Talk:Harold Washington

visitor upset

This page is not at all what I expected from one of my favorite and often visited encyclopedias. Harold Washington was a good mayor and I am upset at such rude opinionated comments in what is supposedly an encyclopedia for internet users of all ages. I would like to inform you that others I know will be notified of this behavior and soon it will be publicized.

1. I didn't write the article, but it certainly sounds like the author was very clear that the items mentioned are true, not opinion.
2. If you don't like the article, you can always change it, so long as you remember to make it opinion-neutral.

-- Zoe

I'd like to suggest getting rid of the image of the Mirth & Girth painting. I can see how the incident itself MIGHT be considered part of Washington's "legacy," as it shows the strong feelings that he evoked even in death, but I think the text adequately describes the painting, and it is rather jarring to scroll down and see the image there. It looks like it's intentionally disrespectful to have it there at the end of a biography. Why not end every politician's biography with a scathing, mocking caricature? I know I could remove it myself, but seeing as how I lived in Chicago only briefly (in 1988), I'll leave it to more passionate Chicagoans to figure out what's right. --Some anonymous guy who lived in Chicago briefly, 1/28/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.104.34 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Not only does it have the appearance of being disrespectful towards Washington, but I think it casts Wikipedia itself in a bad light. It makes it look childish, amateurish, trashy, and vandalized. Get rid of the image. It's not necessary. --Some anonymous guy again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.104.34 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

Here's a quote from the article:

"He was reelected in 1987, and his second term went more smoothly.... On November 25, 1987, Harold Washington died of a heart attack in his office."

It seems strange to say he had a smooth second term if it lasted less than a month. I have cut this. (unsigned by User:6.219.143 at 14:11, March 15, 2005)

There are a number of errors:

Haorld Washington was not one of the founders of tehChciago League of Negro Voters. The founders were Gus Savage, Al Janney, Bob Winbush, Larry Kennon, Herman C. Gilbert and myself, Bennett Johnson.

The League did not disappear after the 1959 election. We ran candidates for Alderman, Congress and the Gernal Assembly. We endorsed judges and lobbied the various legislative bodies. We helped to start non-partisan voters' leagues in other parts of the country(the ones started in Minneapolis, Memphis, Rock Island and Erie, Pennsylvania were the most successful. We changed into Protest at the Polls in 1963 because we believed that an integrated group was timely and more compatible with the civil rights movement. Because of Harold's close personal relationship with Gus Savage and myself( our friendship started at Roosevelt)Harold would attend our meetings as a participant or an observer.

Another error is the name Gerald Bullock. The correct name is State Representative Larry Bullock. Gerald Bullock was a longtime civil rights activist as the Chairman of the C.O.R.E.

Roosevelt College bought the Auditorium Hotel of which the Auditorium Theater was a part. It is important to note that the theater was not open at the time due to a need for renovation. BennettJohnson (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to make the changes as necessary; I may have misread the source (although I seem to remember the bit about the League coming straight from the Levinsohn text; this may have been, however, her opinion!). The Bullock reference may have been a typo. (I have been meaning to get back to editing this article; I ran out of spare time some months ago.) —Rob (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is much inaccuracy in this article. For instance, the Board of Managers of the Chicago Bar Association has nothing to say about whether someone's law license is to be suspended. That's done by the Illinois Supreme Court in conjunction with its Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. And what is the "commission" mentioned in the article in connection with Washington's income tax problems? The whole section is confused and under-verified. Wbkelley (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Harold's Secret

I heard that when Harold Washington died, he was wearing women's undergarments. Was information on this ever in the article? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Rumor has been removed from this article as unconfirmed rumors have no place in an encyclopedia. Walljr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the rumor back in since it was adequately sourced and played a role in the law suit refered to in the article. Shsilver (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again, as the source lawsuit states that is a rumor. Walljr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a rumor, as much as a highly publicized incident regarding a painting on display at the Art Institute of Chicago depicting Washington in the aforementioned lingerie. See: ("Art on trial: Officials"), ("Art school apologizes for painting of mayor", New York Times,1988) (American Notes CHICAGO, Time Magazine, 1989) Rick (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, the rumor from the ER docs that inspired the artwork was oft-repeated enough for an unconnected artist to hear about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To Arcayne, So if a rumor is repeated often and a work of art inspired about it, that substantiates it as evidence of its occurrence?!?! I guess you will be adding info about 4000 Jews being absent from work at the WTC on September 11, as that has been an oft repeated rumor and inspired a poem. Walljr —Preceding comment was added at 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

However, the rumor does directly affect "Mirth and Girth." I would suggest adding the sentence and citation about the rumor into the "Mirth and Girth" section, thus:

In 1988, a student painting of Harold Washington was torn down shortly after Washington's death by the city's aldermen based on its content. The painting, "Mirth & Girth" by David Nelson, was of Washington clad only in women's underwear holding a pencil, based on unsubstantiated rumors that doctors at the hospital to which Washington had been brought when he suffered his fatal heart attack had discovered that underneath his suit he was wearing female underwear.Shsilver 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that, as it is both explaining the basis/background for the image and noting that the rumors were unsubstantiated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes that were discussed and agreed upon but they were reverted and I was threatened with being blocked for making the changes, what's the deal?Walljr —Preceding comment was added at 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You were warned about edit-warring. You didn't simply add the agreed-to statement. You also purged the cited rumor from his legacy. I've since fixed it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Walljr added the changes that were agreed upon (in the Mirth and Girth section). Arcayne then mistakenly saw them no longer in the Legacy section and re-added them there. I've reverted the page so the passage appears in "Mirth and Girth," but not in Legacy. Shsilver 14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks shsilverWalljr (talk)

(outdent) I didn't agree to that, Shsilver. Mirth and Girth is an flowering of the rumor, not the rumor itself. The rumor belongs in the legacy section, as the doctors who worked on Washington reportedly discovered the ladies' underwear, the source of Mirth and Girth. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Then remove it from one place or the other. It should not be in both sections, which gives the rumor undue weight.Shsilver (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It should absolutely NOT be the first thing mentioned under legacy. Talk about undue weight!! 24.6.192.223 (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think it's an undue weight issue, I am willing to be convinced. Tell me why you think it is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Harold's secret, arbitrary break 1

Let's look at his legacy, as recounted in the article.

• Main branch of the library named after him
• An entire college named for him
• A cultural center named after him
• A local park named after him
• A painting, based on an alleged rumor, done because the artist "did not think Washington (was) deserving of deification."
• A lawsuit resulting from the artwork

Now lets look at how much space these recieve in the article

• Museum, park, college and community center - 2 paragraphs, or 6 lines
• Rumor, artwork and lawsuit about artwork - 4 paragraphs, or 10 lines, including an complete duplication of the phrase "rumor that doctors at the hospital to which Washington had been brought when he suffered his fatal heart attack had discovered that underneath his suit he was wearing female underwear."

If the numbers aren't enough, consider that undue weight comes into play when the entire legacy section is bookended by the rumor. ("He died while he may have been wearing women's underwear, he had some things named for him, and an artist depicted him wearing women's underwear.") While mention of the artwork may be included in the article, don't lose sight of the fact that the lawsuit itself has nothing to do with Washington.

- 24.6.192.223 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that very weasely "It was rumored..." phrasing really needs to change. 24.6.192.223 (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Legacy implies something which has lasting importance. There is nothing of lasting importance about the rumor. Shsilver (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. We have that pretty picture to look at... 24.6.192.223 (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While the anon user maybe have been weakly attempting a wee bit of snarky sarcasm there, the artwork is in fact part of Washington's legacy as well. Maybe it was Vrdolyak and his gang of twenty-nine who invented that rumor - after all, he was a 55-year-old unmarried man in chicago politics in the 80's; sexuality as well as race and religion was going to come into play in the filthy arena that was Chicago city politics at the time, as anyone who was around during that mayoral election can attest. We will never know whether it was true or not, and it isn't within our purview to evaluate the rumors; BLP doesn't help us here, as the subject is dead.

Allow me to clarify something: I liked Harold Washington. I was a lucky 5th grader who got to shake the feller's hand and listened when he encouraged me in my studies, and I almost went to Law School because of all the good Things I felt he represented. His choice of undergarments is immaterial to me, but it did make the rounds on the news shows and in the City Council, and it was immortalized by the painting. Paintings of individuals are - by definition as well as function - an immortalization of the subject. Therefore, the discussion of the painting as well as the background that inspired it, need discussion. Most of that is provided in the section, Morth and Girth.

Okay, you may say. I can dig that, but why oh why is it also in Legacy? Because it was in Legacy that the statements about his death occur, and that is where the rumor began (as far as anyone can tell). Honestly, I am of the opinion that the first three paragraphs of Legacy need to be split off into a separate section called Death. Death in itself is not a legacy; what is found to be the fellow's impact after they shuffle off this mortal coil is in fact their legacy. I don't think that wearing frillies is a legacy; it is a part of what was found about the person after death. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's twice you've assumed negative motivations for my edits. 24.6.192.223 (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel offended; maybe I am not seeing a duck. Without going too far off the topic, I consider the tagging of my inclusion of cited text as weaseling to be a bit less than chummy, and the comment about the picture above didn't come with a smiley, so I had to read it in the context of the prior statements you made on the subject. Ergo, my assessment of negativity. All of us here are know how to play words games and be passive aggressive; we simply have to choose not to. If you wish to continue this conversation about each other, please feel free to address it on my User Talk page. This ain't really the place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the source supports the statement. All I see in the reproduced court document is that the artist alleges there was a rumor and based his work on that. 24.6.192.223 (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it does in fact support it, as the statement says there it was a rumor, supported by the citation. Remember, the criterion for WP includion is verification, not truth. It's a cited rumor of Washington's rumored private affairs, and those are not excluded from Wikipedia if reliable, cited sources exist. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And now you insist on altering my text, by removing a crucial word from the heading above. There is no policy, guideline or exemplar that dictates the subheadings must match anything that has gone before, your edit summary notwithstanding. The heading I created is a part of my post, not arbitrary, and reflects an important point lost in the previous heading - mainly, that there is no proof of any kind that Washington did in fact have a secret crossdressing tendency. 24.6.192.223 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And I will continue to do so, until it dawns upon you that I am actually correct here. I noted on your User Talk page that you might wish to explore WP:TALK a bit more in depth than you seem to have, as well as noting that your titling had every appearance of soapboxing. I provided those links so that you could back off the silliness and move on; apparently, I wasn't clear enough. We don't soapbox here. We follow certain protocols for article discussions here. I realize you are relatively new here, but this sort of arguing is not the best method by which to learn, as it will get you blocked from editing, as it's called edit-warring.

Answer me no to any of these questions:

1. Was this section a continuation of the section above?

2. Did this section discuss anything more than the section did above?

Since we both know that the answers are 'yes', it is crystal clear that this section was a continuation of the conversation above, as you created the subsection to respond to my inquiry. therefore, it is a subsection, and I quite agree that an arbitrary break was helpful, as it broke up the conversation into more-easily navigated discussions. Customarily, when a break in the conversation is included arbitrarily (in the sense that it was not agreed to create a new section beforehand), it is called an 'arbitrary break'. We don't add more to the section, we just call it by the same name as the previous section name and add the words, 'arbitrary break' after a comma. That's pretty much true throughout Wikipedia.

In thge future, if you don't know something, ask instead of taking an adversarial stance that won't inspire folk to help you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you assume that I'm relatively new here, and end up coming across as patronizing as a result. I've actually been around a lot longer than you've had your account. And remember, it takes two to edit war. 24.6.192.223 (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that you operate under another ID as well. Since your edit history started in November, and your user page doesn't indicate its a doppleganger, i suppose you are a sock, right? Sorry, section headings are pretty easy stuff to figure out; I decided that you weren't purposely being a prat, but simply weren;t aware of protocol. I have - yet again - changed the section heading to reflect that it is a subheading of the parent section and argument. Ask an admin - any admin to clarify the matter. I do note that you didn't actually address the questions I posed. I strongly suggest you message an admin and ask them how to proceed, both on the section heading and the non-doppleganger account you apparently just admitted to. Until then, we're done here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd better review exactly what a WP:SOCK is, because you're clearly not understanding it. (I've already had this discussion as my ISP changes my IP address at random intervals.) And the personal insults, namely calling me a "prat," are not appreciated and probably fall under WP:NPA. As for the subheading, please show me a guideline or a "protocol" that indicates that a subheader should conform to the wording you are arbitrarily imposing, because I find your reasoning to be rather capricious. 24.6.192.223 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is turning less into discussion about the article and more about a disagreement between us. I will allow you to discuss the matter with me on my Talk page (or yours, it matters little, either way). If you will re-read my post, I did not call you a prat, and in fact decided to not consider you a prat and assume you were simply unaware of policy, protocol and/or guidelines. Trust me, when i decide you are being a dick, I will have zero problem doing so, and there will be no ambiguity to it at all. However, i don't plan on doing that. We just have a difference of opinion, one which we likely need to resolve outside of this particular talk page. I would ask you to assume good faith on my part and leave the subsection title be, unless you decide to bring an admin in on your activity and get their opinion on the subject. And you can always bring it up at WP:TALK to seek a change in policy, or WP:DR to seek a resolution to our problem. Until then, let's leave out the inflammatory capitalization which incorrectly denotes the section title as a break into a new topic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

This part of the article really should be moved to something like Mirth and Girth, where it can be properly cited and contextualized. I don't think it really had much to do with Harold Washington himself, as he was dead when the issue started, and at best, would have more to do with the nastiness of politics at the time. (Not that times have changed, mind you.) —Rob (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Chicago politics resembles Baghdad, but without all the exploding people and whatnot. However, the Mirth and Girth section deal with Washington's impact and legacy, which many consider important in describing the man. An article about Mirth and Girth would be anemiv, to my reckoning, and would likely not survive an AfD. This is the right place for it, and the context is both respectful, factually cited and pertinent. The painting was of Washington. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems all the edits by User:Arcayne are in good faith. I moved the rumor to the Mirth and Girth section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arosa (talk • contribs) 00:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No need. The bot was most likely looking for a proper format or whatnot of the summary, and I think i've fixed it (contacted the bot owner to have him/her take a look at it to appraise me of any additional requirements). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you move the rumor back to the death section? You are the only one that thinks the rumor is relevant to his death. You are giving this rumor undue weight.Arosa (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. As I mentioned twice before, the fact that the rumor took on a life of its own and was the cause of the creation of Mirth and Girth, means the rumor is itself noteworthy. As this isn't a BLP, the stringent criteria for exclusion of possibly unpleasant info doesn't apply. If you have continued issue with this material, please feel free to discuss here until we either RfC it or find a compromise. Including the info is within Wikipedia guidelines and rules, so until ruled otherwise, it shoudl stay. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you go through the discussion, you are the only one who think the information needs to be included twice. Show me one place where anyone else argues that it needs to be in here twice or where anyone else argues that it isn't given undue weight.Shsilver (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay... the problem is... the more I research the public perception (newspaper coverage) of the whole deal, the more it seems to be an aldermanic / first amendment rights issue that it has to do with Harold Washington (other than the fact that he is the subject). For propriety sake, I'll venture, they don't even cover this rumor - but you'd think at least the Sun Times would give it half a mention! —Rob (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

After my most recent edits, I now believe Mirth and Girth could stand on its own as an article. —Rob (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think it's strong enough to stand on its own - quite honestly, i am sure once it were separated, some ofthe haters would be all too willing to spend some time trying to get it AfD'd, thusly removing what they feel is an utter insult to Washington. I think its fine where it is. And I guess Shsilver is right. it doesn't really need to be listed twice, although I thought it important to provide continuation and connection from what "reportedly" was discovered at the hospital before he died and the subsequent painting. I can live with Lpanelrob's version. Btw, good job on that L. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm not even done yet. There's just other things to do on a Sunday. I think it would survive an AfD, and probably even the seeds of a FA. No other article can claim a first amendment spat, a federal lawsuit, three African-American alderman calling an artist a Jew (he wasn't), and the impromptu appearance of Louis Farrakhan. But the more I add, the less it actually has to do with Harold Washington, which is a problem for this particular article.

As for whether he actually wore women's underwear or not, maybe I'll ask Snopes to investigate. The papers aren't saying, and the artist's explanation in the lawsuit could just be a cover - he certainly doesn't have to substantiate it, because he said it was a rumor. And there are many places this rumor could have come from. —Rob (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Let me know what you find out in Snopes,and feel free to message me on my User Talk page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Does Death Rumor Need to Be Mentioned twice

The inclusion of the rumors concerning Washington's attire at the time of his death are included twice, which seem to give the rumors undue weight.Shsilver (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I thought it important to provide continuation and connection from what "reportedly" was discovered at the hospital before he died and the subsequent painting. While I still think that, and am willing to bend to the will of consensus on this, i would like to be convinced a little bit better, as the Undue Weight argument is (at best) shaky. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The page does not now mention anything about Washington wearing women's underwear when found by paramedics, but does bring up Mirth and Girth. Because Mirth and Girth was founded upon the fact or rumor that Washington was wearing women's underclothes when found, this should clearly be mentioned in the page under death. The artist is portrayed in the death section incorrectly as having simply disliked what he perceived as deification of Washington post death, when in fact the artist's own statements to several news programs at the time are that he based the painting on the fact or rumor that Washington was found in women's underclothes. This type of removal of information that some editors of wikipedia consider unflattering to their view of Washington is not in keeping with the principles of wikipedia, and it creates a false and overly positive image of washington by it's omission from his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommytune103 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The importance of Mirth & Girth

I'll see if I can be both clear and diplomatic about my position on this. :-D

Mirth & Girth is at best tangential to Harold Washington himself. Various web sites suggest that it depicted Washington as gay, and indeed there was a gay club at the time called "Girth & Mirth" in Chicago. The artist, David Nelson, has said under oath that he thought it was a rumor from Northwestern Memorial Hospital. He has also said the caricature was reactionary to Chicago's treatment of "Worry Ye Not", the prints of Washington and Jesus standing side by side, looking down on Chicago. His intent was to "humanize" Washington.

None of this involves Harold Washington himself. It involves the artist, free speech, first amendment rights, the tradition of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago regarding controversial subjects (to be demonstrated later), the idolization of Harold Washington by the black community, the glaring cultural perception of equality between racial issues and free speech, the irony that Washington was a fierce fighter for civil liberties and civil rights, and the general concept of aldermanic privilege and corruption in the city of Chicago. But it doesn't need to be set aside as a key turning point in Mayor Washington's life, death or legacy, because for him, it just wasn't. —Rob (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree were it not for the fact that Nelson painted an image of Harold Washington, and not Louis Farrakhan or Walter Payton. As this painting is an outgrowth of the sentiment (and as an expression, or anti-expression) of Washington's passing, It belongs in this article as much as any other sentiment notably uttered by some luminary, or a description of the number of people who attended his funeral. While I think that it is fine as its own article, it still bears mentioning in this article, much like the biography articles of others contain a short description and 'see also' link to the article that explains the bit in full. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think we have a stalemate. I'm interested in hearing what other people think of the issue, so I'll do an RfC. —Rob (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: How much importance should be placed on Mirth & Girth in Harold Washington?

Issue: Should Mirth & Girth be given more or less weight in Harold Washington? This includes use of the seealso template, the addition of Image:MirthGirth.gif, and creating a separate subsection entitled "Mirth & Girth" —Rob (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A single sentence in a see also section would be adequate. ie *Mirth & Girth, a caricature painting of Washington that sparked a first amendment dispute. Certainly every major political figure has some kind of art created about them, since it has its own article, anything more than a sentence is overkill. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. Not that many political figure-inspired artworks spark as much controversy (and I am excepting the yellow journalism editorial cartoons from 60+ years ago) as did Mirth & Girth. I am not saying that we duplicate word for word the Mirth and Girth article, as is currently present in the FA article Ronald Reagan and the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, and I would point out that that doesn't appear to have happened here. I am saying that downplaying it to the point where it is quietly shot in the head and buried quietly into the edit history is both unencyclopedic (as this isn't the Harold Washington memorial page) and disreputable (as the criterion for inclusion in WP is citability, and not truthiness). In retrospect, Rob was correct in creating a separate article, but that doesn't mean that all mention - or the image itself (as it depicts HR) - should be purged or whittled down to nothing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is actual overlapping content in the Reagan article, especially since the presidency was an extremely notable point in his life. Including a single line in the see also section would not "bury" it, in fact there is probably more detail about the subject than there was on this page. I don't see the point of having more than a summary. I've added the see also section to show what I'm talking about. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider the events after Washington's death to be important to both articles, thus the overlap. And i think the artwork is notable (kinda what we are debating here). While I appreciate your enthusiasm, you may note that while significant opposition to one way or the other is ongoing, it causes more problems than it resolves to post a comment and then push an edit which it would be reasonable to assume remains in dispute. Please leve it alone until the RfC is concluded, okey-doke?

And yes, I consider your edit to be essentially burying any mention in the article, If you were unaware that the removal is disputed, please consider this appropriate notice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't see any other edits in the history that place it in a see also section. Someone here requested comments and my comment is do something like this. An entire paragraph is about the first amendment is not needed since Washington had nothing to do with the actual debate. You might as well add this paragraph to the Chicago article, since it has just as much to do with Chicago as it does with Washington. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion (though I think we could all do w/out the tantrum that accompanied it). unfortunately, your proposal of removing any mention of it is unacceptable. As it was a piece of artwork that created significant reaction - due to the popularity of the subject of the article - as well as being an image of the subject and reflecting the most public secret of Chicago city politics, it deserves mention in the article, though maybe not so much on the First Amendment thing. I will grant you that. I think just noting the rumor, the artwork and an overview of what happened witha see also for the main article should be fine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is now an entire article on M&G, I'd say a single sentence with a pointer to the other article is more than sufficient. Shsilver (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I have been pretty succinct as to why there shouldf be more than a sentence and less than a paragraph. the picture should remain, no matter what. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if you read through, I don't see anyone you've managed to convince.Shsilver (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not really thinking that I have to convince folk. I am simply presenting that info that is used precisely the same way in many other articles. Perhaps we are going to be better rewarded by focusing on the subject marerial, and not the editors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet several editors have either suggested its removal or it being shortened to only one line, which leads you to put it back saying a discussion is underway and it shouldn't be removed. When someone has removed it without discussion, you have tended to put it back saying either there was no discussion or it wasn't what you agreed to. Consensus would seem to be to only have a brief reference to the incident.Shsilver (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I see three people suggesting one line or some other burial of the info. Are you really of the opinion that three people constitute a consensus? that didn't work in 300, and that doesn't work here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is little reason for more emphasis than is there currently. A sentence or two with an embedded wikilink is fine. I just removed the redundant {{seealso}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted it, thanks. With one sentence that hardly touches on the matter, the see also was a possible compromise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but think you are willfully ignoring the 3 section, 6 paragraph article on the subject when you put it that way. It's like going into a full dissertation of The Starry Night in the article about Saint-Rémy - that's not an encyclopedia's purpose. —Rob (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a bio not a tabloid, I concur almost exactly with Dual Freq's take. A brief encyclopedic mention so interested readers can see that an article with all the juicy details available is all that is needed. Adding the most embarrassing image to a bio seems quite unneeded and salacious. Benjiboi 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So, its your opinion that its embarassing? Hmm, you wouldn't happen to be a Chicago alderman, would you? The text, as presented is okay - I am willing to compromise on that, but not the image. It is notable and is an image of the man. The only other image we have for the article is one almost 40 years old. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add this to the list of people I've been accused of being. If you might ask yourself...Would this subject have any mention if he had been rumored to be wearing the underwear of his gender identity? probably not. The image is the most salacious part, ever hear the idea a picture is worth a thousand words? Posting that artwork on his bio even if it were proven he wore women's undergarments would be unencyclopedic. Please, an artist rendering of person's secret seems completely wrong on any bio. Let's pretend you Arcayne have something you wouldn't want the entire world to know about. Based on rumors an artist paints a portrait of you exposing a private, intimate aspect that you share with virtually no one. Now we post that on the world's encyclopedia. I think you can see how that would be not only unpleasant, but an unsavory use of these resources. That's bad form and a bad precedent. We have an article on the artwork that's a proper repository to discuss the work. Hanging it on his neck would be a BLP-violation if he were alive and morally bankrupt to disparage a dead person who by definition isn't able to defend themself. Benjiboi 22:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the person is not alive, so BLP concerns do not apply (I've encountered something similar to this in the John Lennon, Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan (and yes, i know she isn't dead) and Mahatma Ghandi articles as well), and 'what-if' scenarios do not help to resolve the question.

Again, this is an encyclopedia, and not a warm and fuzzy recollection of the man. the painting was made because of the popularity of the man. Were he Timmy Roberts, assistant manager of the All the Freaky haberdashery on Clark and Rush, there would be a notability issue with including an image of him him in his undergarments. This isn't a homophobia issue. It isn't an outing issue. It isn't even an LGB issue (as Washington's sexuality isn't being addressed in the article, and that according to the available data, wearing women's underwear doesn't magically transform someone from straight to gay).

All the Quippy aside, the painting came into existence because of Washington's notability. More specifically, it came into existence as a side-effect of his popularity. Because of such, it is in fact notable. Because it is notable, the image should be included. Moreover, as the image is a painted depiction of the subject of the article, it doubly should be included. there is significant precedent for including crated images (paintings and sculptures) in articles. In other words, if one is to use an image of the HW sculpture, then there is considerable precedent to use the painted image as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be a restriction on that particular image because it is non-free, and its inclusion in Harold Washington would violate Wikipedia:Fair use. But I'd need to chat it up with someone knowledgeable. —Rob (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is in fact the case, we might have to worry about the statue image as well for, like the painting, both are representations of a public figure created by an artist and are presumably not free images. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no... the statue image is free because it's out for public display. Anyone can see it, and anyone can take a picture of it. However, the author of the picture (not the statue) has to release the image for use in Wikipedia, and he has, via the GFDL. The short version of the argument against the painting of "Mirth & Girth" is that we can't reproduce high-resolution versions of copyrighted works (i.e., the painting) without the approval of David K. Nelson. Good luck with that. :-D

The second main problem with the current, fair-use (not free!) version of "Mirth & Girth" is that it appears to fail point 8 of fair-use policy, that being "#8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." —Rob (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent). Arcanye you suggested I consult an admin so per comments so far - "what is the encyclopedic value of this to the article? If the image is gratuitous, keep it out. If it's relevant to a significant portion of the text, it belongs." and "I agree, though, that linking to the article on the picture should be more than enough." Benjiboi 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: at the time, it was widely believed that Harold could be gay. However, I never heard any rumors about the underwear at the time of his death (and I was extremely well-positioned to have heard it). Nelson's stated goal of "humanizing" him is a very good motive for him to make up such a rumor, so we would need a source that predates the creation of the painting to include it. The picture should be confined to the Mirth & Girth page, but the controversy was so huge that mention must be made of it on the Harold Washington page. Speciate (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lpangelrob: actually, it is precisely for the reasons you state that the image does not fail #8. The presence of the image does significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission is detrimental to that understanding. A picture speaks a thousand words, as someone else said, and this picture explains what the hullaballoo is about. As for the image in question was out for public display, the argument about GDFL is moot here. That there is no free image of Mirth and Girth means that it must fulfill Fair Use criteria as a non-free image. which it does.

Benjiboi: I appreciate you raising the issue in AN/I (though it would have been nice to been given a heads-up, so I could contribute). It appears that there is input that the image is not gratuitous, and in fact contributes to the understanding of the subject and the section discussing the topic. I think the image in the noticeboard is in fact ongoing.

Speciate: With respect, as you have not provided sources as to your claim of being "extremely well-positioned", we cannot take your word for it, and your allegation that Nelson invented the rumor is a novel approach to dismissing the image itself. Unfortunately (for you), there is nothing int he way of citation for that supposition. There is in fact an image - a real image - of the artwork, which was on public display. It crystallizes the controversy in a way that text alone cannot. It is an image that fulfills fair-use criteria. Guidelines say it should stay. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Do any sources exist saying anything about this rumor prior to Nelson filing his lawsuit in 1994? Speciate (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No - Nelson seems to contradict himself in the federal lawsuit when he says he based it on a rumor, when in earlier Sun-Times and Tribune stories (mid-May 1988) he plainly says that humanizing Washington was his intent. I am willing to give credence to the theory that neither newspaper would ever report such a rumor out of respect of Washington. But both were also willing to take on allegations of Washington's alledged, unproven "drug habit". —Rob (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now see, this is where I think we differ on how an encyclopedia works. We don't pass on reporting something "out of respect for the fellow's memory". We work on cites. Period. We have a verifiable, citable rumor. We have artwork that arose out of that rumor. we have a non-free image that doesn't violate fair use. If we can include a statue, we can include a painting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is that Nelson created the painting based on the rumors the Washington was gay, but used the non-PC "cross-dressing = gay" shorthand. Six years later, he could not bring himself to admit this in court. If no sources can be found that Washington was a rumored cross-dresser before Nelson filed his lawsuit, the rumor must be stricken from Washington's page. Speciate (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, Speciate. Therefore, I would find it splendid if you would perhaps keep your personal opinions out of the discussion - that is, unless you and your opinions have been cited in a public, notable, verifiable venue. If that's the case, bring them forth. Otherwise, leave them out, okay? As well, it is always more helpful and easy to follow when you place your posts at the end of the discussion. We're grown-ups here, we'll know what you're talking about. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Without a source from the 1980s, even a sketchy one, my explanation is as good as yours. I say the picture is out, the rumor line is out, but the controversy line and link to the M&G article must stay. Speciate (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you are wrong, Speciate (and thanks again for ignoring my suggestion to start a new section rather than posting somewhere in the middle of a section. Really engenders professional camaraderie). Your explanation is considered a primary source. We don't user those here in Wikipedia. Ever. We use secondary sources. if that happens to be a court document, then it is notable, verifiable and reliable - all those dandy things that wikipedia requires for inclusion. What you have termed as "my explanation" is actually the citation that notes the rumor. Perhaps you have a notable, verifiable citation that says unequivocally that the rumor is false. If so, bring it forth with all haste. If not, please stop attacking a citation because you "don't like it". The image belongs because it is a fair use image that describes the text, and illuminates clearly what the uproar was about.

Allow me to be succinct. I liked HW, but I am not going to allow a puff piece on the man. I get that a few of you are outraged, incensed or whatever about its inclusion, thinking it derogatorily affects the man's legacy. If you really think this, shame on you. We are going to be objective here. We are going to treat the image of Mirth & Girth EXACTLY how we are going to treat the image of the statue. So far, I have heard precisely zero reasons - at least encyclopedic ones that we actually use in Wikipedia - as to why the image of the statue is hunky-dorey and the painting is not. Both are legacy artworks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne you suggested I consult admins so I did, anyone is welcome to post there. And their take seems to suggest that the use is only warranted if there is significant text supporting its use. And at this point it seems like you would have to convince quite a few folks that significant text should also be devoted to the subject. As for the image it's on the other article which no one has disputed its belonging there, if soem one is interested I have little doubt they'll find it. Let's give our readers a bit more credit than that. Benjiboi 22:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't faulting you for posting there; Benjoboi; I was noting how it would have been nice to know where the discussion was, so as to contribute. As for my having to convince folk that the image (and not "significant text") is valuable to the article, you might want to revisit the AN/I. There have been subsequent posts since you posted the link here. Rob was correct in that the text didn't need to be overdeveloped past what it is now, but the image is instructive as to the nature and crystallization of the controversial nature of the image, for reasons I have already explained. Forgive me for suggesting this, but it seems like people want to do away with the entire subject in the article because they see the image as somehow tarnishing HW's image. I submit that if someone feels that cross-dressing diminishes a public servant's accomplishments, then a substantial amount of growing up in in order. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as of my writing this, there have been no posts there after my above posts beside yours, so it seems there are two more editors suggesting the photo is simply not needed here. And I may wrong but I'm not seeing anyone who says a mention of it is wrong simply that doing much more than a sentence is overkill. You have been unquestionably vigorous in defending your view but consensus just doesn't seem to support your position. But fear not, in a short space of time an entire article has been built so you know have an entire article supporting that the controversy was notable and we can all see what Washington would look like in women's underwear. Benjiboi 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, maybe you would actually be well-served by actually reading some of my posts, Benji. RfC's don't supplant policy and guidelines - I am pretty sure I said that. I am also pretty sure that I said that I was mostly okay with the text as is. Did you miss that? Maybe you did, while trying very hard to be adequately snippy (which is the shortbus shortbut to wit) with the 'entire article' bit. I am glad that Rob thought the M&G article was viable, and he did a good job with creating it. Are you under the (mistaken) impression that images are only used in one article? I can quite assure you, they are not. What is the painting of? Harold Washington. What is the statue (another piece of artwork) of? Harold Washington. Both are images of Harold Washington. the only difference is that some folk feel it is denigrating to the memory of a good man (and of course, it is not). What vital piece of info that I have not explained thus far are we missing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC - Arbitrary break 1

Please stick to discussing content not contributors. You've made many strong arguments but consensus thus far has not swayed much over the past weeks and many editors that a short mention of the issue is all that is needed here as the controversy is notable enough. Unless you have some new reliable sources to address the various concerns it seems like consensus is to keep it to a brief mention of the painting. Benjiboi 00:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I usually respond to edits and not editors, unless they completely ignore my edits, in which case I get a tad frustrated. Allow me to reiterate this basic point it, one more time. Consensus doesn't override guidelines. It doesn't override policy.

Like I said, the presence of a painted image (even a possibly disparaging one) is unknown, think again. Take a gander at Demi Moore, with her controversial nekkid pregnancy cover for Vanity Fair. Also, feast yon eyes upon the various caricatures of Charlie Chaplin. Both are artistic representations of the subject of their articles. Both controversial. Both are artistic, non-free representations of the subjects of their articles. And yes, both controversial images are examples of how portrayals in other media (magazines, paintings, caricatures) are used on articles.

That said, there is precisely no encyclopedic reason to not include this image. BLP doesn't apply. If it's notable, and it deals directly with the subject, and it's copyright-free or fair use, then it should be included. Someone needs to offer a compelling reason as to why the image should not be in the article. And when I mean compelling, I mean in terms of wiki rules and encyclopedia-ness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there's never a good reason to be uncivil so let's just stay on content. I can't say I know much about the Charlie Chaplin one but the Demi Moore photograph doesn't seem to speak to this case very well as it's a photo from a national magazine that she posed for. Also consensus creates policy and as a group process here we need to work together to keep this article neutral. And I stand by my original statement "[T]his is a bio not a tabloid", we don't include every disparaging thing about someone we present facts neutrally and dispassionately. I still feel the photos use isn't needed to present the issue that came up after this person's death. This is about their life and work and as such we should not give an arguably embarrassing image undue weight. It has it's own article because it's notable, there you go. Wikipedia correctly has not censored the material but indeed has built an entire article devoted to it. This article can give passing information to it and, I think, should link to it. It happened and there's the article that proves it. Benjiboi 04:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I forgive you for being uncivil. Let's stay on point. The Demi Moore image was very controversial at the time. The Chaplin caricatures were unflattering, and yet, its in the article. However, this isn't about your or my personal feelings about how the artwork upsets your sensibilities. It is already policy to include images - even those you personally feel are unflattering - in articles. There is already consensus for that. It is neutral to follow that consensus. If you are disturbed by that policy, you should go to WP:IMAGE and seek policy change.

However, I will explain - yet again - your points:

• "[T]his is a bio not a tabloid", we don't include every disparaging thing about someone we present facts neutrally and dispassionately" - unfortunately, this is an OR observation by yourself that this image (and the rumor that inspired it) is tabloid material. You should feel free to cite how someone considers it "tabloid". If the rumor were just that - a rumor - and never acted upon, then it wouldn't have any place in Wikipedia. However that isn't the case. The rumor, true or not (remember, verifiability, not truth is the litmus for inclusion in WP) fed the artist's inspriation that created an image.

• "I still feel the photos use isn't needed to present the issue that came up after this person's death" - perhaps you have missed the timeline. According to the rumor that Nelson acted upon, the doctor's discovered the underwear in question while working to save HW's life. As well, by your reasoning, we cannot use the image of HW's statue, as that was also a part of the legacy that arose after his death.

• "This is about their life and work and as such we should not give an arguably embarrassing image undue weight." - If that is true, then the article should not even address his legacy, or frankly anything that happened after the man's death; clearly, that's an absurd statement. To your credit, you say that the image is "arguably" embarrassing. Embarrassing to who, exactly? Washington is dead. BLP doesn't apply, which would be the ONLY reason we would avoid something embarrassing that is cited. Likewise, WP:UNDUE (a feverishly misunderstood and misapplied defense of crap logic) doesn't apply, as presenting the image in concert with the text explains far more than text alone can the reason for the reaction. As there is an image of a statue of Washington, I could just as easily argue that allowing for its presence over Mirth & Girth is a violation of WP:NPOV, in that a personal opinion is being used in preferring one image.

• "It has it's own article because it's notable, there you go." - Thanks for agreeing that its notable. Actually, that is pretty much my entire argument in a nutshell. We need to include the image because its notable. Yep, it has its own article to go into depth about the painting, and its why we trimmed down the text. It doesn't allow for the disallowance of the image, as it is a artist's rendering of the article's subject, just like caricatures of Charlie Chaplin are in his article, or paintings of Kings, Queens and Presidents (and first Ladies, for that matter) are representations of their subjects. Is it your contention that Nelson was painting someone other than Harold Washington?.
  
  

The notability of the image which is a clear representation of HW - just as a sculpture is - is such that it extends into the article of the subject the painting represents. this isn't my personal opinion. This is policy, my friend. You've already confirmed this with admins in AN/I. They agree with me on this.

I get what you think you are doing - you feel you are protecting HW's legacy - but that isn't our job here. In fact, it is absolutely against the rules of Wikipedia to do that. Its called bias, and we don't have truck with that, as it leads to general chaos, lawsuits and Conservapedia. I am willing to discuss this further, but I am pretty confident that I am in the right here, and suggest that if you seek to change the rules of Wikipedia concerning these policies, you might wish to head to the appropriate policy pages, or seek mediation. The consensus here doesn't override policy - and no, three or four folk with their shields up to protect HW doesn't change policy either.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point: Nelson didn't say anything about the rumor when he painted the painting in 1988. My argument is that, since he said it six years after the events, it is not a reliable source for the existence of the rumor. Therefore, the rumor cannot be included on Washington's page. I am not trying to say that my recollection should be used as a source, because it happened a long time ago. By the same token, unless a source can be found that dates to the 1980s that says that Washington was rumored to be a cross-dresser, Nelson's claim is primary and unreliable too. Speciate (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't understand your point, Speciate. However, I think you may have misunderstood mine. Primary vs Secondary sources is a stipulation that applies to us as editors. You are not allowed to add your personal anecdotes (termed primary sources) to the article, unless you can cite their presence through a third party source (we call them secondary sources). Nelson's statement about the rumor might be true. It might be conjecture, or - as I'm gleaning your opinion from your posts - a bald-faced lie. It doesn't matter. It was a statement that can (and has) been cited as a source for the M&G article. So, let's leave off attacking the artist. He's been cited. Done and done.

As well, you are incorrect that the background of the painting was not given for eight years. Look at the citations in the article that Rob niftily put together. The instance discussing the subject matter dates less than two years after HW's death, and he described the background of the painting on the air with radio DJ John Brandmeier. I know this because I was actually listening to it at work, and was as pissed at Nelson then as you apparently are now. time and tide has lent some wisdom to my evaluation of his statements.

And even if the background of the painting came up after eight years, so what? By your reasoning, we cannot include a painting of the Sistine Chapel by Michaelangelo because we cannot substantiate his interpretation of God, because his statements on the subject occurred a) a long time ago, and b) long after the actual painting was completed. A bit closer to home, your reasoning dictates that we cannot include the statue of HW because the artist never met his subject, likely took liberties (we call it artistic license) with how he presented the subject, and I am sure some were offended by the end result. So, should we remove the statue image now, too?

Lastly, the rumor - no matter what its origin - has been cited. A real, physical painting was created, fueled in part by those rumors. The image painted is in fact of Harold Washington. Sure it belongs in an eponymous article, but it also belongs inthe article of the person the painting is representing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All evidence of the rumor comes from Nelson, some number of years after the event. Therefore it is not reliable. Therefore it cannot be included in the Harold Washington article. Speciate (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, the citations indicate differently. Because of such, your contention that they were invented by nelson is something we call original research. Your personal opinion on the matter is not allowed in Wikipedia. I am sorry. Perhaps you might wish to consult with an admin on this, as I have already pointed this out to you, and yet you seem resistant in accepting what the policies are here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there absolutely no citations that make that claim in 1988, not even Nelson. He said he painted it to humanize Washington. So it is acceptable to place text to that effect in the Harold Washington article. Keep in mind that the local media cheerfully reported that Washington was gay, and reported the rumor that he was coked up, but not the Nelson-only rumor that he was wearing women's undies. That can be given what little weight it deserves in the Mirth & Girth article. Speciate (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And I was very pro-1st Amendment/Nelson at the time, outraged really. I'm not arguing for Washington, I'm arguing for historicity. Speciate (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(and you aren't pro-1st Amendment now??) Seriously, Speciate, I've said it at least three times before, and yet for some reason you seem unwilling/unable to wrap your head around a basic tenet of Wikipedia: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" This is the very first sentence of WP's Verifiability policy, and the bold format is duplicated there, presumably because some people people are confused about it. Clearly, this policy bothers you, but complaining to me is not going to change the policy. We have numerous citations about the rumor and the events surrounding the painting and the subsequent hullaballoo. We have cited statements concerning the origins of the painting from the painter himself. We do not have any citations concerning your suppositions and accusations, and you are not citable as a a source. I am not sure what else to say to you about the subject. Consult an admin, I guess. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not requiring my "suppositions and accusations" to be in the article. I am allowed to argue here on the talk page that Nelson (years later) is the only source of this rumor. This is why, when newspapers report things, they are supposed to get a second, independent source to confirm. I am allowed to argue here that being gay and cross-dressing aren't the same thing, but that an artist in a hurry might conflate the two. The point of my argument by WP:WEIGHT, is that Nelson cannot get both his painting and his 1994 claim into the article on Washington. Speciate (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to argue that Nelson is the whole-cloth creator of the rumor (though apparently, that is inaccurate); without citations to that effect, you cannot prevent the citation that says differently from being used. As for the entirely unsourced opinion that Nelson conflated and equated cross-dressing with gay, I believe I have already said on two prior occasions that most folk don't equate the two (I certainly don't). Even if it did, how would HW being gay damage his history or legacy? Most gay folk (including politicians) were not out of the closet in the 80's, and outting a political rival back then rarely happened - too many people had too many secrets, and everyone kept everyone else's secrets. Of course, that is just my observation (and three different graduate level classes on politics and public policy - but again, it was just the view of several PhD in the field of politics; they could be wrong too).

However, that's not on point. City papers do confirm their stories before going to print, and I believe the Trib requires three sources for stories of this magnitude, though most newspapers require two (and never only one). That they chose not to share those sources with the public (or you) is not all that surprising, any more than someone confirming such a rumor (or HW's homosexuality) would likely choose to do so on the record.

That said, it isn't a matter of Nelson "getting" his painting and his claim in the article. They are both the same thing. Again, if you are unclear about this, I urge you to seek the input of an admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V is a policy to keep things out of Wikipedia, but it doesn't address where in Wikipedia sourced information is to be placed. My argument is quite straightforward. Mention that Washington was rumored to be gay. Mention Nelson and his painting, and the immediate fallout, and of course link to the Mirth & Girth page. On the Mirth & Girth page, go into more detail. This is covered under WP:WEIGHT. Speciate (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask where it is suggested that HW was gay? That rumor, I didn't notice was added to the article. Perhaps you yourself are equating cross-dressing with homosexuality. Though there can be overlap (like a Venn diagram), they two are not mutually exclusive. And of course, there is no citation noting such. We don't get to add it if it isn't cited.

As well, I've already mentioned you were misinterpreting or misreading Wikipedia's undue weight guideline of the WP:NPOV policy. You might wish to re-read it, and maybe ask questions on that policy's discussion page to assist in your understanding. We do not barter when it comes to WP rules. It is what it is. the painting is represented by an article. Dandy. the painting is a representation of a dead public figure for which there exists an article. It goes in. That's in keeping with policy and guidelines.

However, if you feel that this is unacceptable, I would urge you to seek a change in policy for the entirety of Wikipedia. Ask an admion how to go about this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is that stance supported merely by the fact he supported gay rights when it was very, very politically incorrect to do so? See [1] —Rob (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that is a wholecloth representation of Speciate. At the very least, it is not supported by verifiable citation, and could never be included in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the article have a source? Even a report on a rumor? If no source can be found, we can say "lifelong bachelor." Speciate (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we actually cannot, as "confirmed bachelor" is often seen as code for gay. Since you've no sources for that, we aren't putting it in, as it would constitute a violation of WP:V.

On a side note, I would point out that if this is a straw man argument to remove the painting, I am onto it. You should also know that it is considered disruptive to make WP:POINT arguments in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "confirmed" bachelor, I said "lifelong". Actually, I would prefer a thumbnail image of the painting in the Washington article over a claim made years later. So far this discussion has been marked by an angry tone on your part. We have been bending over backward to accommodate your opinions. This is about WP:WEIGHT, for example, I don't think the article should go into all that detail about the fate of the parakeets after his death either, since that is covered in the Harold Washington Park. Speciate (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He was married... from 1942-1950. And the bio claims that he was engaged at the time of his death (for 4+ years), which multiple sources confirm: [2] [3]

Sources win. I've been looking for sources, not having much luck online. At the time, the rumor was that his girlfriend was just a friend helping him "front". But until a source is found, I guess we'll have to leave any mention of gayness out. Speciate (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I didn't know that bit about Harold Washington Park. That'll have to be modified accordingly. —Rob (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go, a reliable 1992 source (a book) that says Washington was rumored to be gay while talking about Mirth & Girth. You will note that it does not mention any rumor that Washington was a transvestite. It attributes the women's clothing to abstract concepts, and Nelson's motive to "iconoclasm". Speciate (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that after repeating the same information to the same people over and over wears my patience a tad thin, and I get a bit grumpy. If you feel I've been too angry with you, accept my apology. I should point out that you aren't "bending over backwards" to accommodate my opinions; these are the rules that WP gives us, and I am just pointing out that they have to be followed. Every subject of a biography gets treated the same, from Abraham Lincoln through Hitler and Pol Pot to Zorba the Greek. No one gets special treatment (unless they're alive, which is a different matter altogether).

As for "confirmed bachelor" vs. "lifelong bachelor", they essentially are code for the same thing. I have no firm opinion as to the inclusion of the reference to his rumored sexuality, as there was no by-product of this rumor (whereas Nelson's painting in in fact such a by-product). I think that - pending further citation/confirmation, it might be problematic to include it, though i think that you deserve kudos for finding the reference (so, good job!). I would think we might need to discuss that outside the scope of this RfC.

In the spirit of compromise, I would agree to - as Speciate suggested - a smaller representation of the image, as I rather agree that the image present in the article before was indeed too prominent. How about 200 x 250 px? That is about the size of the other images, and would allow the reader to see the image without the image overtaking the section. Is that agreeable? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So, if a thumb of the image appears, the text does not mention Nelson's later hospital rumor? Speciate (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the text stays as it is, as it describes the image's background (and is cited). As well, I did not say thumb. The size of the image would be approximately as big as the current infobox image of HW. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No way. That's not a compromise. My source is a book on transvestism and politics, written in 1992. It has a whole chapter devoted to Mirth & Girth and doesn't mention the alleged rumor. Nelson's 1994 claim is out. Speciate (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, drop the passive-aggressive stance, as it will put us back in a boot-to-the-face stance that isn't going to help matters. Secondly, this isn't a negotiation; its the rules. Follow them or not, but they aren't going to magically change for you, my friend. I offered what I think is the most appropriate usage of the image - correct sizing so as to not overpower the other images in the article. the compromise is in the size of the image. A thumbnail image is too small to be representative (as you are all too well aware), and the image before it was pulled by the overzealous was too large in respect to the section and other images being used.

Lastly, your unsourced, quite likely incorrect contention that Nelson dreamed up the hospital rumor thing is unsourced. If you keep using it without citation, you are going to marginalize yourself and expend my assumption of good faith. I don't care if your book is on transvestism or Transylvania; it has little impact on the subject matter. The sooner you learn that, the easier things are going to be for you. Stop issuing me caveats based on your personal opinion. It makes me grumpy, and you apparently don't like me when i am grumpy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not using it in the article. I have no idea what you mean by "passive-aggressive stance", but I don't like your tone. All of my arguments have the backing of policies and/or guidelines. Read this Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and stop acting like you are the final say on policy. Consensus, both here and in that little ANI is against you. The likely outcome, here or in an arbcom or an ANI, will favor consensus and the contemporary sources over the 1994 claim of Nelson. Speciate (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What a passive-aggressive thing to say, Speciate. I urge you - yet again - to take the time to find an admin, sit at their feet and absorb some wiki learnin'. I am trying (very hard) to be polite here, but by suggesting that we not use citations in the text based upon your non-cited personal opinions, and suggesting strawman arguments is not productive. It's actually disruptive. Suggesting that you know more about policy than I in this instance when you clearly don't makes yourself look far more foolish than I believe you to be. I'm not suggesting I am the "final say" on policy. I am instead saying that I am interpreting policy a lot more accurately than you. You have incorrectly interpreted IAR, CITE, NPOV and just about every policy/guideline acronym that Wikipedia has.

On the positive side, you do remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Good for you.

This is not rocket science. There is citation for every aspect about the the image. The painted image is of Harold Washington, the subject of the article. The text has been limited in the article, so as to avoid undue weight. I agreed - with your suggestion, I might add - that the image be rendered smaller. This is all in keeping with wiki policy. I have pointed out examples where caricatures and controversial artwork of the subjects of biographies and BLPs are in fact already in use in Wikipedia. I have pointed out that none of your sources contraverts Nelson's cited statements - either in 1988 or in 1994.

Consensus doesn't override policy. Ever. If you want to change policy, you want to be heading thattaway. If you think ArbCom is the way to go, please - feel free to file. I will participate. However, if you will allow me to give you the benefit of my experience for a moment, you might want to instead pursue Mediation or less formally, Mediation Cabal. Just let me know what you decide upon. to date, you have not supplied or supported any reason for disincluding the information about M&G from the article. Consider this your grand opportunity to do so now, or go to MedCab. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Arcayne, I'm more than a little offended by your stating "I forgive you for being uncivil" then following it up with another zinger "this isn't about your or my personal feelings about how the artwork upsets your sensibilities." Again please step off discussing other editors and stick to content only. The examples you cited Charlie Chaplin and Demi Moore neither seem to support your points here. Demi Morre posed for a photo for a national magazine, this doesn't compare to a painting of a grown man in women's underwear done, arguably to disparage him and fully without his knowledge or consent. The Chaplin drawing shows him as his iconic "tramp" character and fully clothed, also the article doesn't seem to address it as being noteworthy or controversial. Benjiboi 08:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, I give as good as I get. Someone gets huffy or stupid with me, I am going to blow their ill-prepared house of cards down. When folk are polite, they get polite in return. And, as I said before, I get a bit grumpy repeating the same things to people who come back with no citaitons and nothing but a bag of personal feelings. And yes, I am somewhat pissed that folk could be so parochial in their thinking as to believe for the briefest of moments that somehow Harold Washington is lessened as a public figure by a painting that represents a rumor that may or may not be true. Actually, I find it offensive that there would be people actually trying to conceal a piece of artwork of the man because it offends their sensibilities. I am being objective, and I find my patience sorely tested by those who are being anything but. Tell you what, though. I will make more of an effort to help the rest of you along, and be more polite about it.

Now, as to your claim that M&G was painted to disparage Washington; but do you happen to have any proof to substantiate that allegation? If so, please present it here. If not, I would thank you to avoid cluttering up the discussion with uncited opinions. As per WP:CRYSTAL, you don't know what was in Nelson's head when he painted M&G outside of what he told people in a radio interview in 1988 or in 1994. Citations are what we are going to use in this article, and nothing but.

And of course, both Moore and Chaplin's articles are on point, though for different reasons. Moore's image was very controversial at the time. It simply was. granted, it didn't have Chicago aldermen pulling guns and acting like flat-headed goons, but it was controversial. As for Chaplin, the caricature is unflattering and I am guessing that it wasn't done with his knowledge or consent. Chaplin probably didn't mind, as he was rolling in money, and the prevailing mentality in Hollywood at the time that even bad publicity is good publicity. Actors are mad as cats in a bag (shrug).

However, your post is somewhat revealing. Your main problem appears to be with the fact that HW is not clothed in a suit and tie, as he might be in a photograph. What Nelson did is called artistic license. He took rumors and used them to create a painted representation of HW. That painting caused a stir. including that image in the article explains more than any words could, why it did. It's jarring, and representative of one artist's interpretation of Washington's legacy - much like the statue is the same thing. Are you advocating the removal of the image of the statue as well? I mean, it isn't a true representation of HW, and he wasn't consulted (or compensated) for the image. Of course not. Your problem with the image is that it is jarring (and therefore controversial), and not a family portrait, like the images of paintings of current and former mayors and presidents that grace their articles.

In the final analysis, what personally offends you or I isn't a valid criteria for exclusion from Wikipedia. It fulfills no criteria that Wikipedia currently uses for exclusion. the only reason it might be excluded was if the image was not of Washington, or if it was a painting of him eating babies while wearing a swastika or some such thing. It's just a painting of a man in women's underclothes. It doesn't belittle the man. It actually belittles those who would presume such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne wikipedia's policy's on civility including alluding to other editor's being less informed, intelligent or otherwise seemingly inferior to you are simply not acceptable. Not if you're in a bad mood, not if you feel you've explained everything already or for any other reason. In your latest (and, to me, excessive) reply to me you've insinuated that I'm "huffy or stupid", have "nothing but a bag of personal feelings", called me "parochial", non-objective; you've insinuated that I want to use anything but reliable sources which is simply false. I think you've again crossed the line but I'll invite you to ANI to see if I'm off-base on this. Benjiboi 10:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mo, you aren't off-base that I've been less than polite with a few of my fellow editors here, and I rather regret it. You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar, and my sour disposition has likely made it all the more difficult for people to recognize policy. I feel that my frustration at not being presented with a single iota of incontrovertible reasoning as to why the image should be there allowed my temper to boil over. Maybe, to filter out all of it, maybe someone could point out, point by point with solid, incontrovertible reasoning, why the image shouldn't be here. I think I've already dealt with them (and sometimes more than once), but maybe in keeping with sidestepping the rancor from before, let's try this again.

RfC - Arbitrary break 2

For my part, I feel that the adjust text that is currently in the article is fine, so long as a smaller image (approximately 200-210 px, like every other image in the article) of Mirth & girth accompany it. I feel that the image is notable and helps to explain the hullabaloo about the image, and its relationship to the legacy of Harold Washington. As the text has been decreased, and the image size should be decreased, claims of Undue weight are removed. The painting exists, cited references exist providing the background of the article. lastly, we aren't in the business of providing puff pieces for our beloved politicians. Verifiability, not truth, is the requisite for inclusion in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I welcome reasoning.

Well, I don;t agree with Arcayne. There should be a brief mention of the cartoon, but the picture of it in the article devoted to it is quite sufficient. It's undue weight, and could even be viewed as placing undue weight on an arguably homophobic and racist portrayal. It does not define his administration.It was not painted during his administration. the important 1st amendment case did not occur during his administration. But it in a sense deals with his later reputation, and is so relevant to the article, in a minor way. I've come here after seeing a note on AN/I, but just as an uninvolved user, not an admin. DGG (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting, DGG. Perhaps you could explain how you see the image as Undue Weight. Utilizing your argument, we should also remove the image of the Harold Washington statue, as was not created during his administration, and represents the man being composed of bronze (I think it would be fairly easily to cite that he was actually a flesh and blood sort of person). I would also point out that there are many articles that address the same image in more than one article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It helps the basis of the statue is factual, as opposed to invented. :-D That said, I don't have any qualms about re-introducing the image into the article, now that the big problem with the article is that it's just too damn short. —Rob (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not to be a nit-picker, but the subject of both images was a real person. Both are interpretations/representations fo the subject. Your supposition that one is more real than the other is kinda OR. And I would point out that the statue is significantly taller than HW, so I would point to that observation as further invalidation of the factual argument. Lastly, we do not have proof that HW did not wear female underwear; we do have citable information that he did. Again, that whole 'verifiability, not truth' thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Statue isnt to dishonor the Mayor and likely has little or no controversy also no article needed just to explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.24.34 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, they don't put statues of people up to dishonor them, anon user. As well, your inference that the painting dishonors HW is your opinion. Opinions of editors have no weight in articles, as per WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. It is worth pointing out that controversy, properly cited, does belong in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit implies a new argument to disinclude the image, proffered by User:DualFreq. He contends that the image violates "Wikipedia:NFCC 8, 10c", to whit:

"Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

I think its fairly clear that this argument is by the weakest that has been presented thus far. The presence of the image significantly adds to the understanding as to the source of the topic, namely the controversy surrounding the image and Harold Washington. Not having that image fails to assist why people at the time (and folk within this very discussion page) were/are up in arms over its display. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Its fairly clear this image is only being used to shame a grown black man not sure why people need a image to further the disrespect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.30.69 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I would ask you to consider that you are superimposing your own, personal feelings onto the subject. Cross-dressing isn't shameful. Wife-beating, or getting busted for dealing coke is, and HW never had those issues. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming from WP:NONFREE, where you requested input. I believe that the picture is not appropriate because it violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:NONFREE, which are connected to some extent. First, I'll address WP:NONFREE. (Let me first note that I'm an equal opportunity removalist/deletionist here. I've nominated the statue for deletion at commons because the statue is copyrighted--yes, even statues displayed in public are copyrighted.) The basic reason that WP:NFCC8 is violated is that it is not necessary for the reader to see the painting to understand Harold Washington - I understood perfectly well the implications of his wearing women's underwear at his death without seeing the painting, and in any event the painting of the guy in his underwear looks just like what one imagines from the textual description. The issue is whether the painting increases the reader's understanding of the subject more than words alone, and I think it's a definite no. This is strengthened by my feeling about WP:UNDUE, which is somewhat uninformed because I do not know that much about this man. From looking over this and the artwork article, however, this seems to have been a rather minor incident with respect to Washington compared to his major significance as a public figure in various other capacities. (It may have been major for freedom of speech, but I don't believe it's major for Harold Washington.) Because it's not that major a part of his life, the WP:NFCC8 argument is harder. As for WP:UNDUE, I think the painting attracts too much attention to such a minor aspect of his life (his wearing women's underwear) that it is undue weight. The short paragraph about the underwear-wearing and the painting controversy, in my view, is sufficient. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Mirth & Girth article is now larger than this one. Benjiboi 14:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's harder to get sources for the early part of H.W.'s life (I tend to write articles in chronological order, so I don't have to go back and rewrite substantial parts of my work to account for new information discovered further back in the past). By contrast, Mirth & Girth happened entirely after May 11, 1988, which happens to be after the earliest date I can find through Tribune and Sun-Times sources online. At this point I'm probably going to check out a copy of H.W.'s authorized biography from the library. I think there's something more about his time in the military there, which I can't quite include right now because I haven't found a reliable source. —Rob (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image lab

The image lab may be able to help clean up the "Harold Washington speaking at the commissioning of USS Chicago (SSN-721) in 1986." photo. Benjiboi 22:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The one at the top of the page looks like it's a bit washed out, too. I haven't gone on a full-bore media search quite yet on this particular article. —Rob (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ has a few other ones of Washington at the commissioning ceremony. Some are in color, but all are fairly poor quality in that it looks like his eyes are closed. Maybe he is looking down at a speech on the podium during the others. Type Harold Washington Chicago into the search page to see the others. I thought this one was one of the better ones and on my screen it doesn't look that bad. Image:Harold Washington at the commissioning of USS Chicago (SSN-721).jpg is the uncropped version if someone doesn't like the crop. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Article theory

The going theory behind this article is that it may eventually top 65-80 KB. However, Washington's college activities are important to stress the political nature of his life going back to Roosevelt College. In addition, a long section on Northwestern University of Law will emphasize his ability to adapt to his audience.

Not much is known about Washington's life prior to his election into the State house, but it seems clear from mostly once source (and a little bit from the second) that more weight than usual should be placed in the time period from 1946 to 1965, as it lays out how Washington already was an important leader before his election. —Rob (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harold Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120305013809/http://www.cookctyclerk.com/upload/syno_pdf_745.PDF to http://www.cookctyclerk.com/upload/syno_pdf_745.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harold Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.hwcy.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Harold Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131229033630/http://www.chipublib.org/branch/details/library/harold-washington/p/Spcharold/ to http://www.chipublib.org/branch/details/library/harold-washington/p/Spcharold/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131229033630/http://www.chipublib.org/branch/details/library/harold-washington/p/Spcharold/ to http://www.chipublib.org/branch/details/library/harold-washington/p/Spcharold/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317053549/http://www.monkparakeet.com/jmsouth/nests1.html to http://www.monkparakeet.com/jmsouth/nests1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131229033630/http://www.chipublib.org/branch/details/library/harold-washington/p/Spcharold/ to http://www.chipublib.org/branch/details/library/harold-washington/p/Spcharold/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501044553/http://csu.edu/locator/campusmap/index.htm to http://csu.edu/locator/campusmap/index.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624032054/http://www.chicagohistory.org/static_media/pdf/historyfair/washington_harold_and_the_machine.pdf to http://www.chicagohistory.org/static_media/pdf/historyfair/washington_harold_and_the_machine.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Rainbow Coalition

I lived in Chicago during the time that Harold Washington was active. I distinctly remember him being involved with the Rainbow Coalition, but there is no mention of that organization in this article yet. Perhaps someone can research that and make an update.Wjhonson (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Death of Harold Washington.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Son

his son was one the most devoted person in the wolrd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.179.6 (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Kevin has a child by the name of sherri latoya smith mr. Harold granddaughter they never wanted. 2600:1007:B0AC:C82F:C0B5:CFEA:AE0A:5E32 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Documentary

Not sure of the best place for this: Punch 9 for Harold Washington Mapsax (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Daughter

Mr. Harlod Washington has a daughter by the name of sherri latoya smith. Mother Donna A. Smith. 2600:6C48:77F0:910:FD81:F874:A695:DE (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

1201 Essling st. Saginaw mi 48601 2600:6C48:77F0:910:FD81:F874:A695:DE (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)