected of stealing over $2,000 in SOS funds. Thereafter, Ryan and Fawell directed that SOS Inspector General Dean Bauer gather evidence relating to the investigation. In addition, Fawell and Ryan received and reviewed investigative reports that indicated that SOS investigators believed that Nisivaco's alleged offenses were linked to fundraising. SOS Investigators were then told by Bauer to perform no more work on the case. Later in the same article... At some point in the late first term or early second term of Ryan's SOS Administration, Ryan told Fawell that he was going to be meeting with then Senate President Pate Philip and he wanted to know what Ryan had done for Philip lately. In response, Fawell provided excerpts from his master list, which specified the jobs, contracts and other benefits that had been provided to Philip.
  • Daily Herald article openURL version states: The lead prosecutor in the federal licenses-for-bribes probe flatly accused former state Senate President James "Pate" Philip Thursday of lying on the witness stand, saying the GOP powerhouse told three "bald-faced lies" earlier this week.
  • Chicago Sun-Times article states: Fawell also said Ryan knew of a "master list" that tracked political favors from the secretary of state's office. He gave an example that Ryan once asked for the pages pertaining to former state Senate leader James "Pate" Philip (R-Wood Dale.)

Propol (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALL of WHICH is just "fancifully speculation" and All of which has been dropped. You are trying to make hay with lots of quotes of "speculation" that is all hearsay and never proven.Pointoflight (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Popol, do you have a source showing there are ongoing investigations, or that "both remain subject to further investigation," as you wrote? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cite stuff that happen YEARS AGO. Thats all water under the bridge. Nothing has come of it and your premise is with out merit.Pointoflight (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the second link above seems to be about Philip, and it's for subscribers only so I can't see what it says. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note the date of publication....07-MAR-03 All water under the bridge... just more disinformation.Pointoflight (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All old news, fancifully speculation and all unpoven and dropped.Pointoflight (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the openURL version. Please note that notable water under the bridge should be included in Wikipedia. —Rob (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not forget, this water was about Scott Fawell and has nothing, notta, about Mr. Philip. Also, the news reports of James Philip "testifying" is not indictment of guilt or wrong doing on his part. Again, this was all old news, and Scott is in jail and James Philip is not under any "investigations" current or otherwise. The Ad hominem attack/guilt by association should not be passed off as "Encyclopedia". Finely, Eric Krol is not an unbiased journalist considering most of his wittings at the Herald could be considered "opinion". It should be noted that this news article dates back 5 years.Pointoflight (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prosecutions frequently take many years. Philip's Wikipedia article only claimed that he was accused of wrong-doing (it never suggested he was charged or convicted). The fact that accusations were made (and cited in reliable sources) remains true, even if they were made 50 years ago. Please see the official web site of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, which describes the investigation as continuing. Here's the exact wording: Mr. Fitzgerald has supervised the continuing public corruption investigation known as Operation Safe Road, which began in 1998, and which resulted in the convictions of approximately 73 defendants, including more than 30 public employees and officials. This is not a dead issue and it's not water under the bridge. Propol (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propol, you know as well as I do, if they had "the goods" on Pate, he be in jail like Scott, right now. You contentions are just idle speculation, with out any substance and all unpoven, other then your agenda here, which is simply, to put as much junk about this man on wikpeidia. This is all dead and Philip cleared of any wrong doing. Pointoflight (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW PROPOL, this is the context of the web site u quote...

"...In Chicago, Mr. Fitzgerald has supervised the continuing public corruption investigation known as Operation Safe Road, which began in 1998, and which resulted in the convictions of approximately 73 defendants, including more than 30 public employees and officials. Since January 2004, he has overseen an investigation of the City of Chicago's Hired Truck Program in which three dozen defendants have been charged, including approximately 20 current or former city employees, and two dozen defendants have been convicted. Mr. Fitzgerald has also committed himself personally to the implementation of Project Safe Neighborhoods as part of a concerted effort with the Chicago Police Department and other state and federal law enforcement agencies to reduce gun violence...."

italic mine.
I don't see the name James Philip any were there? Again you just trying to shove a person to a negative and trying to make it stick. Classic logical fallacy.Pointoflight (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Former state Senate president takes the stand by Paul Meincke ABC7Chicago
  2. ^ Document of political favors released at Fawell trial by Paul Meincke ABC7Chicago
  3. ^ Former Illinois Senate President Testifies in Fawell Trial by Michelle Meyer March 5 2003 Medill News Service
  4. ^ Pat Quinn says Pate Phillip may be bending the rules by Jeff Fischer October 30 2002 Medill News Service

Free party[edit]

See Pate Philip's free class reunion Chicago Sun-Times, May 28, 2002 by Tim Novak

[removed copyright violation] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propol (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony hits Salvi, Pate[edit]

Testimony hits Salvi, Pate Chicago Sun-Times, Feb 26, 2003

[removed copyright violation] Propol (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical information[edit]

Illinois Blue Book 1973-1974 page 135 states wife Judy, and two children Jase and Cia. Page 52-53 of 2002 Blue Book says wife is Nancy and 4 children. BB 1977-1978 also shows Nancy as the wife. It also says he was in the USMC from 1950 to 1953. I have not found much detail as to the nature of his service, locations etc. I assume means he was not involved in the Korean War. His full name also seems to be James Peyton Philip Jr.(Daily Herald Sunday, January 29, 1995. Page 129) The nickname "Pate" derived from his middle name. Info on parents would be good too. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be worth noting that Ray Soden filled the remainder of his 2003-2005 term with Carole Pankau winning election in the next term. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heart bypass at Elmhurst Memorial Hospital, June 2004. "Former state Senate president recovering after bypass surgery" Daily Herald. Chicago, Illinois. Tuesday, June 22, 2004 | Page 102 --Dual Freq (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People obviously want to keep on editing this, so I'd like to unprotect it. Propol, can I ask you please to stop adding that section and allow other editors on the page to decide how it should be written, if at all? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of Wikipedia tends to use succession boxes at the bottom of the page... can we do that for all Illinois state senators as well? —Rob (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like these? I can't find a successor for his rep seat because the district was changed around that time. Maybe we just leave that part off? --Dual Freq (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preceded by Illinois State Representative 37th district
1967 — 1975 		Succeeded by
Unknown due to redistricting

Philip assumed Minority leader position in 1981 after the death of Dr. David C. Shapiro on or about Aug 2, 1981, he had been assistant minority leader since 1979. (Daily Herald | Chicago, Illinois | Sunday, October 09, 1988 | Page 102.) Electoral history that I could find is:

  • 1990: Defeated William C. Kaiser
  • 1994: Defeated Keith Petropoulos
  • 1998: Defeated Rita Gonzalez (31347 to 13961)[1]
  • 2002: Unopposed

--Dual Freq (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown biographical details[edit]

  • Details of USMC service 1950 - 1953. Assumed to be enlisted service and not related to the Korean war.
  • Wife Judy, Illinois Blue Book 1973-1974 page 135 Divorced? deceased? (Status unknown) At least two children. Jase and Cia. Judy's name is mentioned up to the 1975 - 1976 Illinois Bluebook.
  • Wife Nancy, year of marriage, maiden name. 4 children, first names would be nice to have here. Nancy is first mentioned in the 1977-1978 Illinois Blue book
  • Parents, names and occupations at a minimum. Apparently he shares a name with his father as noted by the one article I found that says he is a Jr.
  • Religion, for infobox line currently blank.

Anybody have a source for these items? --Dual Freq (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

I've unprotected so that others can edit. Propol and Pointoflight, please allow other editors to decide whether to include that material. I don't want to keep protecting the page because of it, when all that achieves is that no improvement is possible. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section[edit]

Would someone care to make an attempt at expanding the controversy section? I think at a minimum there are three major issues that should be noted. First, Philip was accused of accepting donations in exchange for helping people obtain state employment. Second, while testifying in the George Ryan trial, Philip was accused of committing perjury by a federal prosecutor. Third, Philip was accused of improperly accepting benefits, such as a party at Navy Pier, which were at taxpayer expense. There are multiple reliable sources (e.g. Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, etc.) I believe the article would be incomplete without mentioning these controversial topics. Propol (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the date of his indictment and trial. I can't find a source that says he was indicted by local or federal prosecutors for any of the above items. Such a thorough and aggressive corruption investigation would have yielded an indictment had any crime worthy of prosecution been committed. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Freq, your comments above are opinion. An accusation of wrongdoing doesn't need to yield an indictment or conviction to be notable and appropriate for inclusion. Also, there is no reason to believe that charges can't be brought at a later date. There are multiple reliable sources documenting the controversial issues that I have mentioned. If you like, I will provide the specific citations. Their inclusion will fully comply with policy, such as WP:BLP. I'm in favor of expanding this article in a balanced manner. I would like to expand the Legislative career section as well. Philip's support of DuPage Airport is significant, as are many other issues. However, I remain confident that criticisms are a proper and necessary element of the article too. I would really appreciate your assistance. Propol (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propol, I will make it simple so a young guy like your self understands... any additions to the James Philips bio which don't meet standards of Encyclopedic content I will remove. I will not play the games, bandy words, or question the motives of other editors or any accusations of them being "Bias". No. I will just just simply remove, with out explanation, what don't meet standards of Encyclopedic content, since my reasons for my actions are censored. Also, I will fully expect any content, which contain fanciful speculation, unproven allegations and other nonsense, I expect the Admin to remove and enforce, per your wiki policy, so that standard is meet on the James Philip bio. IF you don't I will. In closing, YOUR LEADER - JIMMY, had said this... I QUOTE... 

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words.
 We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. 
–Jimmy Wales

Again quoting JIMMY 

"... reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves
 is a horribly stupid thing to do."
–Jimmy Wales

Don't be stupid.Pointoflight (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointofflight, if there are any more posts from you in that tone, I'm going to block you. Propol has very kindly agreed to stop restoring the disputed section and has asked here instead for other input. You have to respond in kind by understanding that some criticism is inevitable of a political figure, and that talk pages can't contain this kind of invective. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

I added apicture of Pate to this and the URL of it, but will it be fine here? - Crazyconan (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - there's no information whatsoever provided for the picture in the source, which makes it impossible to figure out its copyright status. —Rob (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might have added a URL to the comments for the picture (not discussion), so just check there and confirm if its legal here. - Crazyconan (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on James Philip. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago School Reform - Bias[edit]

How can the statement "removed previous money-wasting reformers from their posts" be anything but a biased, non-factual statement? Whatever had been cited to for that statement no longer exists. This clause, if not the entire sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkelber (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Philip&oldid=1209743738"