Talk:Toni Preckwinkle: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ikip (talk | contribs)
59,234 edits
No edit summary
(Username or IP removed)
Removing deleted template {{Rescued}}
Line 38: Line 38:
|currentstatus=GA
|currentstatus=GA
}}
}}
{{Template:Rescued}}
==Sources==
==Sources==
Here are some sources I've found, use them as you see fit: [[User:Speciate|Speciate]] 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are some sources I've found, use them as you see fit: [[User:Speciate|Speciate]] 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:27, 6 March 2009

Template:FOR-CHICOTW

Good articleToni Preckwinkle has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 13, 2005Articles for deletionDeleted
September 19, 2007Articles for deletionDeleted
September 28, 2007Deletion reviewEndorsed
January 10, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
July 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 15, 2007.
Current status: Good article

Sources

Here are some sources I've found, use them as you see fit: Speciate 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles mentioned in DRV:

Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

I'm sorry, but this article is just not up to standards yet. The "Early Life" section must be expanded, the lead must be expanded, and there is no image in the infobox. The article is way too short, and even though there are tons of citations, there is not much information to her. — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was obviously written by a Preckwinkle supporter

VERY point of view. Allthewhile (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Preliminary GA review

There are several general issues relating to this article.

  • POV tone. The article reads more like promotional material for this politician, rather than a neutral, encyclopaedic view. We read repeatedly that she is progressive, publicly accountable, also independent, keen, persuasive, spirited etc. She is powerful, she had "disproportionate influence" in choosing Obama’s successor to the state senate. Her role in Chicago’s Olympic bid becomes an "international" one (it's still local, at this stage). It seems that you are bigging her up, rather than giving a factual account of her career to date. I think you need to go through and tone down the prose, all the way through the article.
    • The tone is reflective of the mainstream secondary sources. She is non-controversial and positively portrayed in the press. I am as a tertiary author relay this positive portrayal. The adjectives chosen reflect those used by secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The adjectives have undoubtedly been used. It is your selection and deployment of them which is the issue. For example, in relation to the Tribune and Sun-Times comments, instead of repeating the whole list of compliments you could have said they "praised her for her intelligence and independence, and hoped she would continue in politics" - or something like that. Also, I imagine that there are some conservative commentators or columnists who don't eye her with such undiluted favour and might use other terms? Perhaps they don't criticise her much, which would make me wonder if she was as powerful as your article implies. However, the general point stands - the prose has to be toned down if it is to read as a factual article rather than campaign literature.
        • When it comes to WP:RS, I stay away from liberal and conservative rags as best I can. I hope to stay with the Trib and Sun-Times and even more mainstream media. I definitely do not intend to seek left-wing or right-wing sources just to counter the prevailing thought. Without contravention from the mainstream middle of the road media I will leave the positive vibe.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In a neutral article you have to consider all sources, not just those that reflect your own preferences. I'm not saying that you must trawl through the aforementioned "rags" to find balancing criticisms, but if a critical perspective does exist, as is likely with all elected officers, this should be mentioned. You have to decide, basically, whether you are writing an encyclopedia article of a promotional article. At present it has the character of promotional material. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not all sources. All WP:RS. This is why I do not use either left-wing or right-wing media for political articles. People will say anything sourced thusly is POV. I am limited in my experience having only produced Template:GAstarJack Kemp and Template:GAstarJesse Jackson, Jr., but this seems like the right way to source politicians.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • When it comes to newspaper sources, which your article relies almost entirely on, there will be different views as to what is reliable and what is not. But rather than pursue this debate, I intend to read the article again, to see whether the changes you have recently made create a more neutral image. I'll come back on this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I guess I should remind you that some text remains that was added during following WP:DRV debates. I just fixed the {{ArticleHistory}} to provide greater clarity. I think the last sentence of the lead was really written as a defense against the first three items in the article history. I find the sentence unusual in my own review. I am not sure whether an article that has a history like this needs to be handled. I fear not reminding people she has been mentioned in several national media outlets is abnormal, but was necessary earlier for this article. I have removed a few terms from the rest of the article. I still remain concerned about the efforts that have been made to take this article off of WP in the past and want the lead to be strong enough to stop people in their tracks. Advice on toning down the last sentence of the lead and/or beefing up the lead would be welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: Why no image in the infobox? There are several portraits of Ald. Preckwinkle on google images. Surely, if approached, one of the copyright holders would let you use a picture? Or you could give a fair use rationale. In the one group image you have, Ald. Preckwinkle isn’t identified by the caption except as Columbia, which isn’t particularly helpful if you are outside the US and don't know what Columbia is supposed to look like.
  • References: The following are dead links: [17], [23], [25], [26], [33] and [40]. I could not get [1] and [2] to work, either; a message said that there were "temporary difficulties" with the site.
    • (Later comment) [1] and [2] still not functioning. I assume they are dead, too. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • [17], [25], [40] are all Sun-Times articles so I have fixed those.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • [23] The ref was case-sensitve on the word bylaws, which should be Bylaws.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • [26] was obtainable at archive.org--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • [1] and [2] still dead. [33] also dead. As of now, [3], [4], [5], [6] and [8] work with Firefox but not with Internet Explorer. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have just reopened [3], [4], [5], [6] and [8] in MSIE.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have just fixed [1] and [2] and merged them. This causes all other numbers to be reduced by one. The only currently outstanding ref is [33] which is now [32]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • [1] is still not working for me. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That is breaking for me again. Do you have any suggestions? It is a link on the ward page in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm afraid that there are continuing problems with the references. Apart from [1] and [32] not working, the Chicago Tribune Newsbank refs are all problematic and temperamental. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't - yesterday, they did; this morning they don't. As to [1] and [32], these are your main biographical sources. The infobox link to the Chicago 4th Ward has a biography that gives most of the information cited to [1] and [32], and this link works, so I would advice using this biography as a replacement for {1] and [32]. But I don't know what to suggest about the Newsbank ones which only seem to work on occasions. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: Apart from the POV issues mentioned above, the general standard of prose needs much improvement. Some examples (and please note that they are examples, not the whole problem): the word "role" appears four times in the second and third sentences of the lead; the last sentence of the lead makes three distinct statements yet is completely unpunctuated; the "Political role" section includes the sentence "The ward is adjacent to the Lake Michigan lakefront, and she is now serving her fourth term" – completely unrelated facts linked in a single sentence. The article needs a thorough copyedit; I’d do it myself, but not until the POV question and other issues have been resolved.
    • I have reduced the 4 roles to 2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence just needed better parallel structure. I think the punctuation is fine unless you just want to break it apart.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reworded ths sentence to show the relation.--TonyTheTiger (t/cbio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you clarify a general point for me? I understand that Toni Preckwinkle lost to Timothy Evans in 1983 and 1987, and beat him in 1991. They both appear to belong to the same party, so are these primary elections we are talking about? If so, were there general elections following, or were the selected Democratic candidates unopposed? All this has to be made clear to readers unfamilar with this electoral system. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal information: This seems rather thin for an elected office-holder. What was her name before marriage? When did she study at the University of Chicago, and when did she graduate? What made her suddenly seek elective office in 1983? These are examples of information you would expect to find in an article about an active politician.
    • We are on the fringes of WP:N with a local city councilperson. Extensive biographical sketches of such persons are not common apart from scandalous media attention. I have scoured the Chicago Dailies for the advances made since the last GAC. I have a contact at her office that I might call for information such as maiden name, years of study, etc. However, such might border on WP:OR unless they can direct me to secondary sources for the information. I will make some calls and see what I can find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a lot of google information and google images concerning her, so she is not completely un-notable. I would expect basic information such as I have suggested to be on the public record somewhere, unless she has chosen to protect her private life, in which case this fact should be mentioned. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to get some responses from you on these questions, before moving on to more detailed issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review stage II

I feel that there must be a time limit to our discussions on this article, so I am putting it on hold. Seven days should be more than enough time to settle the outstanding issues, which I see as:-

  • References - getting all the links to work, all the time. Note I have fixed [32] by using the [1] url. All the biographical citations now go to the Preckwinkle biography.
    • Newsbank has never failed before. I don't know what the problem is. It should work across the pond (If I recall you are in Great Britain).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images - trying to extend the images, in particular with a view to an infobox portrait.
    • I have posted requests at Flickr and with some image search results. I am working on this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had hoped to see Preckwinkle and take her picture today at a bi-monthly neighborhood meeting that she usually attends. She is out of town. I got a reply regarding the image above that they will release it with the alderman's consent, but that they feel she would probably prefer an alternate image for a WP main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose issues, including extending lead, possible POV tone, other questions of general style. I will be looking at the prose in detail today, and will come up with some suggestions for improvement. Meanwhile, can you answer the question raised above, about the status of the various elections - were these primaries or general?Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:Here are some suggestions concerning the extending and improvement of lead:-
    • 1. After opening sentence say something like: "She first sought office in 1983, and was defeated twice before securing election in 1991."
    • 2. Suggested clarification: "In addition to her elected role on the city council, Preckwinkle serves in a party capacity as....Cook County Central Committee".
      • Can you clarify what you want?
    • 3. Delete description "international". Although the Olympics are an international event, Chicago's bid for the 2016 games is a city affair, not an international one.
    • 4. Suggest paragraph break after Chicago 2016 Olympic bid. Then, in a short new paragraph, briefly summarise Preckwinkle's main areas of activity as an alderman, such as you have mentioned later, especially on affordable housing and minimum wage legislation. Also mention, again briefly, the controversies she has been associated with e.g Bellow, graffiti.
      • I broke the paragraph as suggested, but only added the two items mentioned in her brief summary in the press at "Meet Chicago's City Council". Chicago Tribune. Newsbank. 2007-05-20. Retrieved 2008-07-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). Should I mention more.
    • 5. Final lead para. Suggest begin: "Politically, she is a critic....." Then, "She is by reputation an outspoken Chicago politician, whose actions and opinions have been noted in publications across the country, including the NYT and WP. She has a reputation as a progressive leader, accountable to her electorate".
        • In general, the lead is looking pretty good now, though I've tweaked the end a bit, to avoid having both paragraphs ending with the same Olympics phrase. A bit more could be added, along the lines that, although she has generally avoided contoversy, she made a stand in the Bellow issue and was outspoken in the torture case. Details like that would give her a little more depth. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Bellow story is not important enough for a lead. I am working on Jon Burge as my next WP:GAC. I will nominate it within the next 48 hours. I have not gotten to her role in the recent settlement and ongoing litigation. This may be important enough for the lead, but I am not sure yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early Life: I have copyedited, to give the prose a smoother flow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Political role: I have done some substantial copyediting to the first two paragraphs of this section, to get rid of repetitions and to attempt a better flow. I am unhappy with the statement that she is "now" in her fourth term. When is "now"? Also, on the basis of four-yearly elections (1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007) she is in her fifth term. It would be better to say: "In 2008 she was serving her fifth term", or something like that.
I have completed my copyedits of paras 3 and 4. I have changed the paragraph break to a more logical position in relation to the text, and removed the word "disproportionately", which doesn't figure in the source. I have also, as a try-out, changed the name of this sub-section to "City alderman", and the name of the main section to "Political career". I think these are better, but the final decision must be yours. I'm going ahead with the copyediting of the "political issues" section & will report on this later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue my copyedits when I get a response. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now copyedited the first two paras of the Political issues section. I removed some geographical stuff from the first para, since this information was too detailed for anyone living outside Chicago. Overall, the article is beginning to look in tidy shape. I'll continue my efforts tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did the location of the Olympic Village (immediately south of McCormick Place and across Lake Shore Drive from Burnham Park and Lake Michigan) get lost in the shuffle or did you have a rationale for its omission.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to be too much local geographical information which would mean nothing to the general reader. I would have thought that saying that the complex was being developed from a parking lot mostly in the Douglas and Near South Side community areas was enough. If you feel strongly about this, you could continue the sentence after "community areas", "located immediately south of McCormick Place...." etc. But we don't want to lose clarity for the sake of too much detail. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but anyone who is from Chicago, who has been to a conference at our convention center (McCormick Place), or who has a familiarity with the geography of the city and Lake Shore Drive would be better informed. I will readd this information--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added a photo gallery reference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later: I have now finished copyediting this section. Two points:
  • The last sentence of 3rd para is nothing to do with Preckwinkle and nothing to do with the city - suggest you omit.
  • Yes, but it gives the reader context and may help them to find out more on the living wage subject until it gets its own article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poor argument. The purpose of this article should be to focus on Toni Preckwinkle. You can't suddenly adopt a different purpose, that of informing readers about the living wage issue generally. It weakens your article by changing he focus.Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5th para: "A year later....." that takes us to 2007. If this controversy is still on-going now, this sentence will need updating. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now completed my copyediting. Regarding the Personal life section at the end, I accept what you say about little information on her private life being on the public record. But in that case it makes no sense to have a whole section devoted to this single line of information. This simply draws unneccesary attention to the shortage of details. I recommend that you transfer this information into the lead, as its final (short) paragraph.
  • I have noticed the additions and improvements that you have been making, and the article is beginning to look quite solid. I will shortly list the few remaining points which I think must be settled before I close the review. Incidentally, where exactly do I find the photo gallery reference?

Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (Later) I've just read the biography, your ref [1]. There's loads of stuff, private and political, you're not using. E.g: President of the Disabled Adult Residential Enterprises (DARE) 1985 & 1986. This must go in. Also, her involvement as a director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. There are various other offices and involvements that give a much clearer picture of her as a person and as a politician. Most of this is not directly part of her role as alderman, and could go into an "Other activities" section after "Political issues". But please use it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • On an international encyclopedic level "Disabled Adult Residential Enterprises" is not a must. Have you done a google test on it. I get 67 hits. Not an encyclopedic point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence" is a mentionable, I guess. I'll look at it more closely tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The DARE thing is important, because it gives a clue to her activities and involvements before she became an alderman. With so little information on her life generally, you need to use what's available. Please reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comparing Preckwinkle with the most similar level of notability at WP:GA that I see Gregory R. Ball, I would advise against inclusion of such non-notable endeavors.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why are you so opposed to using this information? It's no less notable than her having been a high school teacher, or having two children. It tells us something interesting about her, and gives a more rounded picture. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is normal to have a complete job history and list of family members. Non-notable endeavors are not noted. That is more like a non-notable hobby than a non-notable job or non-notable family details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I will keep on repeating it: anything that we have that gives us some kind of clue about her life and interests before her political career began is worth having in the article, whether it is judged "noteworthy" in itself, or not. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Should we merge early life and outside interests.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Personally, I wouldn't merge. The outside interests section is a nice way of rounding off the article and I like it where it is. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review, final comments

You have done sterling work during this review, extending and improving the article and raising its quality. I have just two further points:-

  • I am still niggled by the lack of images in the article, and particularly by the imageless infobox (I am by no means a fan of infoboxes at the best of times). Is there any reason why you shouldn't ask if you can use this [1]? Looks like a campaign photo - surely her office would not object?
    • I attend a bimonthly meeting on occaision that Preckwinkle attends regularly. It is the second Monday of the odd months. She happened to be out of town this week. Of the eight or ten I have attended, this was the first she missed. I will get her photo before the year is out. I may even pass by her constituent hours tomorrow (today UTC) to see if I could get her photo and some other info. I am not sure if she is back in town. I have been meaning to pass by and do so. I took some photos at a prior meeting, but my camera flash was not set correctly and everything came out blurred. I will get better photos.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't do that, have you considered ditching the infobox and putting the one image you have into the lead section, at the head of the article? That would work, and the infobox would be no loss. Finally, do you have access to any photographs of the 4th ward, even photos taken by yourself, which might be used to illustrate the article and enhance its presentation?

    • Infoboxes are a plus for most articles. With a good photo it would be for her as well. Almost every politician with a WP:GA or better has one, so I think we should keep the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some while ago I suggested you amended the image caption to clarify which person was Preckwinkle. Your extended caption has not helped. We only need to identify Preckwinkle, not all the others - they don't otherwise figure in the article. May I suggest that the caption is simplified, to read: "Hyde Park 2006 Independence Day parade. Toni Preckwinkle as the Statue of Liberty, center of picture, in white". Anything else is unnecessarily confusing. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extended caption has helped identify Preckwinkle. It has further added context to the photo by pointing out her companions on this day. It serves each of them well on their respective WP pages to have all of their names in the caption. I actually neglected to make the same improvement in the other articles. I prefer the caption as is in all of the pages (with the extension). Since we worked on the Jesse Jackson, Jr. article you may recall that in all the photos we named all notable persons. I believe this is the common procedure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you win - but could you change "light green" to "white", since that's how her robes look in the picture?. What am I supposed to do with these links (below)? Brianboulton (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA promotion

This article is worthy of GA status, and is hereby promoted.

  • It is reasonably well-written
  • It is well-referenced
  • It covers the whole topic
  • It is neutral
  • It is stable
  • Images: more should be done to increase the images on the article, especially in the infobox. The present single image is barely adequate. The main editor concurs, and has this in hand. This shortcoming is not, in my view, an sufficient reason for witholding GA status.

Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1

Thanks to all for all your work on this article.

Ref 1 is the single most important source of this article. I have concerns related to WP:RS and WP:AB with respect to this source. Ref 1 is fundamentally autobiography. Basing this WP article so heavily on that single source is tantamount to autobiography. It is a web page on the City website, but it is in an area of the City website under the control of each alderman. It has not been subject to any editorial review. Ref 1 in turn does not cite sources. Ref 1 is a legit off-WP link but a highly questionable source citation. I think we would better off moving Ref 1 to the Links section and seeking alternate independent RS for the most significant information gleamed from ref 1 and removing the rest. Hugh (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical information is not used to establish notability. I would love to add some additional sources, but am not familiar with any.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing article deletion. The subject's notability is not at issue. But I do have some concerns regarding notability of content in this article WP:NNC. Ref 1 is not an independent source WP:IS. Ref 1 is a self-published source WP:SPS. We would not of course base an article so heavily on the official biography on a politician's campaign website, ref 1 is no better. As far as not being able to find independent sources, WP:NPOV reminds us that in determining proper weight "it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." Hugh (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics

Much of this paragraph is futures. For example, it is not clear that anything will get built, or that the subject will have a role. In any case it is not an encyclopedic concern until it happens. At this time I think we would be better off trimming this section down to simply mentioning the project proposals as possibilities and noting the subject's expressed concerns.Hugh (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics are a future event. The Chicago 2016 Olympic bid is a current event. The fact that Chicago is planning and bidding for the Olympics is not a WP:CRYSTAL topic. There are actual debates and discussions worth noting on WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Level of detail of background information on "big box" ordinance

The subject is notable, the ordinances mandating "prevailing wage" requirements in City contracts are notable City laws in Chicago, and the subject's role in establishing those requirements is notable. Some of the subject's votes in City Council are notable.

However, the paragraph gives undue weight WP:UNDUE to the subject's vote in support of the so-called "big box" ordinance. All but the 1st sentence, if it belongs in this subject's article, it belongs in 35 others as well. This subject's article has more background on the ordinance than the sponsor's article. The provided "context" is more appropriate in the Living Wage article. The ordinance was vetoed after 7 weeks. I would say about 1 sentence mentioning the subject's vote and for clarity the subsequent veto would be the appropriate weight for this issue in this article.Hugh (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a subject where a Chicago City Councilman gets mentioned in the New York Times, Washington Post and CBS news. In councilman's career there are not too many such issues. Look for one for the other 49 councilmen. This should get undue weight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the subject of this article was quoted, one sentence, on background, in the Washington Post, and I agree that this vote by this subject is notable in the context of the subject's other verifiable and notable actions on the issue of wages; however, the level of background detail in this paragraph is disproportionate to the verifiable role of the subject. The two sentence fragments which I have attempted twice now to excise and which you have now restored twice make no mention of the subject of this article, they are off-topic here and belong more appropriately in the existing articles on the living wage and minimum wage if anywhere, but not here. Two of the three sources you cite in defense of your restoration of this text (CBS and NYT) make no reference to the subject of this article. Two of the three sources you cite in defense of your restoration of this text are both AP articles by the same author, minor variations of the same content appearing in two different venues (CBS and WP), and in any case the CBS version makes no mention of the subject of this article, and the WP version carries a one-sentence quote from the subject of this article on background, but makes no reference to a notable role in the proposed legislation by the subject of this article. Hugh (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My edits to the paragraph on the failed "big box" ordinance were undone and 5 references were added. All 5 references are versions of the same AP text which appear in various publications. This article was already referenced. As previously noted, the references make no mention of a role for the subject of this article in this failed legislation. The newly added references do not even record the subject's vote in favor or opposed. The newly added references do not claim the subject is an author or sponsor or co-sponsor of this failed ordinance, nor do they describe her role in this failed legislation. Yes, the AP story quotes the subject of this article, but the quote is ONE SENTENCE, again the same one sentence in each newly added reference, which gives a very general background statement one-liner sound bite about the nature of the failed ordinance. From WP:UNDUE:

Undue weight

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them

I encourage you to contribute to the Living wage article. Unless you can find a verifiable source for a specific role for the subject of this article in this legislation, this level of detail is inappropriate here under WP:PG. Further, I note that my edits were undone without explanation on the talk page.Hugh (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about a city alderman who got national press for stuff. This is rare. The story deserves its own section in the article in all honesty.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not "stuff." I would ask that you please confine our discussion to the issue at hand: the appropriate weight we should give to the role of the subject of this article in the short-lived so-called "big box living wage" ordinance of 2006. Perhaps the ordinance deserves its own section, but not in this article. The ordinance got national press, the subject's role in it did not. There is no verifiable reference for a notable role for the subject of this article in that episode other than as being one of 35 others that voted in favor. The technique you use to provide "context," that is, citing publications that pick up an AP story, could be used for many purposes, and I am sad because I think you know better. The AP quoted the subject of this article, but not as "one of the chief sponsors" or "one of the proponents." I don't know what else to say without repeating myself from the above comments. WP:3 --Hugh (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the secondary sources, this was a notable piece of legislation. There are not many city hall bills that get the kind of national press that this one did. As the 1998 and 2002 sponsor of this legislation, she was still the spokesperson in 2006. No RS quotes the 2006 sponsor, Joe Moore. I don't know how this stuff really works, but lets say I do an article and nominate it for WP:FAC twice, but it fails. Then supppose on the third time someone else nomninates it and it passes. People still might ask me about it. That is sort of what is going on here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with HughD. As stated in the article, Preckwinkle was one of 35 alderman who supported this ordinance. Should this extended description of the ordinance be in each of their bios? (That's a rhetorical questioin to which the answer, I would think, is obviously "no."

'Joe Moore was the 2006 sponsor. Preckwinkle had sponsored the idea in 1998 and 2002. She continued to be the quotable and notable spokesperson for the ordinance according to the press according to the articles I see.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Preckwinkle had sponsored the idea in 1998 and 2002." I agree that the subject of this article sponsored notable prevailing wage ordinances in 1998 and 2002, but, no, it is not true that the subject of this article supported the idea of a living wage for employees of big bix stores in 1998 and 2002.--Hugh (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Preckwinkle ... continued to be the quotable and notable spokesperson for the ordinance ... " Yes, as has been conceded numerous times previously in this discussion, the AP quoted the subject of this article in a widely-published report. However, the article did not identify the subject of this article as a "spokesperson for the ordinance", or any other special or notable role for that matter. Merely being quoted in an article does not a "spokesperson" make. The claim that the subject of this article was a "spokesperson for the ordinance" is WP:OR. WP:EA requested. --Hugh (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the Big Box wage ordinance is notable, and the extended discussion belongs somewhere on wikipedia, just not in this article. I've taken a stab at shortening the reference. --Daveyjchicago (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also created a new article ("2006 Chicago Big Box Ordinance") which contains the longer discussion. --Daveyjchicago (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the ordinance itself is not notable as you say putting it in a separate article is the best way to get it completely deleted if WP works correctly. I assume this is what your intent is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can see that you've made lots of great contributions to Wikipedia, I'm going to cut you some slack and not respond to your personal attack on my motivations. Please re-read what I wrote above. When you do, you'll see that I agreed that the Big-Box ordinance is notable, which is why I think that it merits its own entry. --Daveyjchicago (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the so-called "big box" ordinance is notable from a WP def point-of-view. I would argue against article deletion. I agree moving background material to its own article is reasonable, it is NOT a tactic. In any case there is no verifiable support for the inclusion of more than cursory background material here under WP:UNDUE.--Hugh (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"cost benefit analysis" in lead

I plan on putting some time in editing the lead.

The article body and the references offer no evidence that the subject performed a "cost benefit analysis" in the sense of the linked article. One verifiable source mentions that the subject has concerns regarding the cost of the Olympics, but to go from that source to stating in the lead that the subject performing a "cost benefit analysis" is original research. WP:LEAD, WP:LEADCITE Hugh (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you weight the costs and the benefits it is a cost benefit analysis, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I can find a verifiable source that mentions that a subject expressed a concern regarding the cost of a proposal, and can also find a source that mentions that a subject expressed a concern about the potential merits of the proposal, concluding they performed a "cost benefit analysis" is original research. Sorry.WP:NOR Hugh (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Committeeman in lead

I plan on deleting the sentence regarding committeeman from the first paragraph of the lead (the third sentence of the article). Alderman are generally at the edge of notability WP:BIO; committeeman is over the edge, as it is a post in a local political party, not in government. The lead paragraphs should be concerned with establishing notability MOS:BIO. Many alderman are also committeeman. I have no trouble with the inclusion of committeemen in the body, but I don't think it is necessary in the lead. I think the subject is notable, but not necessarily because of being committeeman. Notability having been established, I think it is worth noting in the article body that the subject is also a committeeman.Hugh (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not belong in the lead, but should be in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker Article

The section on the New Yorker article is mangled to the point of incomprehensibility. Given that this Wikipedia entry is about Preckwinkle, not Obama, the discussion about the New Yorker article should be focused on her.

The only reason the New Yorker article is notable as it relates to Preckwinkle is that Preckwinkle had surprisingly negative comments about Obama. (She followed these up a few weeks later with some negative comments about Michelle Obama's role at the University of Chicago Hospital.) I'll see if I can find some sources relating to this before editing, but this section needs to be worked on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.243.126 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think it would be helpful if editors kept in mind that the article is about Preckwinkle not Obama. In keeping with this fact, I’ve edited the section about the New Yorker article to take out the long quote about when and where Obama supposedly first thought about seeking political office. Also refocused the discussion on Preckwinkle, rather than Obama or Lizza. Left in the sentence about when Obama became Preckwinkle’s constituent, since one editor considers this important, although it seems like a trivial issue to me. Finally, I’ve moved this discussion down to the end of the “Alderman” section, because this is probably where it belongs chronologically (last and most recent of the topics covered). --66.28.243.126 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above comments and edits referenced therein were made by me. (I'd neglected to log-in.) Finished up edits just now.--Daveyjchicago (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why an article about a politician would remove the fact that when the current President-elect began considering running for political office, he discussed it with her and she then eventually helped him achieve his first electoral success.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only the last sentence of the block quote even references Preckwinkle. And all it says is that Obama told her that if Alice Palmer didn't run, he wanted to run for her seat. Presumably anyone running for a seat that included the 4th ward would have discussed it with the Ward's committeeman and alderman. Contrary to your characterization, the block quote doesn't say that Preckwinkle helped Obama with his first electoral success, but elsewhere in the article it says that she endorsed him. What am I missing? --Daveyjchicago (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done away with the block quote, but added a new (shorter) quote that I think better makes your point. --Daveyjchicago (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are missing is the combination of him coming to her office and saying he wants to run and her helping him keep Palmer off the ballot for that same election. You have edited so that this point is lost on the reader. It was laid out pretty well at Obama's Illinois Senate Career article last I looked. Do you want to hid this series of events?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you insist on ascribing perverse motivations to me. I just want the article to read well, be accurate, and make sense. Section on relationship with Obama still needs editing, but much better than before. --Daveyjchicago (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama 1st contemplated politics in subject's office?

"When Barack Obama first contemplated running for public office, he did so with Preckwinkle in her office ... " WP:NOR This stmt in the lead is unverifiable as it presumes knowledge of Obama's thoughts. This stmt is not supported by the NYer article, which in the 1st 2 paragraphs clearly describes how Obama went to the subject's office with the intention of discussing the possibility of running for office, so presumably the thought had occurred to Obama prior to his arrival. --Hugh (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In July 2008, the New Yorker wrote a 14,619-word article on the rise of Barack Obama largely from the perspective of his alderman who was his first political mentor." WP:NOR The 2 references for this stmt do not nor does the NYer article claim that the subject was Obama's FIRST political mentor. --Hugh (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making good decisions for the project by just cutting stuff. It would be helpful if you would take the time to think about how to edit it so that is within MOS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us try not to get personal. Thanks. WP:NPA --Hugh (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific about possible violations of WP:MOS. Thanks. --Hugh (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment in above section. Why does an article on Toni Preckwinkle need to have a long block quote about where and when Obama first contemplated running for public office?--66.28.243.126 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Activities

All of the material in "other activities" section should probably me moved to "early life" (which should be given another more accurate name). --Daveyjchicago (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race of husband

Does the race of Preckwinkle's husband really belong in this article just because some bigoted idiot tried to use it in a campaign? If the consensus answer is yes, I think this should go down with whatever campaign it was an "issue" in, rather than being in the introduction. --Daveyjchicago (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Campaign for Alderman section of this article should note how 5th Ward Democratic committeeman Alan Dobry of Preckwinkle's campaign helped her narrowly defeat 4th Ward Ald. Tim Evans in April 1991, then two months later helped Evans' close pal Alice Palmer, a little-known 51-year-old political newcomer, appoint herself to the state Senate (where she was succeeded by Barack Obama):
  • Glassman, Sandy (March 27, 1991). Racial slurs mark end of 4th Ward campaign. Hyde Park Herald, p. 1:

    Preckwinkle made the race-baiting charges during a press conference Thursday, March 21, and displayed crudely hand-printed fliers that she said have been posted throughout the ward attacking her for having a white husband who plans to displace poor black families. The fliers clearly endorse Evans.

    Preckwinkle said no one has actually seen anyone post the fliers, but that they are reminiscent of similar ones distributed when she first ran against Evans in the 1983 aldermanic election. Those filers were topped with pictures of Evans, according to copies she displayed.

    Most of the fliers say Preckwinkle is "married to a white man Jew" whose "buddies [sic] waiting on land grab contract." The fliers also say that Zeus Preckwinkle supports Mayor Richard Daley and that his plan calls for displacing black homes and businesses.

    Zeus Preckwinkle, who is white, is a teacher at the Harvard School. He is not Jewish.

  • Jarrett, Vernon (April 2, 1991). Sleazy tactic mars race in 4th Ward. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 25.
  • O'Malley, Kathy; Collin, Dorothy (April 2, 1991). O`Malley & Collin INC. Chicago Tribune, p. 18.
  • editorial (April 3, 1991). Dobry should resign committeeman post. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 29.
  • Glassman, Sandy (April 3, 1991). Preckwinkle wins ward in tight race. Hyde Park Herald, p. 1:

    The campaign took on ugly racial overtones when Preckwinkle accused Evans of distributing fliers attacking her for having a white husband. Last week, a member of Preckwinkle's own campaign was seen posting copies of the fliers. (see accompanying story)

  • Glassman, Sandy (April 3, 1991). Ward leader caught in the act. Hyde Park Herald, p. 1:

    Fifth Ward Democratic Committeeman Alan Dobry has admitted to posting unattributed fliers in East Hyde Park that attack Toni Preckwinkle, the aldermanic candidate he publicly supported.

  • Jarrett, Vernon (April 4, 1991). Racial slander pays off in Preckwinkle's ward. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 46.
  • Sweet, Lynn (April 5, 1991). Dobry spurns call to resign over hate fliers. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 26.
  • Hardy, Thomas (April 5, 1991). 5th Ward Democrat holds firm; Independent committeeman refuses demand to resign. Chicago Tribune, p. 5 (Chicagoland).
  • Ashkinaze, Carole (April 7, 1991). Dobry `logic' sick . . . Chicago Sun-Times, p. 39.
  • Jarrett, Vernon (April 7, 1991). . . . But the liberals are silent. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 39.
  • Neal, Steve (April 7, 1991). LaPaille moves to heal racial rift. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 19.
  • Glassman, Sandy (April 10, 1991). Dobry refuses to step down over scurrilous fliers issue. Hyde Park Herald, p. 1.
  • editorial (April 10, 1991). Politician's excuses are not enough. Hyde Park Herald, p. 4.
  • Glassman, Sandy (April 17, 1991). IVI and local officials call for Dobry resignation. Hyde Park Herald, p. 1.
  • Jarrett, Vernon (May 5, 1991). Preckwinkle induction tainted by tactics that got her elected. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 41.
  • Neal, Steve (May 13, 1991). Dobry defies calls for his resignation. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 25.
  • Sneed, Michael (May 23, 1991). Sneed. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2.
  • Kupcinet, Irv (May 30, 1991). Kup's column. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 62:

    THE REPORT in political circles has state Sen. Dick Newhouse stepping down because of his health. Newhouse denied that to this reporter, but he didn't sound too convincing. Whatever, he has served the state with distinction and his Senate colleagues are planning a tribute. Leading candidate to succeed him is state Rep. Donne Trotter, protégé of politically powerful John Stroger.

  • Sweet, Lynn (May 31, 1991). Political briefing. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 28:

    Newhouse replacement up in air: Watch for political hardball in picking a replacement for Sen. Richard Newhouse (D-Chicago), 67, who retired Thursday after 24 years in the Legislature.

    Rep. Donne E. Trotter (D-Chicago) is not a shoo-in to replace Newhouse. Trotter's political mentor, 8th Ward Democratic Committeeman John H. Stroger Jr., said Thursday, "At this particular point I am not certain" he could get the job for Trotter, who had been perceived as the front-runner.

    Newhouse's replacement will be decided by a weighted vote of the Democratic committeemen in his district. Fifth Ward Committeeman Alan M. Dobry controls 30 percent of the vote, the largest chunk. Stroger has lined up support for Trotter from 6th Ward Committeeman Eugene Sawyer and 20th Ward Committeeman Ethel Skyles Alexander. But the three combined hold only 47 percent of the vote.

    Timothy C. Evans, 4th Ward committeeman, and Alice Palmer, 7th Ward committeeman, hold the remaining 23 percent.

    Dobry said he's looking for a "first-rate independent" to replace Newhouse, the first black independent to serve in the Senate. Evans, uncommitted, said, "The seat is considered to be an independent seat, and independence is an important factor in the community."

    Beside Trotter, Tim Wright, the former city Economic Development Commissioner under Mayor Washington, also is interested in the job. Newhouse on the Newhouse seat: "It's up to the committeemen."

  • Sneed, Michael (June 3, 1991). Sneed. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2:

    Hmmmm . . . A big battle is brewing: Sneed hears that 5th Ward Committeeman Alan Dobry, who controls 30 percent of retiring state Sen. Richard Newhouse's district, is pushing for lawyer Tim Wright to get the job—over the strident objections of Committeemen John Stroger, Gene Sawyer, Toni Preckwinkle and Ethel Alexander, who want state Rep. Donne Trotter.

    The background: Wright is former legislative liaison for Mayor Harold Washington and former chief of the City Department of Economic Development under Mayor Gene Sawyer. Dobry is the fella who passed out the fliers accusing Ald. Tim Evans of being anti-Semitic and helped Preckwinkle win Evans' aldermanic spot. What fun, huh?

  • Sneed, Michael (June 4, 1991). Sneed. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2.
  • Sweet, Lynn (June 4, 1991). Palmer in line for Senate seat. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 63.
  • O'Malley, Kathy; Collin, Dorothy (June 4, 1991). O`Malley & Collin INC. Chicago Tribune, p. 16:

    Potpourri

    Wouldn`t former Ald. Tim Evans love to begin his political comeback by replacing Richard Newhouse in the state Senate? Unfortunately for Evans, he literally lives across Ellis Avenue from the district. . . . Alice Palmer, the 7th Ward committeeman, has expressed her interest in the seat to Alan Dobry, the 5th Ward committeeman who has the biggest say in the choice.

  • Sneed, Michael (June 5, 1991). Sneed. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2:

    The Dobry deal . . . Behind the scenes: The "real" reason 5th Ward Committeeman Alan Dobry is supporting Alice Palmer, a close pal of former Ald. Tim Evans, to replace retiring state Sen. Richard Newhouse: Sneed snoops claim Dobry is trying to cut his losses, recoup his credibility AND gather votes among blacks by siding with Evans, since Dobry had backed Toni Preckwinkle in her successful bid to unseat the popular Evans. Dobry faces strong opposition by powerful Democrats John Stroger, Cecil Partee and Ethel Alexander.

  • Hardy, Thomas (June 5, 1991). Educator seen as successor to Newhouse. Chicago Tribune, p. 7 (Chicagoland):

    Each committeeman casts a ballot weighted by the percentage of Newhouse`s last re-election total cast by voters in his or her ward.

    Dobry controls 30 percent of the weighted vote to 23 percent for Stroger. The trio of independents—Dobry, Evans and Palmer—account for more than 50 percent of the weighted vote. Efforts to reach Evans and Palmer, an educator, for comment were unsuccessful.

    "It would appear that Alice Palmer will be it," Dobry said. "I and Tim Evans agreed that she was the best person for the position, and that we would support her." Stroger, Dobry said, "doesn`t have the votes for Trotter and I think John is letting his anger show over losing what he thought was a sure thing."

    In terms of local politics, any union of Dobry and Evans on behalf of mutual friend and ally Palmer would be significant in the aftermath of Evans' loss of his aldermanic seat in April. Dobry, an erstwhile ally of Evans, backed challenger Toni Preckwinkle in the aldermanic race. Dobry came under fire when he posted, for all to see, anti-Semitic signs that he claimed the Evans campaign had circulated in black precincts.

    The loudest and most fervent of Dobry`s critics was LaPaille, who demanded the committeeman`s resignation. Dobry noted that no party leader ever became so forceful when some other committeemen were convicted and sent to prison.

    Dobry resisted LaPaille`s effort to force him into resignation and said it now appears to have been an attempt to get him out of the way in anticipation of Newhouse`s impending retirement.

    "In Chicago politics, I long ago gave up in believing in coincidences," Dobry said.

  • Corrigan, Paula (June 5, 1991). Newhouse seat fight looms. Hyde Park Herald, p. 1:

    Power of a ward committeeman

    It is an ironic twist of fate that the responsibility for choosing Newhouse's successor falls heavily on Dobry's shoulders. Many community and political organizations, including members of the state Democratic Party and the Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization (IVI/IPO) where Dobry is a longtime member, called for Dobry's resignation in April after he was seen posting racist, anti-Semitic fliers attacking his own candidate Toni Preckwinkle for having a white husband prior to the 4th Ward aldermanic runoff.

    Ald. Lawrence Bloom (5th) refused to join the outcry, saying that Dobry had little remaining responsibility before the next election in March 1992.

    Dobry, whose 30.1 percent of the vote total figures heavily in the selection of a replacement for Newhouse, said his suspicion that Newhouse would not remain for his entire term factored into his decision not to resign as committeeman.

    Newhouse's resignation was "something I've been expecting but didn't want to talk about," Dobry admitted. Dobry said the rumors circulating of Newhouse's plan to resign heightened outsiders' interest in Dobry's participation in the posting of racist fliers.

    "I think that's one of the reasons people you never thought would be so interested in the 5th Ward were interested," he said.

  • Corrigan, Paula (June 12, 1991). Palmer wins senator's seat. Hyde Park Herald, p. 1:

    The meeting last Thursday to select a replacement for State Sen. Richard Newhouse (D-13) was over almost before it began, with political newcomer Alice Palmer assuming the Illinois Senate seat left vacant on May 29, when Newhouse announced his resignation.

    Palmer, the Democratic Committeeman for the 7th Ward, was elected as a result of a unique alliance between 5th Ward Committeeman Alan Dobry and 4th Ward Committeeman Timothy Evans. The unlikely allies were on opposing sides during the 4th Ward aldermanic election in April which left Evans, the 18-year City Council veteran defeated. The two joined forces to prevent State Rep. Donne Trotter (D-25) from filling Newhouse's seat.

    Trotter publicly lobbied for the post and was supported by 8th Ward Committeeman and Cook County Commissioner John Stroger and two other ward committeemen.

    Dobry said last week that he did not support Trotter for the post, fearing his association with the powerful Stroger who has close ties to the Daley administration.

    Dobry's weighted vote, which is 30 percent of the total votes cast, combined with the weighted votes of Evans and Palmer, who voted for herself, gave Palmer the majority.

    Palmer, a little-known political figure, won the 7th Ward Democratic Committeeman seat in 1988 against incumbent William Beavers who was reelected alderman this February.

  • Corrigan, Paula (June 26, 1991). New state senator prepares for a long career. Hyde Park Herald, p. 3:

    Palmer, who voted for herself, was elected as a result of an alliance between 5th Ward Committeeman Alan Dobry and 4th Ward Committeeman Timothy Evans who joined forces to prevent State Rep. Donne Trotter (D-25) from filling Newhouse's seat. Newhouse retired in late May for personal reasons.

  • O'Malley, Kathy; Collin, Dorothy (December 12, 1991). O`Malley & Collin INC. Chicago Tribune, p. 28:

    The Oliver twist . . . Independents in the 5th Ward, including Ald. Lawrence Bloom, are backing Janet Oliver for the post of Dem committeeman—a position that fiercely independent Alan Dobry is leaving after 16 years.

Newross (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newross (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting episode. How do you figure it goes here, as opposed to, say, the Alice Palmer article? Also I would caution against relying on Sneed as a source.--Hugh (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you putting all these citations in the talk page. Go to the article and put things where they belong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cook County Board bid?

I've seen several mentions since the Sneed column that Preckwinkle is exploring a bid for the cook county board. Does anyone have an authoritative source for this? If so, please add to article, or place it here and I'll edit accordingly. — Daveyjchicago (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disregard (Found a good source, which is now cited in article). --Daveyjchicago (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toni_Preckwinkle&oldid=275430037"