Talk:Chicago/Archive 6

Education section
Anyone have up-to-date figures for the number of public schools, private schools, and colleges? I'm sure the number of public schools is wrong; their website says they had 655 schools in 2007-08, and many changes have been made in the system since then. In addition, Catholic grade schools are closing all the time. Zagalejo^^^ 05:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Second City
"since the city was rebuilt, it became known as the Second City, since the first city was largely destroyed in the Fire. Most people speculate that the nickname of Second City comes from the fact that for many decades Chicago was the second largest city in the United States." - I became quite distraught when this was one of the first things I read in the article. Milkshakeiii (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Chicago seems to credit A.J. Liebling with coining the phrase sometime in the 20th century, although I suppose it's possible that the term was in use earlier. Does anyone have any useful sources about the history of the nickname? Zagalejo^^^ 18:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Zagalejo's citation is the best I found for Chicago being referred to as "Second City". Unfortunately, A.J. Liebling's book called Chicago: The Second City did not explain why he used the title.  Looked at five books offered by the research librarians at Harold Washington Library Center.  Each had several references to Chicago being the "second city" (note small caps).  Chicago has a stigma that it can't seem to shake.  Second in population, second city for many immigrants, second highest volume of telegraph message, second in culture, second in stage productions,etc. The best way to quickly get a sense of this "second" theme is to go to Zagalejo's source http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org and use "second city" (use the quotes) in the search field.  So,  to me it seems Zagalejo's citation would be a good one for crediting A.J. Liebling with formalizing the name for an overall impression of Chicago repeatedly coming in second. As a Chicagoan, the second city theme appeals to me because like the car rental company we will perpetually try harder. Pknkly (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved the Liebling reference to the Liebling reference to the article A.J. Liebling and linked to it so we don't have so many references within the lead section. It may seem counterproductive (it has to be so until a subsection is created for nicknames), but I did add another reference (see the ref for Chicago Dreaming) related to the Second City phrase. In the book the actual phrase is "America's Second City".  So, here we have another nickname. Pknkly (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

recent talk page vandalism
An IP address, 12.12.40.18, recently blanked this entire talk page and replaced it with the word "hi." Clicking on their user talk page, I noticed that the IP seems to have a history of vandalism. I am not sure what kind of action can be taken with regards to someone who does not have an account, but someone who know more about these things might want to consider looking into this problem further. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They have been appropriately warned for that edit and others, if they keep it up the warnings will eventually escalate into a block. Mfield (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos available
I've uploaded some CC-licensed photos of Chicago here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wilhelmja/sets/72157613513316088/. Feel free to steal any of them for this or other articles. Wilhelmja (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographics info problem
In the demographics section, there are two conflicting sets of numbers. Dakane2 (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to point it out? I looked through it but don't see what you mean.  Simulcra (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Alpha city status has ceased
What is this term ? The linked Wiki article does not verify this statement. The 2004 survey does not support this term. The 2008 neither.


 * Actually, Chicago is listed on the Alpha World City. Shsilver (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference link in the article went to a document that discussed the project by which Chicago was to be considered an "alpha city". I changed the link to the source that gives Chicago's status for 2000, 2004, and 2008.Pknkly (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

old link

new link

I hope some expert can read the entire document, boil it down, and see if any of it can be included in our article. Note to fellow Chicagoans - the report says we slipped to "Alpha -" in 2008. We need some winning teams. Pknkly (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames?
Um, where are people getting all these nicknames? I've never heard Chicago referred to as "New Gotham" or "Pearl on the Lakes" ever, for example. I'm compelled to delete alot of them if I don't get some sources or some counter claims (since it seems like this would be hard to show with citations). Simulcra (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nickname section
I've come across several other nicknames and they seem to be important. The one I found is "City of Big Ideas" ( Fabuleous Chicago, Emmett Dedmon,isgn 0-689-70639-1, page 191). This one for skyscrapers, refrigerated cars, mail order merchandising, the Pullman care, and packing houses. I believe a subsection, perhaps under Culture, for nicknames would be good. As Simulcra suggests, all the nicknames should be cited. There is already a list of nicknames article - List of nicknames for Chicago. I'm suggesting the subsection in Chicago article include only the major ones. Pknkly (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

True meaning of word Chicago?
Was this chief named after Chicago or Chicago named after him?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chief Chicagou, also known as Agapit Chicagou, was an 18th century Native American leader of the Mitchigamea. He visited Paris and participated in the Chickasaw Wars. 76.247.164.91 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

History section to include additional subsections
Changed the sub-section name from "Railway link" to "Evolving Infrastructure Supports Regional Development" to reflect the mix of topics (e.g., railway, canal, sewage, etc. I'm hoping, if there is consencus, we can add other sub-categories like Railway System, Canal, Sanitation, Manufacturing and Retail, Futures Exchange, and Meatpacking. I hope future editors will then be able to select these topics and expand on them. Pknkly (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like a very verbose section heading. Perhaps it could be pared down a bit. It's fine to include other things besides the railways, I suppose, but make it a little simpler. Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, though not enough, I dropped "Evolving". There is so much in that section. Hope someone can come up with a better section name that gets it all. Pknkly (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed the subsection title here, as well as in the article, to conform to MoS - just read it. Pknkly (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ref for visitor stats broken
I tried to follow the link for the reference used by the Visitor sentence in the the second lead paragraph and couldn't find the document. Could someone see if they can get it? The ref is given below:

(without )

Using the same web site, but a different article, I was able to get good stats. However, they were different from the original stats given in the article. I went to:

http://www.choosechicago.com/media/statistics/visitor_impact/Pages/default.aspx

If we can't find the old article, should we substitute the new one above?Pknkly (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Changed the subsection title here to conform to MoS - just read it. Pknkly (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Currently" like statements
We need to use an "as of date" or "In _____" and stay away from using "Today" or other similar phrases that may have a "currently" feel to it. As you can see in the list at Avoid weasel words, "currently" is weasel like. I believe the article's credibility will increase if we avoid these subtle terms that beg additional questions (e.g., when did it start; has it always been like this; maybe it was like that when the article was written, but it may not be like that now; etc.). Pknkly (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Changed the subsection title here to conform to MoS - just read it. Pknkly (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Corruption and Vote Fraud
Ten thousand words on Chicago and absolutely no mention of endemic corruption? Is the problem what section to put it under -- Crime, Politics, or Infrastructure?

(The correct answer is all three.) 66.159.87.108 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a summary encyclopedia article about the city. It is not a forum or a place for POV pushing. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And completely omitting any mention whatsoever of corruption in Chicago -- which has had a serious and significant effect on its history, politics, and even architecture -- is obviously pushing a POV (apparently that of the city Chamber of Commerce). 66.159.87.108 (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest a separate article like the ones referenced under the Crime section (eg.,Crime in Chicago and Organized crime in Chicago) This one could be on corruption. Seems you have a pretty good start for a lead and a therefore a stub article.  However, please be prepared to use only well cited articles.  I'm sure there are lots of them out there.  Its a fact = there has been significant corruption charges, corruption trials, and corruption acquittals and convictions.  Hope someone takes the time to put together a good Wiki article on the subject.

To Do subpage
Could someone help out with the To Do subpage? If you look at the history you will see what I attempted to do and failed because the To Do took up too much space on the Talk page. Pknkly (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Article lead section (introduction)
We have a whole lot to say about population in the introduction - I think too much. Wouldn't it make sense to move the paragraph to the section on Dempgraphics and simply give an introductory statement about population? Also Chicagoland if you are including WI and IN, had well more than 4.5 million people. Cook County alone has more than 5 million. 9,524,673 is what the link says the metro area is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.99.250.45 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch and the edit. Pknkly (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on Native American inhabitants
Propose to take the first half of current Chicago and place it under a new section called "Native American inhabitants". That would open up an area for more contributions from future editors about the history of Native Americans within Chicago and it will preserve the current area for statements about the first settlers. Pknkly (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Flood
Does any one have the dates for the Chicago flood? Vaguely remember 1992 but not dates any help greatfully apprevciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.166.6 (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames in intro
The whole 4th paragraph in the introduction seems redundant and should be removed. It is silly to give such an unimportant issue as much room. It almost seems childish to list it at a prominent place like the introduction. 92.225.77.136 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Demographics section removed
Why was the Demographics section removed? Also what about the subsection on Religion? I had wanted to expand this part to resemble the articles on Los Angeles or Milwaukee--Orestek (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia trying to single-handedly push Zoroastrianism into the American mainstream? Are there even 100,000 adherents in North America? It hardly has a sufficient following to be listed in series with recognized, major world religions. 167.206.169.135 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sports subsections
Propose to add the following subsections: Lead paragraph with general statements similar to Number One Sport City reference; "Venues" under which we would list the once already mentioned with the article; "Area organizations and events" into which would be moved the paragraphs that talk about the local teams and events; Global organizations and events" into which the existing paragraphs which have international association would be moved. For me, the city has an international reputation that doesn't stand out when the paragraphs are mixed together. Pknkly (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Changed the subsection title here, as well as in the above suggested subsection titles, to conform to MoS - just read it. Pknkly (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI - The statement "The Chicago Bandits of the NPF and the Chicago Wolves, of the AHL, also play in Chicago; they both play at the Allstate Arena.", is partially incorrect. The Chicago Bandits have never played at Allstate Arena, since the arena is a indoor venue and softball is typically played outside. Prior to last season, the Chicago Bandits played at Benedictine University in Lisle, IL. Starting with the 2008 season they are playing at Judson University in Elgin. It should also be noted that Allstate Arena is 'not' in Chicago, but Rosemont, IL. However, it would be correct to state that both teams played the the Chicago area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.102.7 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

All major sports venues are pictured except US Cellular Field. Even if you are not a fan the stadium is one of the largest and most impressive in Major League Baseball. Please consider adding an image of US Cellular Field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.190.218 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

New Chicago photo request
The wonderful took this and I'd like to use it as the main photo :D After a few days if no objections I will replace the montage. davumaya 18:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Use it now.  It's much more representative of Chicago than the photos used in the montage. The only issue is that it's pretty narrow, so when used in the infobox, it's going to be pretty small.  Ideally, it'd be best to find a picture that is not as narrow.  Perhaps it might be advisable to crop a bit of the right?  But then you don't have as much lake....In any event, I still think it's better than the current image. -Bluedog423Talk 19:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * per Bluedog423, User:Jcrocker's photo is too thin; its better for as panoramic shot not for the infobox photo. It should be replaced by another one perhaps like the one from the the loop article. thanks   Astuishin  (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a great photo. Agree User:Jcrocker's photo is too thin by itself in the box; its better for a panoramic or within the montage.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Added a new montage for the info box incorporating the User:Jcrocker skyline: ChicagoThomasPainewikiMontage.jpg Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good, did you make the other montage? thanks  Astuishin  (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure who did the other Chicago montage. Arranged the photos for this one though, and many thanks to User: Mikerussell for setting it up.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely support keeping this one permanently. I redid it completely since the original one by Mikerussell was clearly done through Paint and was of bad quality. I also updated a couple of the images and evened out the black borders. -- mcshadypl T C  17:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, looks much better! Nice job. My only suggestion is perhaps replacing the student union at the University of Chicago image out for another more iconic image. This montage should show as many iconic buildings/sites as possible, and I don't think the student union at U of C is one of them personally. Any of the following four would be much better, in my mind. In case you were curious, the images I used are John Hancock Center, Chicago Water Tower , Wrigley Field , and Art Institute of Chicago with the iconic lions in front ,. This is just a quick mockup, I didn't try to make it look great. I think I prefer Wrigley or the Art Institute the most. Thoughts? -Bluedog423Talk 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Chicago montage example.PNG

Thanks. Glad you like the montage idea. Like the Wrigley and the Art Institute options, and maybe a Buckingham Fountain option. The Hancock and the Watertower would throw it off balance, I also experimented with those and ruled out the Watertower alongside the Sears Tower, it didn't seem balanced. Perhaps create variations for the sub articles.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding Pictures of Us - The People
Chicago is more than the Loop area (that is just architecture) - we are people living, loving, and working within many parts of the city. I suggest adding pictures of Chicagoens celebrating by eating and shaing our money maker at neighborhood fests (which we need to emphais since we are the only major city that offers free festivals), in all of our diverse persuasions, as well as working. The city is people, not buildings. Come to think of it, maybe that is what the Crown Fountain tried to accomplish - give the Loop the face of Chicago. We may want to move along that line. Pknkly (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest adding some photos of general architecture in Chicago's neighborhoods so readers can see how Chicagoans live (the bungalow belt, high rises on North Lake Shore Drive, row homes in Lincoln Park, etc.)

updating montage

 * Updating montage File:CityChicagoMontage.jpg since User:Mcshadypl replaced non-free use image of crown fountain with his own photo.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

skyline (1 year later)
Thanks for all the kind words regarding my photo. I've taken an updated photo from basically the same perspective, and look: no cranes on the skyline this time. Too bad Waterview Tower and The Spire were never finished. Feel free to add the new photo to our montage.

J. Crocker (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

article size
This article is too large per Article size. I hope to recruit a group of editors to embark on an effort to purge the article of unnecessary photos and rambling text. These characteristics cost Chicago it's good article status, so by shortening the length perhaps it can regain the title. Astuishin (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Amazing National Geographic Photo of Chicago
From the Hancock building. The best I've seen. Would be great to add to page.

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/intelligenttravel/Chicago09_0390.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.218.29 (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a free photo - its rights are owned by National Geographic. We'd need their permission to use it as a free image.--Louiedog (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Improper redirect
The phrase "Second City" redirects to this article. That is wrong because Second City was a Canadian comedy troupe that had a popular television show. Someone who knows how to correct redirects should correct it. DQweny (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing that, it was a disambig pg., but somebody changed it to a redirect. I've changed it back to a disambig pg, since there are still many links in "what links here" to disambiguate. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The most American of big cities
I added a bit at the end of the lede, as well as cites, if you do not mind. The cites are not the best, but it's a start. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gangs
This segment needs to be removed. There should be no special segment on gangs in Chicago when articles on Los Angeles, New York City, Washington DC, Detroit, Philadelphia, and every other American city does not have a seperate section under "Gangs". Los Angeles and New York City have some of 'thee' most dangerous gangs in the country. Gangs wrecked havoc in New York City during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and still even today. Los Angeles' Crips and Bloods gained worldwide infamy with their gangbanging for several decades now. They are even supposedly responsible for the killings of major celebrities like Tupac and/or Notorious B.I.G., even overlapping into metro areas outside of L.A. And everyone knows about the high violence in Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington DC, and Houston. Oh, and lets' not forget Miami. So if none of these cities have a separate section on "Gangs" then why should Chicago, when cities like, again, New York and L.A. have been just as bad or worse with actual gang violence? This segment needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Great point and agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.110.131 (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A separate section on Gangs when no other city has one. Not sure the reason behind this. Must be some New Yorker feeling insecure about something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true. It makes Chicago seem dangerous even though in reality it isn't any more dangerous than New York, L.A, etc. THriller95I*S*T 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thriller95 (talk • contribs)

Best City to Live In
AskMan.com has ranked Chicago as the world's most liveable city in 2009. – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  00:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Second City
I have removed again the claim that the term Second City relates to the great fire. This time it was cited, but the source given is a blog post not a reliable source. Also it is clear from the post (dated August 2009) that the author believes that they are suggesting this as a novel interpretation of the name—not "popular opinion" as claimed in the text that I removed. Please discuss here before reinserting this information. Thanks —Jeremy (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I will say that I have never heard of anyone outside of NYC refer to Chicago as Second City because its 'Second' to NYC in culture etc.. That seems pretty phony. The people I know from Chicago call it that because it is the 'Second City' after the fires. The other meaning is derogatory and I doubt Chicagoans would refer to themselves as inferior to NYC. Especially since NYC is now nowhere near as important in terms of culture, arts etc.. as it used to be, ending sometime in the early to mid 90's. Also Chicago being named the best place to live in terms of culture by a prominent mens magazine,would fly in the face of that also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.155.214 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

infomation of chicago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.41.230 (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC is ALWAYS important and is the largest city by far in the country with the number 2 and 3 not even coming close. Chicago has always been jealous of NYC and doing battle with buildings. Keep in mind that it was NYC gangsters that went to Chicago and made it what it was/is. This is why it kind resembles NYC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

New York City is not always important. In fact, that city is less livable than many other cities in the US. New York City copied skysrcapers (as did the rest of the world) from Chicago as tall buildings were first introduced in Chicago. New York City even copied Chicago's successful "Cows on Parade" theme from the 1990s, for goodness sakes. But as far as calling Chicago "Second City", I don't think it's meant in a negative light. It's stating Chicago is the second most prestigious in the nation in terms of culture, transportation, finance, and many other areas, which is where the nickname Second City came from. (There are certain fields where Chicago comes ahead of New York City, like conventions). And remember, this second rank is out of the thousands of cities in the United States, so being so high up on the list (second no less) is not negative; it's quite an accomplishment. Many Chicagoans are proud of the things their city has achieved (including putting one of its citizens in the White House; a black man to add to the accomplishment), and could care less about New York. It speaks highly of Chicago that it is the third most populous metro area in the nation (at about 10 million people), yet consistently ranks ahead of Los Angeles (the nation's second largest metro area at 17 million people) in many fields.

Two edits
Please see two these edits and do it:

1. The panorama on the cityscape section is toooo long. 2. On the infobox another image could be added to make it better with the following code -
 * image_skyline = Good Bye Chicago.jpg
 * imagesize         = 200px
 * image_caption     = View of Chicago from the top of Willis Tower


 * Oh sorry, done it myself with another browser. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 12:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Blackhawks
Under Sports, it needs to be changed from 3 cups to 4, and perhaps throw in "including one in 2009-2010" or something.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.217.167 (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackhawks Parade in Chicago
Is there an article or section somewhere regarding the parade in Chicago yesterday? My understanding is that the turnout was substantial (~2million). Perhaps someone could get some free images of the parade on flickr, or somewhere else? Thanks in advance for the help! ---kilbad (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say WP:NOTNEWS applies, perhaps a comment on the Blackhawk's page. C T J F 8 3  pride 16:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Area vs Density
I'm a little confused about the extremely large area which is listed for Chicago City. I was under the impression that the City did have a very high density, somewhere around the figure given for the Metro, which would put the City area around 100 km2. Also, as I just said, teh Metro density is very high, which would make the metro area less than half the szie of the listed figure just for the City.

So yeah, I'm questioning the City Area and the Metro Density, not teh Metro Area, as I have no idea whether that's correct. It also wouldn't hurt to have teh City Density stated. I haven't checked whether these can be changed by an underling like me, but then again, I don't have the correct numbers either. VanillaBear23 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no density listed for the metro. The 12,649/sq mi is the density for the city. The city area is correct, as per the US Census. C T J F 8 3  pride 16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New montage


I saw the previous montage image here was removed due to some copyright issues, so I decided to take a shot at it. This captures what I consider to be the most notable landmarks in the city today, with the Chicago Theater added for aesthetic purposes. If people like it, I'll probably make some minor tweaks and make it higher resolution. Let me know what you think... --Jleon (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on a second. Why was the previous montage removed? Every image on there was free-use, and several of us made sure to justify that fact. Why were we never given forewarning that something was wrong? -- mcshadypl T C  15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I had nothing to do with its removal. There was just a big blank space next to the intro for almost an entire day, so I went ahead and made a new one. There must have been a warning on the image itself for awhile, and I suppose whoever created it wasn't watching it very closely. --Jleon (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What about the U of C? I think it should be in the montage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.71.66 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No East Side
It states under the "Neighborhoods" section that there is the North Side, West Side, South Side, and East Side. This is totally incorrect; there is no East Side and that should be removed from the article. Chicago is divided into six general sections, although they are sometimes counted as four. Downtown is one of them, the other five are named according to their direction from the downtown area; nothing else. Going counterclockwise these sections are: the North Side, Northwest Side, West Side, Southwest Side, and South Side. Some people tend to incorporate the Northwest Side into the North Side, and the Southwest Side into the South Side, but this practice is acceptable on most levels. Each of these six sections hold numerous community areas and neighborhoods themselves, of which there are 77 throughout the city. East Side is one of these such neighborhoods. It is not a directional section of the city itself (its name, East Side, can make this confusing). This article is referring to the neighborhood of East Side as though it were a directional section of the city, instead of the neighborhood that it actually is. If this East Side were a directional section of the city, it would sit directly east of the central area, which it can't because the lake is there. East Side being mentioned in this article is, again, a neighborhood. So please remove this from the article where it names the sides of Chicago before you have tourists on city streets asking people questions about a so-called East Side.

Chicago's five directional sections that radiate from the downtown area are comprised of various neighborhoods. For example, Lakeview, Uptown, and Edgewater are on the North Side; Sauganash sits on the Northwest Side; Austin is on the West Side; Ashburn is on the Southwest Side, and Hyde Park, Chatham, and Roseland are on the South Side. East Side would equate to those aforementioned neighborhoods. The East Side neighborhood holds a district itself, the district of Hegewisch. But this is no different than Lakeview holding the district of Wrigleyville; Edgewater holding the district of Andersonville; and South Shore holding the district of Jackson Park Highlands.

For many decades, this area was always tied in as being part of the South Side. As stated before, the Southwest Side was routinely incorporated into the South Side and the Northwest Side was routinely incorporated into the North Side, so it only made sense to incorporate this portion of the city in with the South Side. In the early 1990s, a new term really started to take effect; it was being used a lot by local news media and such. This area (situated east of the Calumet River, and roughly from 95th St on the north to the city's southern border at 138th St) was now frequently being called the Southeast Side; giving Chicago yet a seventh broad directional area. Some people now call this area Southeast, some still simply call it South Side. However, if the article wishes to specifically mention this portion of the city, then it should be stating Southeast Side, not East Side. I believe one of these will make good options.

Option 1: Acknowledge the Southeast Side in the article for that section of the city. But if this is done, then the much larger and more populated Northwest and Southwest Sides must also be acknowledged, because it wouldn't be consistent to mention the Southeast Side without mentioning the Southwest Side and Northwest Side. Option 2: Do not mention the Southeast Side at all and just let it be incorporated into the South Side for the sake of the article. The article has already done this to the Northwest and Southwest Sides anyway.

Sorry for the long novel, just wanted to get the point across. East Side is actually a neighborhood; just like Rogers Park, Beverly, Humboldt Park, Mount Greenwood, Uptown, Lincoln Park, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.55.202 (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ya, that was a little long! ;) C T J F 8 3  chat 07:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. But I noticed that the East Side paragraph is still in the article under the section where the sides of Chicago are listed. It hasn't been removed yet. This neighborhood shouldn't be listed there when the article is referencing the sides of Chicago. None of the other 76 neighborhoods are mentioned. East Side is a South Side neighborhood. Can this East Side reference be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.55.202 (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Look good? Thanks for pointing out that I missed that. C T J F 8 3  chat 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.55.202 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. C T J F 8 3  chat 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure there's an east side. It's mostly populated by alewifes and lampreys. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, Touché. C T J F 8 3  chat 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine
Naming individual restaurants in the Cuisine section creates the obvious problem whereby everyone would want to put their favorite Italian Beef, or Polish stand, and where the most well known places get free advertising. Perhaps this information belongs in the "Dining in Chicago" article.

Naming a restaurant or where a dish is supposed to have orgininated is one thing. Everything else like naming restaurants or chains as to who the most "famous" or which has the most locations is not appropriate. Logically one local chain specializing in a dish has to be the biggest local chain specializing in that dish. That does not mean anything. Pointing it out in an encyclopedia just sounds like boosterish pr work.

I have never heard of the famous Gene and Judes, for example. Apparently it isn't even in Chicago. That is the problem with naming famous restaurants or locations. It's a big area, everyone has a favorite or the place that's famous in the neighborhood.

Pointing out that famous national chains have outlets in Chicago is pointless in regards to an article about Chicago. Even if they are big, there's nothing specifically Chicago about them. 67.175.214.83 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * agreed UrbanNerd (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Transportation
This section states "Additionally, it is the only city in North America in which six Class I railroads meet.[102]". The actual language in the reference makes a statement about all six major US and Canadian Class I railroads. The paraphrasing in the article makes it inaccurate with respect to its own reference as there is at least one other city where six Class I railroads meet, New Orleans. The key difference is the use of the words "all six major" versus just "six". The implication in the reference is that Kansas City Southern is a Class I railroad but not a major one, while both Class I Canadian railroads, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, are stated to be major. New Orleans has service from Kansas City Southern, but not Canadian Pacific. Chicago has CP service, but not direct KCS service. Both cities have service from six class one railroads. Indymemerson1 (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. C T J F 8 3  chat 03:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Chicago is also served by Megabus, offering service to other midwestern, and east coast cities.[user: shaunanddana]

Unsourced trivia in intro about Chicago being inland
The user User talk:Verygentle1969 has ignored concerns, after I told him of them on his talk page. He again edited the intro without source or comment. I have deleted edits as unsourced but do not wish to get involved in an edit war. Any help you others can provide, would be appreciated.Alanscottwalker(talk) 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would submit that being a major city that is not an ocean port is worth noting, but not in the lead. Further, I would not attempt to create rankings of such cities. (Istanbul and Odessa come to mind, but why compare them to Chicago?) Jd2718 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the geography section with citation but not in the lead and and not WP:SYN. Sao Paulo also comes to mind. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sao Paulo also came to mind. Both Mexico City and Sao Paulo have higher populations in terms of city proper population, metropolitan area (even for the extended definition for Chicago), agglomeration, and urban area. Elockid  ( Talk ) 01:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The user's comments about Chicago look to me like original research/synthesis, and also fails to take into account the growth of Great Lakes cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo, all of which are "inland" from the oceans, but certainly not land-locked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The main issue is really that it is unsourced. Where have these figures come from?  But apart from that, it's complete trivia.  What significance is there to these figures that they need to appear in the lead?  Is anyone claiming that they matter at all to any facet of Chicago?  To put it bluntly; "So what?"  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 01:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "What significance is there to these figures that they need to appear in the lead? ". Agree. Note that I left a note on the editor's talk page regarding WP:LEAD issues regarding an edit another article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There really isn't any significance and we have proven them to be most likely incorrect the whole time. Initially with this edit they made, Sao Paulo was quickly stated to be larger than Chicago, not making Chicago the second largest inland city in the Western Hemisphere. They then modified their edit and as I stated on ANI that the city of Ahmedabad is larger than Chicago in terms of city proper (how they worded this statement lead me to this conclusion). Another example is Chongqing which has over 30 million in its municipal limits easily beats Chicago in any definition given by the US Census by at least 3 times. Though most people don't take that figure seriously, its urban core still has more people living in it than in Chicago city proper. Elockid (Alternate) ( Talk ) 13:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Verygentle stopped editing in mid-January, then the IP address took up the same torch. The IP is currently under a 2-day block, and I've commented on this situation to the blocking admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NEIU Physical Education Complex


The article NEIU Physical Education Complex has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references found a few promotional web hits and no published (gbook) WP:RS, fails WP:V and WP:N, Does it exist; yes, are there reliable sources for any of the article content; No

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.179.72 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Demographics and do GIVE CITATIONS
I suggest a slight change in the order of listing the various diversities. Latinos, etc should be moved up to the third position and then followed by the rest. Chicago is tri-ethnic per a recent Chicago Reader article. Plus the list should follow a logical lessening rather than lump 27% of the population at the end. I assume agreement but will wait for discussion before editing.Buster Seven   Talk  15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to this isse, as I understand it, the reason demographers list Hispanics or Latinos seprartely (and last) is because they are not a racial catagory. Rather hispanics can be white, black or asian. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

On another matter, people should NOT enter 2010 census data, without inserting proper citations!Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead Photo
Hi all, I realize there has been discussions in the past about the lead photo in the info box. I wanted to throw in my 2 cents as a graphic designer. It is my understanding that the montage has come about to show many aspects of the city by the lead paragraph. While I think this is a well composed montage, it seems to me that a single photo would be more appropriate and aesthetic. (I know, I know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder)

For instance, take a look at San Francisco. Just a single photo of the skyline with the Golden Gate bridge in the foreground. Could it have been a photo montage of the Tri-America Pyramid, and Fisherman's Wharf, and the Seven Sisters?

Sure, but the lead photo should just attempt to capture a broad sense of the city, and fill in the details (and become more focused) as the article goes on. We could be bold and choose one photo that captures a broad sense of Chicago, and then place the other photos in appropriate sections further on in the article.

It would be great if the skyline photo at the top was proportionate and could fit in the info box area. However, there are many great shots of the skyline that would be proportionate to the info box, such as:

willing to discuss and maybe you have a dusty photo in a drawer that might work, but whatever image is chosen, would like to see that montage removed

TANSTAAFL (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, hope it is ok, I put your pics in a Gallery so easier to view. I also like a skyline pic, instead of a collage. this image looks pretty complete. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chicago has lots of Chicago images to choose from. C T J F 8 3  17:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

fastest population growth in the world
I've seen the claim in a few articles that Chicago had the fastest (or one of the fastest) population growth in the world. It was explosive growth for sure, but there are no sources backing this up. You can look at the growth File:Largest US cities graph.png and read off the percentage growth from the slope of the lines and you can see that Chicago isn't really exceptional in the context of Cleveland or Dallas.--Louiedog (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall it has pretty good growth, by last few decades it has leveled off and even shrank. Vegas and Phoenix have amazing growth, but either way, without a source, not good to guess and add it. C T J F 8 3  21:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where else you are reading that but it all seems to be well sourced in this article at Chicago

"When founded in 1833, less than 200 people had settled on what was then the American frontier. By the time of its first census, seven years later, the population had reached over 4000. Within the span of forty years, the city's population grew from slightly under 30,000 in 1850 to over 1 million by 1890. By the close of the 19th century, Chicago was the fifth largest city in the world, and the largest of the cities that did not exist at the dawn of the century. Within fifty years of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the population had gone to over 3 million.'

In short, in less then 70 years, it went from 200 people to the 5th largest city in the world and the only one in the top 10 that did not exist in 1800. That's "some of the fastest population growth in the world."Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick search at Google books gives plenty of candidates for sources.—Jeremy (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Second City?
The footnote reference regarding the coinage of the term "Second City" seems to indicate that A.J. Liebling gave the nickname to the city on the basis of it being the "second city" after the Great Chicago Fire. While the phrasing of the footnote is true -- Liebling did coin the term "after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871" -- the implication that he intended it solely to mean that is, well, misleading in the extreme. The article referenced by the footnote link, in fact, provides no valid historical rationale for suggesting this as the origin of the name Second City. Unless someone can find actual proof--and not just the idle speculation of someone on an internet website--that the name was actually intended to be merely a reference to the city after the fire, then the footnote as it is is highly misleading.68.51.78.9 (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the citation to the blog as it is not a reliable source. The blog also didn't support the assertion in the footnote anyway, so I have changed the footnote to reflect the what is stated in the Encyclopedia of Chicago source.—Jeremy (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

1895 seal
here is a slightly different seal from 1895. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Chicago (3 votes, stays until Date in 1 month) is collab for September 2011

 * Nominated 11:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC) ; needs 3 votes by Date in 1 month (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support: Comments:
 * 1) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 13:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) --Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think these articles really need a dedicated editor to get them to GA or FA. Chicago as the US's 3rd largest city could be a good broad choice for folks to work on, and I think it'd get driven to GA, which might then inspire some other editors to push on with some of these nominees. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes this is an important American city. The article needs some TLC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, where to get started...
Jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Damn, there is a to-do box up above. Does anyone ever use those things? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

question about density
I was looking at the Bulgarian version of the Chicago article. I saw the information about the population was not updated and I changed it. Where can I verify if part of Chicago is in DuPage county? Where can I see the size of the land and water area?

On your site it says that land area is 227.2 but when you click here on 3rd rank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population it shows it is 227.6 and that way the calculation for density is a little different. Where can I have a look at the urban and metro population? I mean which site just to have an idea in the future? Thank you!! NadyaD (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Now an Alpha+ world city
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2010t.html Someone should add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.0.115 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Chicago’s budget resource
Reality bites; How to slash a deficit without raising taxes Oct 22nd 2011 from The Economist print edition, page 36 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Policy resource
16 Global Cities to Watch; From Singapore to Christchurch, the urban centers that are shaping the next century.

99.181.131.59 (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Trim time
Since this article is overlong, it needs some trimming. I have begun the process. I will be removing some images, and any mention of individuals, organizations or businesses that are not hugely important to the story of Chicago. Any suggestions? Speciate (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like your edit summaries. :) Seriously, though, you're doing some good work. It seems like there's a lot of junk that has been accumulating here. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bondage clubs edits
It seems that a number of editors have decided that this (diff) about BDSM clubs and "Chicago way" edging must be in the article. I have reverted this edit on the grounds that it violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Specifically, it is unsourced and (this is very important) gives undue weight to a very small facet of life in the city of Chicago. (I added a line about the LGBT neighborhoods of Boystown and Andersonville, because the article lacked that basic information.) The alleged "Chicago way" of edging appears neither in the Edgeplay nor the Orgasm control articles. I seek consensus to remove this material. Speciate (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's unsourced, you have every right to remove it. But even if that stuff is true, I can't see how it belongs in a broad overview article like this. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My opinion is that each sentence in the article should have an entire book dedicated to that topic as a source. Speciate (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Chicago sunrise 1.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Chicago sunrise 1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 4, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-03-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 20:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Climate
Because of its location, severe weather (e.g. thunderstorms) is also common. And so I added that to the climate section of this article and gave at least one example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevjgav (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Community areas drawing (critique of)
While the community areas appear to be drawn correctly, there are no official boundaries between the various "sides" (North, Northwest, etc.) of the city so the boundaries are wherever a given cartographer wants to put them. That said, Mr. Fitzgerald's boundaries are contrary to local practice.

West Town, Logan Square, Avondale, Edison Park, Norwood Park, Jefferson Park, and Forest Glen, and sometimes North Park, Albany Park, and Humboldt Park are considered to be on the Northwest Side, along with the communities already labeled as such, and as such make up a very large fraction of the city (and the largest white-majority area).

I am not as familiar with boundaries on the far south side but I think that the cartographer's boundary between the far southwest side and far southeast side is incorrect in that there is no far south side on the map, while South Siders refer to such an area all the time in general conversation. FInally, most Chicagoans don't draw as clear a distinction between the near, middle, and far north sides as there is in the map - it's more common for someone to just say he's a north sider, unless he (she) lives in the true Near North area adjacent to downtown (south of North Avenue and even then, Near North means "south of Division" to Gold Coasters who live north of it). 67.173.10.34 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Serbs
Why doesn't it say anything about Chicago's Serb population? Aren't there around 500,000 Serbs in Chicago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By that number, Serbs would account for one fifth of the city population and if you look at the article on Serbian Americans, you'll see that there aren't even 200,000 Serbian Americans in the entire US. So, the answer to your question is, no there aren't anywhere near that many living here. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another subject altogether
Why nothing in this article about the presence of rampid corruption among the political entities of the city. I believe Chicago has been ranked the #1 most corrupt major city in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.214.65 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be 'rampant', not 'rampid' (which is not a word).Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Flag icons on twin towns section
Another editor has pointed out that the array of flag icons in the "Twin towns" section of this article probably breaches WP:ICONDECORATION. Would anyone mind if I removed them? --John (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care but not on that basis, as it doesn't apply to lists, nor should it (I assume you mean the sister city list.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this raises two questions for me. First, how long does a list have to be before the flags are seen as "helpful" in organising it? Second, is the information we are talking about best presented as a list? The essential spirit of MOSICON is that using the flags overemphasises nationality; I would go further and suggest that in this case using flag icons overemphasises this section. How important are Chicago's sister cities to the article? No question that they should be mentioned in the article, but at present I feel they are given undue prominence. Getting rid of the flag salad would perhaps put them more into their true perspective. --John (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the same discussion seems to be taking place in at least three different venues, I opened up a general discussion at WikiProject Cities after reading comments here and on Talk:Los Angeles. Please comment there. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say, it seems like it would benefit from a uniform approach across city articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is better off without the flags. The "sister cities" list is of cities, not nations, so labeling them with symbols of the whole country isn't appropriate. Zeromus1 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that reasoning. The cities with which this city (and other cities) has sister city agreements are in those different sovereign nations. Unless the claim is that those nations disapprove of the agreements, it seems of no moment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is, how important is it what countries those cities are in? Right now the list displays both the flag and the country name, but the name of the city is only mentioned once.  So it's giving a little more space to the countries than to the cities themselves, actually.  That seems like undue weight. Zeromus1 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As with most "style" questions its hard for me to get worked up about them, except I can see a value in uniform handling of "style." There does seem to be a contention that there is some substance, too. But no "rule" one way or the other in "guidelines." Rather, custom that allows. One way or another across articles, I would prefer they are handled the same, and I also think there is some value in deferring to longtime usage. So, is there an overriding reason to change it?  I'm not seeing it.  The undue arguments are frankly unsatisfactory; it seems a stretch to say in this very long article, they become undue, or that small flag icons in a list makes them undue, given what all the various guidelines say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hip-Hop
There should be a mention of the up and coming Chicago Hip-Hop scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.53.8 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd error on page.
Something weird going on on the page at the moment. On my work system, and a friend's, both IE 9, it was giving a random wingding mess rather than the page. When I checked it on my home system on IE 8 and Firefox 19, it worked, but IE was asking to install "Java SE Runtime Environment 7 Update 7". Seems to be the only page it's doing it on, at least that I could find. I copied the contents to my sandbox and it's doing the same thing. Something on the page is funky. It works on my sandbox, so I'm going to copy the code back from it to see if that makes a difference. -- StarChaser Tyger (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC) (forgot to sign in the first time)
 * Hmm there is an HTML5 audio tag on this page. I don't think IE knows what that is. Try Chrome. &mdash; MusikAnimal <sup style="color:green;">talk 23:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What to do now....
Before a GAN, the idea is to have it as complete as possible, and to have everything cited. Copyediting can come afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thus I can see:


 * some uncited sentences here and there.


 * Monuments and public art section is a list - not good. Maybe incorporate this material into List_of_Chicago_Landmarks (?) and only discuss the most notable (?)


 * Look in the Cuisine section - is much of this really notable? Try and cite all this to secondary sources so you get a handle on its notability. I think the sentence on michelin starred restaurants is probably worth including, but the vegetarian one I don't think is.


 * The religion section is a bit puffy and could be trimmed alot and more facts put in.

Anyway, these are for starters -once content right then comes copyediting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * With regard to the 'Cuisine' section, I agree it needs a bit of stream-lining.The notable food items Vhicago is famous for is worth keeping, but there is a more substantial article already linked there as well, so maybe the op/ed mentioning on how we view ketchup on hotdogs out to be dropped. The Michelin blurb is alright, I guess.. many major cities in North America have at least one Michelin-starred restaurants listed in their guide though, so maybe just mention the threes? Celebrity chefs should stay -- Achatz Trotter and Bayless are after all some pretty formidable restauranteurs/chefs who have gotten a lot of national media attention. Vegetarian joints... hmm... agreed is it really that notable?Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to help with getting this good. Hugh (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All sounds good. Not familiar with Chicago stuff (but enjoyed greatly a visit there many moons ago!) - happy to copyedit down the track. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay so I updated the To-do List (see above). Edit the To-do List as needed, mark In progress to the end of desired item you're working on, remove marker if you stop working on it, and strikethrough when finished, per WP:TDL. I'll take references since I'm good at that. Thanks everyone! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 15:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Schools and libraries section
Does anyone have any sources to support the numbers in the first line of the "Schools and libraries" section? I updated the figure for the Chicago Public Schools, but can't immediately do anything for the other figures. This kind of data is going to change often; some of this information might be years out of date. Zagal e jo^^^ 04:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just decided to remove the sentence. I'm not sure how some of those figures were ever derived in the first place. For example, 88 libraries. Now, there are still 79 libraries in the public library system, according to their website. So 88 must include private libraries, like the Newberry Library. But if we go down that route, where do we draw the line? Are we including college/museum libraries? Zagal e jo^^^ 01:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Transportation section as prose
It's my understand that use of prose is best where sensible. However wrong it may be, I've comparing portions of this article to New York City, which has been rated GA. It's transportation section is entirely prose. I'm going to recommend the same here. Looks nicer, easier on the eyes. Furthermore, the length of this section is not terribly shorter than the main article on Chicago transportation, so I vote to stay be concise and shorten it. Also there appears to some information here that's not in the main transpo article, so move much of it over. Thoughts? I can try and take a stab at it... &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 01:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Per Capita Income
Why is the per-capita income not listed under Demographics or anywhere? Pages for other cities give the per-capita income. Thank you.CountMacula (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's on Demographics of Chicago. Data looks outdated though. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 13:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?
Looks as though the entire Culture and contemporary life section may be copyright infringement? It's matches word for word with this site, but a simple Google search will yield numerous other sites that also match perfectly; however many say they are referencing Wikipedia. Those that do not have copyright notices, so it's unclear if the original source is Wikipedia or another site. This is a very sticky situation I encounter from time to time when trying to add citations to articles, which is my motive here. Obviously I'd rather not cite this section if it's copyright infringement... so should we reword and reference one of these sites? Or perhaps remove completely? The content here, with it's numerical figures, might qualify as WP:LIKELY. Hence unless it can be well sourced, it should be removed, in my opinion. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the claim for copyright infringement? The site you link to could be a copy of this article also, correct?  See a discussion on the general issue in the doumentation for Template:Backwardscopy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. And thank you for pointing out the backwards copy template, I have been looking for something like that for some time. But again, it's unclear what the original source is. I think it is clear this section has remained unchanged for sometime (presumably), or else there wouldn't be X number of sites that referenced it, word for word. Nonetheless, it needs inline citations. I'll try to find other references, it just makes it difficult as there are so many sites containing the same wording. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 16:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Chicago's history of racism totally lacking
Chicago's history of racism is totally lacking. Where are the 1919 race riots? 1951? No mention of Emmett Till? Rosa Parks told Mrs. Till she had Emmett on her mind when she refused to budge. The race riots that got on national TV that brought embarrassment to the USA where the whites were going after a few blacks? Missing. The pictures Jet and Ebony printed of Emmett Till? No mention. The segregated nature of the city? It's like people wrote this page using Google instead of doing some real, encyclopedic work to present an accurate picture.

Example of a major event that's missing: "The worst of the post-War race riots took place in Chicago, Illinois. It began late in July 1919 when a young Black 'encroached' upon a swimming area that the whites had marked off for themselves, and was stoned until he drowned. By the time the riot ended, thirteen days later, thousands of both races had been involved in a series of frays, fifteen whites and twenty-three Negroes were killed, and 178 whites and 342 Blacks were injured. More than one thousand families, mostly Blacks, were left homeless due to the burnings and general destruction of property." http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html

How is that not on the page?

Where's the 1951 race riots in Cicero, Illinois? From Wikipedia: "On July 11–12, 1951, a race riot erupted in Cicero when a mob of around 4,000 attacked and burned an apartment building at 6139 W. 19th Street that housed the African-American family of Harvey Clark Jr., a Chicago Transit Authority bus driver who had relocated to the then-all-white city. Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson was forced to call out the Illinois National Guard. The Clarks moved away and the building had to be boarded up.[5] The Cicero riot received worldwide condemnation."

Because the TV showed the actual riot in progress as the whites were attacking the blacks! A Chicago black should know better than to live in white Cicero and it becomes an international embarrassment and it doesn't appear on the Chicago page?

Why is it all completely missing from the Chicago page?

I'm not the person with the knowledge and I'm not going to work on this page. My only contribution will be to say the Chicago page looks like a whitewash of Chicago's history of racism and how it affected national politics and the nation generally to this very day. But I'll bet the page is as poor as because if it's not in Google, it doesn't exist.

Please, folks, really work on improving this page. --Lawfare (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello? --Lawfare (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Couple things: Cicero is its own municipality, so events that occurred there wouldn't be part of the Chicago article. Also, Wikipedia is a communal effort, not a suggestion box on what others should put into an article that you feel is missing -- if you're so clued up on the history of racism in Chicago, why not show some initiative and edit the article yourself?. Lastly, most major cities in America have had a history of racism at some point, and you'll probably find what you're looking for in this article: Racism and ethnic discrimination in the United States. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the Chicago Race Riot of 1919 has been mentioned in this article before and has now been added back in. So, thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You see, Ryecatcher773, this is what I'm talking about. "Lastly, most major cities in America have had a history of racism at some point...." Not like Chicago.  Chicago stands out for historical reasons that are totally absent from this page, until the Alanscottwalker edit, so absent that you think Chicago is just any old other racist city.  No it's not and it deserves to be covered in an encyclopedic fashion and not whitewashed.  I also did not appreciate your attitude that I'm not allowed to comment if I don't contribute.  I've said, "I'm not the person with the knowledge and I'm not going to work on this page."  I'm not going to edit this page simply to obtain the right to point out how crummy this page reads, as if history is just what is Googlable. --Lawfare (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lawfare, there is a specific policy about that. WP:NOTFORUM  The talk page is to discuss edits to the article, not to expound your feelings of inequity.  If you are not editing the article, you have nothing to discuss.  Everyone who edits Wikipedia is a volunteer, and it is somewhat offensive to me for you to come here and flat out state you will do nothing about the situation as you see it, but you have every right to bitch that others don't.  I want a raise! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gtwfan52, I don't have "feelings of inequity." I'm not on any soapbox.  The article completely leaves out the history of racism that is deep in Chicago roots and why it happened.  I am allowed to say the article is of poor quality for that reason without being accused of "feelings of inequity".  "If you are not editing the article, you have nothing to discuss."  That's false.  Consider all those editors who have some connection to a page but who don't edit precisely because of that connection.  They are not allowed to talk on the Talk pages? And you cited NOTFORUM at me.  It says, "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles."  And that is the exact point of the issue I raised.  So now there are two people complaining about me personally instead of improving the article.  It's still fuzzy but I'm just beginning to sense why this page may be a whitewash of Chicago's deep history of racism. --Lawfare (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there are ways to make suggestions and ways to make accusations. The later is unhelpful, for future reference, since no one is in charge.  Also, "Chicago is unique" is not very helpful either without sources to discuss -- it's that type of bald opinion statement that "notaforum" is meant to obviate, because all it tells us is that Lawfare thinks "Chicago is unique" and none of the rest of us can do much with that, and all it invites is the counter "it's not that unique". Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's forget all this and just fix the page. It is not my opinion/forum that Chicago is unique.  It is history.  I simply don't have the means to prove it or I would have updated the page accordingly.  We need someone on this page who 1) knows the history of Chicago related to racism and 2) can present reliable sources on that history.  Then we can use that info to improve the page.  I made my comment hoping to attract the very person(s) I just described.   It's not a hit on Chicago, rather, it's history, interesting history, and history that affects the USA generally to this day.  It would be perfect for producing a high quality page on Chicago.  That's the point. --Lawfare (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Lawfare, with regard to your comments/complaints, in all honesty, I think you'd be better served in participating in the blogosphere. Otherwise, take your own advice and 'forget all this and fix the page.' I'll stand by my original comment -- if you're so clued-in (which obliviously you believe yourself to be, seeing as you're pointing out that we as Chicagoans don't understand that Chicago is somehow 'unique') then jump right on in. Heck, even be so bold as to start a new article elucidating the history of racism in Chicago and link it. This may be the perfect opportunity for you to learn more about it and perhaps become an expert on the subject. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your comment. It saddens me.  I await positive, substantive changes to the page as I described above. --Lawfare (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? --Lawfare (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm aiming to make this article good, and any and all input is welcome. My work here has been trying to add references to existing content. As for your request, I must agree with Ryecatcher773 and Alanscottwalker. If you want to see these changes, be bold and make them yourself. Don't worry if the English is poor or needs copy editing – we all make mistakes, and someone will fix it. My point is you can't sit back, make commanding requests and expect other editors to do the work for you. Just be sure to accompany your content with reliable secondary sources and no one will complain about your contributions. You do have the knowledge, you said it yourself. If you can compile a list of references for me I'd be more than happy to help you in anyway I can. Cheers &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 15:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, but I'm not an expert and know of no good sources at the moment without doing research, and I'm not going to do that. So I was hoping to spur others to take an interest and improve things. --Lawfare (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to smaller cities in crime section
Can someone explain the purpose of this passage in the crime section? "This pales in comparison to smaller cities, including New Orleans, Newark, and Detroit, which saw 53 murders per 100,000 residents in 2012." I don't doubt its factual correctness but i'm not sure I understand the purpose to compare chicago's murder rate to much smaller cities (as the statement even acknowledges) such as these? Would it not make more sense to compare it with cities of a similar size or at least over a million in population? Wikispeaks (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Willis and Trump towers are now 2nd and 3rd tallest in US, not 1st and 2nd
Can someone suggest the necessary revision to the 2nd paragraph of the Architecture section?

"The United States' two tallest towers are both located in Chicago; Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower, and the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere), and Trump International Hotel and Tower. The Loop's historic buildings include the Chicago Board of Trade Building, the Fine Arts Building, 35 East Wacker, and the Chicago Building, 860-880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments by Mies van der Rohe. Many other architects have left their impression on the Chicago skyline such as Daniel Burnham, Louis Sullivan, Charles B. Atwood, John Root, and Helmut Jahn.[95][96]"

The Willis and Trump Hotel towers are actually now the 2nd and 3rd tallest buildings in the US respectively. One World Trade Center in NYC has surpassed their heights as of last year. - Rantankamus (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. Feel free to change it! Thanks &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 21:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Officially ? We will see. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The CTBUH has since considered the pinnacle height of 1776 as architectural, see and other refs at here. On that note it looks like the 1WTC article is also out of date in some places. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk  22:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not appear the CTBUH has.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)  Not that important, except if we are misrepresenting where the building is in the CTBUH process. (see older articles on WTC and CTBUH issue at ) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)  See also   Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you are aware but there is now a conflict with this article and the actual Willis Tower article? "Willis Tower is the second-tallest building in the United States and the eighth-tallest freestanding structure in the world." It seems that it was decided on the willis tower page that One World Trade Center is the tallest building in the US and should thus be reflected on this page it would seem.70.26.132.19 (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, since 1WTC is not yet occupied (or occupiable), it is not on the tallest buildings list, however it is topped out, and the CTBUH Height Criteria reads that architectural height is the most widely utilized and is employed to define the CTBUH rankings of the "World's Tallest Buildings". Topped-out architectural height is generally the figure used across WP articles, including Chicago which already reflects this.


 * If there remains to be debate perhaps we should continue this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skyscrapers so that other editors more familiar with this issue can be involved. Cheers &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 05:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Corruption in Chicago
Corruption in Chicago deserves its own Wikipedia article in addition to about a paragraph here. (Heroeswithmetaphors)  talk  05:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 05:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Chicago flag image
The image of the flag of Chicago is not rendering correctly. The stars are not being rendered as stars. This is happening for me in IE, Firefox and Chrome browsers. I'm not sure how to fix it. I think the previous image update probably should be reverted but I didn't see offhand how to do that. Evonj (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted to the old version and left a note on the uploader's page. Thanks,&#32;~HueSatLum 12:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)