Talk:Chicago-style politics

POV Check - entire article

Disclaimer: I have a B.A. in Political Science and another in Interdisciplinary Studies: Communications, Legal Institutions, Economics & Government (CLEG) from American University.

The article in its entirety raises neutrality and content questions for me. Allow me to explain: Opening line, "...characteristics associated to the less commendable aspects..." I do not immediately recall there being other Wikipedia articles that discuss this

Second paragraph, "...the so called Chicago Machine, with all its venal implications..." sounds like a subjective attack on the system. There is no argument from me that there is something afoot with the way politics in done in Chicago, but this paragraph does not tell me much.

Third paragraph: is there a connection between former Governors Ryan and Blagojevich and the style of politics in Chicago?

In general: U.S. President Barack Obama has been accused of playing 'Chicago Style Politics' in the 1st half of his term. There is no mention of it, or even discussion of said fact.

The opening line accuses the subject matter of having characteristics of, "... corruption, patronage, nepotism, authoritarianism..." To repeat what I said earlier, this could be a true statement, but there is no evidence supplied to support the statement.

---

How would I fix this? -Not exactly sure where to begin. If the first Mayor Daley initiated this style of politics, some examples would be nice. How was he authoritarian? Any specific examples? The Buddy Cianci article comes to mind about where to start.

-If over 1000 people have been convicted of corrupt practices since the 1970s, one would think this article could become quite long.

-I am willing to contribute, but I want to make certain that I am not off-base here about the POV check. SinkingFeeling (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama

HughD, would love to discuss with you on the wording. I don't think the phrase "Chicago-Style politics" was meant to only describe Obama. While it has been largely used in this regard, I believe that it is a conservative critique of several Democrats and Democratic organizations. Thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DaltonCastle I would agree with you. Do you support rolling the subject of this article back to the topic it had between 2011 and early April 2014? I've started to make the changes already but HughD opposes them. Thoughts? Springee (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a great start! Thanks for starting this Springee! As of now I am in support of your edits and I think where you intend to take the page will be a further improvement. Let me know if you need any assistance. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note this [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did this article become about an anti-Obama meme

The original article was about the phrase Chicago-style politics. When I searched for the phrase using Google the first two entries I found were not about Obama, they defined the term as much older and more general. [[2]][[3]] From The Slate: "Chicago-style politics, in common parlance, refers to the 1950s-1970s era of the Richard J. Daley machine. " This is just after he said that it's hasn't been around for 25 years. One editor who seems is trying to WP:OWN the article has clearly moved it from it's original message into an anti-conservative message that is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. A recent IP editor tried to clean things up but his edits were removed (the blanking of reliable content was done without proper justification) in order to avoid allowing the article to return to what was clearly the original topic. Agreement should be reached before changing the subject of the article Springee (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Chicago-style politics! Thank you for your interest. May I respectfully ask, what brings you to this article, created in 2011, for the first time? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD, you made a very large number of edits on this page without justifying any of them in this talk section. Please explain why you think your version of the article (which is now effectively edited solely by you) is more valid that the IP editors? His at least talks about the origins and general usage of the term. It's worth noting that one of the external sources I found mentioned this article but it referenced a 2013 version that didn't follow the attack Obama meme. Please justify your general direction for this article. As is the article should probably go into the WP:TNT pile or perhaps be rewound to 2013 or so. Springee (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask again, what brings you to this article, created in 2011, for the first time 29 August 2015? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC here on this article talk page. Springee (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC here on this article talk page. Please endeavour to depersonalize your comments. Please cite specific content and policy or guideline in expressing your concerns. Hugh (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC) There is no consensus to make this article about attacks on Obama. That is not what the article was about prior to a series of edits by one editor. A recent IP editor made it clear that the direction the article has gone is off subject. I agree with that editor. I have shown through a quick Google search that the common understanding of the term is the one the IP editor used, not the one that is an Obama attack. Please justify the changes to the article or we will have to conclude that even thought they were done over a period of time the current consensus is against them. Springee (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This article was started as an article about the term/phrase "Chicago style politics". That means the article should focus on that phrase. In particular is should focus on the historical nature of the term. I agree with you that the "background" section seems to be too focused on the political history of Chicago, not the term so most of it should go. Springee (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I think we should consider that an article about the general phrase might be worthy of WP:N. An article about a particular meme used to attack Obama is not. I think the article should be sent to WP:AFD if it's just about a few attacks on Pres Obama. Since right now there are really only two of us here why don't we post to one of the noticeboards and ask for help? Springee (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask again, what brings you to this article, created in 2011, for the first time 29 August 2015? Please stop deleting the article hat. Please stop baiting to an edit war. I understand you feel I should explain this article to you. Please identify specific content of concern and propose edits at talk. Please justify your proposed changes referring to policy and guideline. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC) When was this series of edits you are so disturbed about and who was the editor? Hugh (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As you said clearly above, please focus on the content of the article, not the editors.

We appear to be reaching an editing impasse. The original article was about a phrase which clearly predates the Obama presidency. At some point the article was changed by a single editor to make it about a meme. Recently a new editor tried to return the article to it's original topic. I agree with that editor. My specific concern is the title of the article and it's original topic were about the phrase "Chicago Style Politics". I agree with the recent editor who felt it had drifted from that topic into an topic with clear WP:NPOV issues and that honestly is the closest thing we have to consensus at the moment. The hat tag was a BOLD edit but it has now been rejected so it's time to discuss and develop consensus. The issues with the article are, in part, due to the fact that it only talks about Republicans using the phrase to attack the president. It doesn't talk about why the phrase exists in the first place. The only thing "history" says is that the phrase existed before 2008. So what I'm asking now is if we should consult with 3rd party help to work on this article. Alternatively, perhaps it should be reviewed for deletion. Certainly an article about only one of the many meme attacks on the president doesn't need to exist at all. Rather than edit warring I'm asking for your input. If we can't reach an agreement I think this is the next step WP:3 Springee (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Here are some links that use the term or variations of the term. I think they would be a good starting point for this rework. [[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]]. Springee (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"impasse" You have not proposed any edits. May I respectfully ask again, what brings you to this article, created in 2011, for the first time 29 August 2015? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The first source listed as a starting point is from 1976. Obama was a teenager. Sorry, it is off-topic here. You may be interested in contributing to Political history of Chicago. You may recognize that article from the about-distinguish article hat you keep deleting. Hugh (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The hat claiming the article was about attacks on Obama is something that was added just a few days ago. As you said, the article was created in 2011. It wasn't until April of 2014 that the lead was changed to talk about Obama [[9]]. The editor who made that change clearly didn't consult with the previous editors as there is no discussion of such a large change in the talk history. The first changes to make are to return the lead to something like it was at the beginning of 2014 when the article was about the phrase and concept, not about attacks on Obama. The next thing to do is add general history of the phrase. That is why I posted those links. I agree with you that the previous history section was too much like a Chicago history page. At the same time the post 2008, discussion of conservative attacks isn't reasonable either. As my links make clear, the phrase isn't about Obama. Most say it's about the Daley political machine that was running Chicago and some extend it way before Daley. However, if we can't come to an agreement perhaps the best thing to do is just kill the article. Springee (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The about-distinguish article hat you keep deleting does not make any claim, it distinguishes the subject of this article from Political history of Chicago for the benefit of some readers and editors, who might be confused or find themselves at the wrong article, get to the correct article quickly without further search. Your multiple deletions if the article hat are not helpful. Please think of our readers first. Please restore the article hat. Thank you for Googling "Chicago+style+politics" and reporting your results. You are proposing a large change, a change to the very subject of this article. I'm not sure why except to see if you can get me to go on tilt. If you feel your contributions are not appropriate at Political history of Chicago you may propose creation of a new article. If you feel the subject of this article is not notable you may nominate it for deletion, if memory serves that may have been tried already. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The removed hat claimed the article was about the meme attacking the president. That clearly was not the case prior to April 2014 as the article didn't even mention the president. Why did the scope of the article change? I'm not proposing a change in scope so much as moving the article back to the scope it had prior to the edits last year. Springee (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. I do not think it is useful to review the history of this article back years ago. If you wish to change the subject of this article, may I recommend proposing creating another article. Hugh (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have replaced the lede without consensus. I see you are proceeding with your change of the very subject of this article, without consensus. What is your basis in policy or guideline of your editing behavior? I do not understand what you are doing unless it is a continuation of your program of harassment, you want me to edit war with you or go on tilt. Your project is not this article it is me. I tire of being your project. Please stop. The rest of us are here to build an encyclopedia. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Hugh (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is a serious problem for our project. If you believe a colleague is editing disruptively, you should report it at the appropriate forum. An edit summary is not an appropriate venue for accusations, and an accusation is not an appropriate justification for a reversion of a colleague's edit WP:FOC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Should this article be wiped and redirected to Political History of Chicago?

Should this article even exist? As has been discussed above, this article was originally about a phrase, "Chicago Style Politics". In all honesty that is a small topic and one that is hard to cover without stepping on the Political_history_of_Chicago article. Ultimately I think this topic should redirect to that article with a mention of the phrase in that article. Last April HughD changed the focus of the article without consensus or comment on the talk page. He made the article about the use of that phrase to attack President Obama. That was not what this article is about and if said editor would like that article to exist I would suggest starting it properly. Anyway, I wanted input this week. Depending on what people say I might sent this one to AfD next week. Springee (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want to WP:Merge because this is a WP:POV Fork then just redirect it, one does not need a DRV to do that. Merge is fine with me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems reasonable. I will look into the procedure and post back later. I'm also still interested in feedback from others. Springee (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to roll article back to March 2014 state

This is in poor shape in large part because one editor has changed the focus of the article and is now trying to effectively destroy the article with markup tags when consensus disagreed with his POV. I would like to roll it back to an earlier state as a starting point to repair the article. I would also propose merging the content of the recently created Chicago-style_politics_(meme) into this article. Springee (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Article reboot (?)

Springee and HughD, I've watched you two argue over this article's content for a couple of weeks now, and I must say it's been very painful to watch. In attempt to force/broker a compromise, I've made a series of WP:BOLD edits to remove both the excessive number of tags and the poorly sourced content, and to try to re-structure this article so that it covers both the 2008 "meme" and the longer history of the term as shorthand for political corruption in Chicago. This included a merge of some of the content from Hugh's "meme" article, and adding a broader discussion of the earlier use/meaning of the term (which I hope to expand over time, assuming neither of you revert me). My reading of RS suggests that the article needs to cover both uses of the term, and acknowledge that it has multiple meanings.

You are, as always, free to revert, but I'd like to encourage you both to try to tweak/improve rather than to go back to how the article was before. The previous version had some major issues, and I really think there's room for both of you to include the material you want to here (without having to split the article in two). Fyddlestix (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Even before I read this I saw what you did with the article. Thank you! I think you did a nice job with it. My big issue with HughD's "work" on the article was the way it made it look like the recent use was almost whining by the party not in power and ignored (and actively removed) the historical context of the term. You have added that back in while acknowledging the context HughD's recent edits add to the total scope of the article. Thumbs up for the BOLD edit. I am in support of your work and will defend it in the event of a revert. This is something I wanted to do but I'm honestly a bit burned out on editing after dealing with the recent "truth-blitz". I really can't believe that wasn't closed up the first time an admin saw the external article. Springee (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand editing on Wikipedia is a very personal experience for you. I understand your single-minded pursuit of me is very personal. I understand how personally important this article is to you; after all, your dozen or so recent edits to this article qualify this article as the Wikipedia article with the second largest article space contribution from you anywhere. However, to participate in our community you must learn to comment on content without commenting on your colleagues WP:FOC. I tire of reminding you of this, is that your point? Hugh (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

HughD, I would suggest you take the advice that you give to others and focus on the content. In this case I was focusing on the content you added/removed and the issues with those edits. You have been warned about discussions of motives vs content. Let's leave it at that. Springee (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You two clearly need a break from each other. As soon as this article settles/gets ironed out I suggest that both of you to avoid interacting with each other or editing the same articles for a little while. There's millions of articles that need work out there, no reason for two people who are having trouble getting along to always be working on the same thing. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Too much weight in the meme section

This article has placed a lot of weight in the meme section. I'm not sure it's significant to list every time a recent political comintator has used the phrase "Chicago-style politics". A few articles that specifically talk about the phrase is one thing. Added a long series of examples puts too much [WP:WEIGHT] on one aspect. It also looks like [WP:COATRACK]. Springee (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no "meme" section. There are examples in this article, but there is no list in this article, no list of examples, and no long list of examples. Not "every time" is included; there are many more in reliable sources; we have included some representative significant examples from reliable sources as per WP:DUE. Please explain how you believe WP:COATRACK applies to this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You clearly understand what the "meme" section is. What is the theme of the section you were editing? Currently you have a lot of examples but it isn't clear why they are included. Incidentally, it isn't necessary to have 4-6 citations for a single statement. There is a specific WP policy against such over citing to give the impression of weight. That is a minor issue. More to the point is why in an article of this length should so many examples be mentioned. It seams they are largely saying the same thing. It is clear that pundits will use the phrase to create an association with the negative aspects of Chicago's historical politics and corruption (an earlier section of the article. You have several sources that say the same thing. Why bother quoting each. Why not a blanket summary? The same basic information can be conveyed with far fewer words (Fyddlestyx already did this). Why make a reader sort through so much extra text? The coatrack part is because you include the analysis of the GOP statement but leave out its context. It gives the impression that the statements were baseless and that the GOP is complaining without cause. That is coatracking. Again, this can be addressed by streamlining the text. Springee (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The same content covered in multiple reliable sources is not "the impression of weight," it is the very definition of weight WP:DUE. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)