Talk:Cook County Democratic Party/Archive 1

Boy, is this article ever POV.
This article must have been written by a Republican, or at least someone who really loathes Richard M. Daley. Jhobson1 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, why is there no mention of the Shakman Decrees, which did so much to reduce the power of the machine? Jhobson1 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * GS, what do you think of Jhobson1's comments above? Hugh (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion of the neutrality of this article today? Hugh (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article mentions the Shakman Decrees. I would note that there's no article about the Shakman Decrees. How about that... another article you can write. As for the comments about Republicans and hating Daley, I don't care to go back in the history and see what the article looked like in 2008. Although Wikipedia is a large place and most of the articles here need work and this one is no different. The Garbage Skow (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think this article is neutral? Hugh (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you? The Garbage Skow (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the topic but this article seems to be extremely out of the neutrality guidelines. I'm just an observer, not a Wikipeditor so I hope someone can clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.64.82 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree this articles is problematic, in terms of referencing as well as POV. But it's low priority with WP:CHICAGO, and I think rightfully so - I think a better use of our time is to focus on getting the articles on the major actors mentioned here right. I don't deny it's existence, I think the subject is worthy of a brief WP article - after all it has been the topic of books and political science papers - but most of THIS article could go as far as I'm concerned. I think of the machine as an interpretation of the story of Chicago, I dunno maybe analogous perhaps to how some (Oliver Stone) interpret American history as an artefact of a corporate military/industrial complex. Hugh (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Article as it currently stands
All requested citations have been included. The article has been expanded substantially to bring it closer in line with NPOV standards and to further discuss the past and present state of the Cook County Democratic Party. I removed the citation request from the top of the page. This article is not a good article, it is not even "C" class article, but it IS a good start and it gives a basic over of the subject. Much work still needs to be done, particularly enumerating the different chairman and discussing each of their tenures. -- Homeaccount (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "This article is not a good article" agreed! Hugh (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "a good start and it gives a basic over of the subject" Perhaps a good start and basic overview of the "Chicago machine" interpretation of the 20th century of the Political history of Chicago, but this article is not about its titular subject. It mentions "machine" and "Chicago machine" and "Machine" much more often than it does the titular subject. It is unencyclopedic in repeatedly describing the ebb & flow of undefined "power" and "influence" in poetic terms including the metaphors of a living thing and a mechanism, all the while meticulously avoiding verifiable facts and events. Further, it fails as a stand-alone article, requiring the reader to read the referenced book sources before the article can be understood. Hugh (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "enumerating the different chairman and discussing each of their tenures" A minimum requirement for a "good start" or "C" class article on the Democratic Party of Cook County. After all, the Democratic Party of Cook County is a real organization with real members and a real history full of real events and real facts. The "Chicago machine" on the other hand is an interpretation, a POV, on the political history of Chicago in the 20th century advanced by some authors. Other equally valid and significant interpretations of the political history of Chicago in the 20th century include that of economic class corporate vs. worker and ethnicity, but these are given short shrift in favor of one editor's theory, the "political machine" interpretation. Hugh (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Much work still needs to be done, particularly enumerating the different chairman and discussing each of their tenures." We are in agreement that this article is bereft of the most basic facts that might qualify it as an article on the titular subject. With that agreement in mind, may I suggest a way forward for much of the content on this page. I believe it will be easier to change all the references in this article from Democratic Party of Cook County to "Chicago machine", then it would be to clean up all the off-topic references to "machine," "Machine," and "Chicago machine." Rework the intro to clearly explain that this article describes in overview a particular interpretation, a framework for understanding the Political history of Chicago, notable for being advanced by some book authors. Then we retitle (move) it to match its actual subject, "Chicago machine (political machine)," with "(political machine)" suffix to distinguish it from the professional soccer team. We may be criticized for POV-forking Political history of Chicago, but I believe we can defend article deletion, as the political machine interpretation of Political history of Chicago is notable in its own right for the number of popular history books that embrace it. Hugh (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sincerely I believe you would be much happier writing an article about the machine interpretation of the 20th century political history of Chicago. Reading the "article as it currently stands" convinces me it is the article you are trying to get out. You would enjoy a little more leeway in that you could clearly state up front that what you are doing is summarizing a particular interpretation: what Royko, O'Connor, Rakove, Kass and others have written in books ("Clout", "Boss," "Pharoah," and others) for popular audiences, and thereby freed somewhat from the encyclopedic constraints of sticking to the facts & events of the topic of the Democratic Party of Cook County. You could write about "power" and "influence" waxing & waning and uniting & fracturing because those are the organizing metaphors those authors used. May I toss out an analogy: we here on wp have many articles on the history of the industrial revolution, and we have an article on Marxism, but the history articles are not Marxist history. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The criticism that the article "fails as a stand-alone article, requiring the reader to read the referenced book sources before the article can be understood" is probably best shrugged off by reminding you that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Give that a read, look at the top of this page, and note that this article is "start class" and not yet "FA class". You don't seem to understand that our article has cited sources that state the Cook County Democratic Party operated as a political machine from the time of Cermak's death until it ceased to function - at the earliest when Bilandic lost the mayoral Democratic primary to Jane Byrne (according to the New York Times) and at the latest when Pat Levar lost to Dorothy Brown for Clerk of the Courts (according to the Chicago Tribune). These points are cited with proper sources. You tagged passages as "citation needed" and when the citations were supplied you went back and tagged the cited passage as "vague" or "awk". That borders on tendentious editing and replacing the tags could be seen as gaming the system to avoid a 3 revert vio. Again, your failure to understand even basic concepts, such as the fact that the Cook County Democratic Party and the RDO are the same thing is causing much of the confusion here. -- Homeaccount (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "your failure to understand even basic concepts" Thank you for your attempt to identify a source of the confusion here. Again, may I please repeat an unanswered question from earlier? Are you a subject matter expert on Democratic Party of Cook County? Do you believe only a subject matter expert can contribute to this article? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "the Cook County Democratic Party operated as a political machine from the time of Cermak's death until it ceased to function - at the earliest when Bilandic lost the mayoral Democratic primary to Jane Byrne (according to the New York Times) and at the latest when Pat Levar lost to Dorothy Brown for Clerk of the Courts (according to the Chicago Tribune). These points are cited with proper sources." Whether or not something is in a reliable source is not the be-all and end-all of whether it should be in wp. We are called to weigh the breadth of rs and embrace multiple POVs and form judgements. That major dailies disagree on the "death" date of the "machine" is not at all surprising - the 2 articles you cite are not obituaries, and the "machine" can't die because it is not a living thing, it is a trope, a metaphor, shorthand used by book and newspaper writers. No one who read the editorial page editor of the Chicago Tribune declaring the "machine" dead when Brown beat Levar did anything except chuckle, except maybe you I guess. Tomorrow some oddball event will transpire and a City Hall beat writer will notice, "No way this would have happened back in the day," and we will read once again of the "death" of the "machine." Hugh (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "you went back and tagged the cited passage as "vague" or "awk"." That a passage is a paraphrase of rs does not immunize it from vagueness or awkwardness; rs can be vague and awkward. Hugh (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The criticism that the article "fails as a stand-alone article, requiring the reader to read the referenced book sources before the article can be understood" is probably best shrugged off by reminding you that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Give that a read" Thank you for recommending some reading. May I recommend some reading to you? WP:NPOV If you are not familiar with it, it is a Core Content Policy. Is it your understanding that WP:WIP offers an end-around to our responsibiity to honor WP:NPOV? Since every article is a WP:WIP, no article can be said to violate WP:NPOV, or any other criterion for that matter? Do you think wp editors who create articles can write up their own personal POV, and leave it to other editors to provide balance? Is that how we work here? Will you allow another editor to continue that WIP, or do you get to say when bias has been eliminated? Hugh (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Any one can edit this article, but since it was restored to its proper palce you seem to have an axe to grind. What question did I miss? -- Homeaccount (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Chicago machine (political machine)
We currently have pages titled: Chicago Democratic Machine, Chicago political machine, and Chicago's Democratic machine, All of them redirect here to Democratic Party of Cook County. The situation was thoroughly explained on the request and an admin felt that the old redirect page met the criteria for deletion. Setting up another page at Chicago machine (political machine) is at best an example of a content fork and more likely would end up being a POV fork. It probably doesn't pass WP:TITLE, either. I would be more interested in debating moving this article back to Cook County Democratic Party, which is the name of the organization as recognized by the Illinois Board of Elections and where the article sat for many years until the bold move of a lone editor. -- Homeaccount (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cook County Democratic Party is the correct title for an article on the Democratic Party organization in Cook County, if that's what this is; it is the name registered with the Illinois Secretary of State, the Illinois State Board of Elections, and on the contact page of their self-published website. Hugh (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's give it a week and see if anybody else chimes in. -- Homeaccount (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Vague"/"Awk"/etc tags
A flurry of largely unhelpful tags were littered around the article, mostly concerning material that was already cited. LOOK in the original source BEFORE you tag a cited sentence. In many cases, the language was lifted as closely as possible without creating a copyright vio. -- Homeaccount (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Inline templates may be used to draw the attention of fellow editors to a questionable citation, but that is only one of many legitimate uses of inline templates. Please see WP:ILT for more information. Hugh (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

These tags are unhelpful. For example, our article says "The U.S. Attorney's office contended in 2006 that the machine had been rebuilt." You tagged this as "vague". This is cited with an article from a reliable source which is titled: Chicago rebuilt machine, U.S. says. What is "vague" about that? It could not be any clearer. You tagged "...the Cook County Democratic Party was divided by crippling Council Wars." as "awkward". The reliable source that it is cited with opens with the sentence: "Rahm Emanuel says he doesn't want a repeat of the Council Wars that once crippled City Hall". What is "awkward" about that? -- Homeaccount (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tags are helpful. Inline templates are a legitimate positive contribution to an article. When you delete one inline template added by a fellow editor, without any attempt to address the flagged issue, you are reverting. When you delete all of them, en-mass, without any attempt to resolve the issues, you are edit warring. Hugh (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the problem that you do not like inline templates, or inline templates in your article? This article is perfect, it has no issues, all inline templates are vandalism? Hugh (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Unclear what the heck you are trying to do" (your edit summary) For you to now pretend you en-mass deleted another editor's contribution because you did not understand it seems untenable in the context of the extensive discussion of the severe problems with this article thoroughly documented here on this talk page, discussion which you for the most part ignored, and when you did not ignore, you derided or dismissed, replies outstanding for days before inline templates were used to direct your and mine and other editor's attention to very specific instances of problems. Hugh (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Machine" is vague. "Rebuilt" is vague. What was rebuilt? How was it rebuilt? Such writing is so lazy, facile, and unencyclopediac as to harmful. What are the verifiable facts and events? This is a history section, not metaphysics. You don't get to write a article about the waxing and waning of an ethereal invisible hand, no matter how keen your person interest, under guise of a history section in an article nominally about a real organization with real history full of real people and real events and real facts. But I repeat myself. You have heard all this before on this page. Hugh (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, that a passage is a close paraphrase of rs does not prove it is not vague or awkward, because, of course, obviously, rs can be vague and awkward. But I repeat myself. You have heard this before on this page. Hugh (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The passage is almost verbatim. The article is from a reliable source. I can make an exact quote as you have forced me to do else where if you like. The author uses the words machine and rebuilt, but I repeat myself as you know that to be case. -- Homeaccount (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, that a passage is almost verbatim from rs does not prove it is not vague or awkward, because, of course, obviously, rs can be vague and awkward. But I repeat myself. Happy? Sigh. Hugh (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am bone weary of repeating myself, but will assume, one more time, against all evidence of the past week, that you genuinely do not understand this issue, and try one more tack at getting it across. You & I have very similar home libraries. "Clout" is a classic, I greatly admire O'Connor's writing. I pulled it down and dusted it off. What a joy! I notice that pretty near every page refers to "The Machine" or "The Democratic Machine." And that's cool, it is a book for popular audiences, and it has a particular POV, and it has O'Connor's name on the cover. So. Does that mean that we are free to use those terms, in open (non-quotation) text in WP? More generally, do you believe any set of tones, styles, word choices, points of view, levels of detail, that are found in any reliable source - those tones, styles, word choices, points of view are automatically A-OK for inclusion in WP? WP is different, isn't it? WP has its own guidelines for tone, style, word choice, and precision, and of course we are specifically prohibited from over-representing any one POV. This is pretty basic stuff, bro. So basic forgive me but I question your sincerity in claiming not to get it. I only hope this post is not the latest in week long line of futile talk space exercises. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Basic stuff" should include your knowledge that O'Connor meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. It is a reliable source as laid out here. The article is not over-reliant on any one source and certainly not that one. There are now almost 60 citations currently in the article and about 10 are from O'Connor. None of the material cited from O'Connor is particularly contentious and it can all be cited from any number of other sources, I used O'Connor liberally because it was at hand when you dropped all the fact tags. If you are concerned about over-representing any one POV, go to that great library of yours. ADD material to this article that represents these other points of view you keep saying exist in your head, but you cannot describe on this talk page. Then cite them with reliable source. Do not reword existing cited material, do not delete cited material, don't put unexplained tags on cited material. ADD the other POVs you think this article lacks. If you have a source that - like your recent edits - describes the party "Under Byrne" or "Under Washington", add it and cite it. If you have a source that says the party did not function as a political machine during the time our article says it did, add it and cite it.

In short, perhaps you are now making yourself clearer. Do you think we should have an article about the Cook County Democratic party that makes no mention of the years it was the most powerful political machine in American history? You asked for citations, they were all supplied. Since that time, you have not been able to explain what exactly you object to. Most telling, you have not offered any new material to this article what so ever. All you have been able to do is fight an edit war against its continued improvement for almost a week now. -- Homeaccount (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
What can be done to make this article more neutral? That should be established before too much more work is done it. --Homeaccount (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * May I respectfully repeat some some suggestions posted earlier, to which you did not respond, despite your repeated calls for developing consensus on the talk page? Hugh (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...may I suggest a way forward for much of the content on this page. I believe it will be easier to change all the references in this article from Democratic Party of Cook County to "Chicago machine", then it would be to clean up all the off-topic references to "machine," "Machine," and "Chicago machine." Rework the intro to clearly explain that this article describes in overview a particular interpretation, a framework for understanding the Political history of Chicago, notable for being advanced by some book authors. Then we retitle (move) it to match its actual subject, "Chicago machine (political machine)," with "(political machine)" suffix to distinguish it from the professional soccer team. We may be criticized for POV-forking Political history of Chicago, but I believe we can defend article deletion, as the political machine interpretation of Political history of Chicago is notable in its own right for the number of popular history books that embrace it. Hugh (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2013 (UT)
 * Sincerely I believe you would be much happier writing an article about the machine interpretation of the 20th century political history of Chicago. Reading the "article as it currently stands" convinces me it is the article you are trying to get out. You would enjoy a little more leeway in that you could clearly state up front that what you are doing is summarizing a particular interpretation: what Royko, O'Connor, Rakove, Kass and others have written in books ("Clout", "Boss," "Pharoah," and others) for popular audiences, and thereby freed somewhat from the encyclopedic constraints of sticking to the facts & events of the topic of the Democratic Party of Cook County. You could write about "power" and "influence" waxing & waning and uniting & fracturing because those are the organizing metaphors those authors used. May I toss out an analogy: we here on wp have many articles on the history of the industrial revolution, and we have an article on Marxism, but the history articles are not Marxist history. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What you "sincerely believe" I want to do is irrelevant. The notion that we should delete Wikipedia's article about the Cook County Democratic Party and move all the work ever done here on this subject to a POV fork of your creation is not going to get any traction with any other editor. I encourage other editors to chime in. In the mean time, I have supplied citations that were requested and I will continue to add information to the article here - you should, too. -- Homeaccount (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

*** Second attempt at dialog on geographic coverage ***

 * "a POV fork of your creation" This article nominally titled Democratic Party of Cook County as it stands is a POV fork, a "political machine" POV telling of the topic of Political history of Chicago which is in turn comprised of material of dubious quality excised from the history section of Chicago. Again, the political machine interpretation is a worthy wp topic, and the Democratic Party of Cook County is a worthy wp topic, but claiming they are one & the same and trying to do justice to both in one article is futile and misleading and biased, biased against the vast areas of the Cook County outside Chicago, biased against the many unmentioned here courageous members of the Democratic Party of Cook County who did not participate in the machine, and biased against the many other interpretations of the political history of Chicago in the 20th century, including ethnographic models and economic models and others. Again, my recommendation is to use most of this content as a start for Chicago machine (political machine) and some as a start for Democratic Party of Cook County. Hugh (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Daley assumed the leadership of the machine" Let us take one low-hanging example of the pervasive POV problems with this article. To make this claim, do you recognize any responsibility to reflect alternative POVs in wp? What did RJD himself say about him assuming leadership of the "machine"? He denied it. His POV is not mentioned. This is just one example. More generally, the article takes as given the existence of a thing that from another POV does not exist, then treats that thing as a sort of living organism that grows and dies, then is reborn, which in any context is nothing but sloppy writing. It's lazy writing because it's facile to write about an unseen hand, verifiable facts & events are hard. Hugh (talk)
 * Here's another way to see the pervasive POV problems with this article. Read thru it again, but substitute in your head Democratic Party of Cook County, the titular subject of this article, for each mention of "machine" or "Machine" or "Chicago machine." It doesn't work. It doesn't work because most of this article is not about Democratic Party of Cook County. Hugh (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "That should be established before too much more work is done it." I note you made a dozen some edits after this post. May I ask, do you include yourself in your calls to hold off on edits pending consensus? Hugh (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I called for a consensus prior to yet another page move, not over any editing. I am somehow STILL uncertain what material you object to - other than all of it. The only position you have been able to communicate is that you own our material and you don't want to see it in this article, where it has sat from the time of its creation on 13 May 2006‎ until you moved it all without any discussion. What edits do you feel need consensus? If you object to discussing the party's well-documented (and cited) machine past in this article, you have an issue with the reliable sources listed, not with me and not with our article. -- Homeaccount (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "STILL uncertain what material you object to" For you to pretend this, at the bottom of this talk page, and after en-mass deleting inline templates multiple times, I feel this was posted merely to test my patience and provoke anger. Hugh (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, assume good faith, humor me, and explain your position here. Do not ask that the article be blanked and redirected to a fork and do not tag cited material you do not like as being "vague" without an explanation here first. At least on admin agreed those actions are unhelpful. You were warned about disruptive editing and we were both warned about edit warring. Let's work collaboratively to improve this article. I am restoring the Lyons heading as the party never was under Richard M. Daley. -- Homeaccount (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "explain your position" I am very proud of my article space percentage, and my humor is running out with you goading me into repeating myself over & over while ignoring me or pretending not to understand. Hugh (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sure you do great work here, which is why I would hate to see you blocked for edit warring. I take it this means you cannot in fact explain what issues you are having with the article beyond the fact that you don't like it. When you add a tag, come to the talk page and explain why it is there. Try that. -- Homeaccount (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Chairman
There was agreement that we should compile a listing of chairmen and their tenures, but nobody has done any work on it other than me. Can anybody help with info beyond what is in our own article - particularly with chairmen prior to 20th century? -- Homeaccount (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem areas in the History section
The XIX century and the transition of power between Kelly and J. Daley need the most work at this time. Any constructive help would be most me welcome. -- Homeaccount (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring
"Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." per Refactoring talk pages. This is yet another example of disruptive editing rather than productive dialog. -- Homeaccount (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hijacking
Somebody apparently wanted to create an article focusing on the "Chicago Machine" and hijacked this article to do so. This article is not about Chicago, but rather the local committees of the 50 city wards and 30 SUBURBAN TOWNSHIPS that make up the Democratic Party in COOK COUNTY. I have reversed the move and undid much of the uncited edits. Furthermore, the editor who did this betrays a lack of understanding of a number of nuances of the subject. For one, the RDO and the CCDP are ONE IN THE SAME. Any further moves should be discussed for consensus PRIOR to action. -- Homeaccount (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

*** First attempt at discussion of geographic coverage ***

 * "30 SUBURBAN TOWNSHIPS that make up the Democratic Party in COOK COUNTY." (Shouting in original) This article has many sentences of which the subject is "machine," "Machine," or "Chicago machine" but it has no content related to the 30 suburban townships that make up the Democratic Party in Cook County. Who is hijacking? Hugh (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "the editor who did this betrays a lack of understanding of a number of nuances of the subject" Are you a subject matter expert on Democratic Party of Cook County? Do you believe only a subject matter expert can contribute to this article? Hugh (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: your recent redirect of Chicago machine (political machine) to Democratic Party of Cook County, are they the same thing? Are there not areas of the DPCC outside of Chicago? All DPCC members were/are participants in the Chicago Machine and vice versa? Many pages link to both, so we need to be careful here. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you or your commitment to citations. Your recent reversion removed some content without citations but left many others, and removed many inline requests for citations. May I ask, what was your thinking there? Hugh (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * May I rephrase more broadly, what do you see as the role of inline citation in this article? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should be improved to the standards outlined in Inline citation. Now that this has come to my attention, I have already begun this process. -- Homeaccount (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the fundamental problem with the original re-direct, it pointed EVERY reference to the Cook County Democratic party in Wikipedia to the content fork you created about the machine. Hence, if an article about Chicago Committeemen John Arena or Scott Waugespack mentions they are committeeman of the RDO - the Cook County Democratic Party - the link pointed the reader to the fork about the machine. This unhelpful and just plain wrong. If an article is discussing a suburban committeeman as a member of the Cook County Democratic Party again, the link pointed to your fork about the "Chicago Machine". Much of the content, such as it was, that was removed would be better placed in the Political history of Chicago article, or if you insist, you can try to recreate a fork at Chicago machine (political machine), but I suspect somebody will eventually merge it with this article or Political history of Chicago. What ever is done, this article is about the party and it should remain here. Homeaccount (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that our efforts to sort this out are greatly complicated from the unfortunate fact that many articles link to Chicago machine (political machine) and many articles link to Democratic Party of Cook County.
 * This could not be any more incorrect. A mere FIVE articles link to Chicago machine (political machine). -- Homeaccount (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then let us focus on the redirect. May I respectfully ask again, do you believe of Chicago machine (political machine) and Democratic Party of Cook County are the same thing? May I ask that we review WP:REDIRECT together? May I please request that you identify one or more of the listed "reasons for redirect" that might justify the redirect of Chicago machine (political machine) to Democratic Party of Cook County? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to discuss the redirect as the page was found to meet the criteria for speedy delete. --Homeaccount (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Any further moves should be discussed for consensus PRIOR to action." Thank you for your commitment to concensus. Yet while leaving unanswered attempts at dialog from a fellow wikipedian I see you have nominated Chicago machine (political machine) for speedy deletion and changed the disambiguation page for Chicago machine to include Democratic Party of Cook County. Do I understand from your edits that your answer to my original, as yet unanswered question (above), is that, yes, you do believe that the Chicago machine (political machine) and Democratic Party of Cook County are the same thing? May I ask again for you to please cite, from wp redirect policy, the specific basis upon which this redirect is appropriate? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "this article is about the party" Not sure if I agree. First, it is not much of an article at all, it has problems with neutrality and verifiability. Also, the content is more Political history of Chicago, as distinct from Political history of Chicago in that it is from the distinct POV of a particular interpretation of the Political history of Chicago in terms of machine politics, which is just one of many possible interpretations of the Political history of Chicago. I agree the Democratic Party of Cook County deserves a neutral, well-referenced article, and the Chicago machine (political machine) deserves a neutral, well-referenced article (better yet in terms of neutrality might be that the content of Chicago machine (political machine) is integrated into Political history of Chicago as one POV), but it seems to me this article is not a very good job of either. Hugh (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If you feel this article does not adequately describe the subject, then THIS article should be improved with cited material. Moving it elsewhere is a textbook example of Content forking. --Homeaccount (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this move is it was not a move at all, but a back-door deletion of our article on the second largest Democratic county party in the country. I occasionally google the article when I need to refer to it and it is always the #1 hit. The other day I googled it and it didn't come up at all, which is when the "move" came to my attention. -- Homeaccount (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An interesting observation about an external search engine result. I agree we should endeavour to make our content easy to find, so I support that Chicago machine (political machine) and Democratic Party of Cook County and Political history of Chicago and Chicago should all wl to each other, perhaps at the article or section hat level in some cases where it makes sense. But we have a core principle of neutrality, and neutrality applies to article titles and redirects and disambiguations as well as content. We are prohibited by policy from using article titles to push a POV. Every day we delete creative redirects of "satan" and "slut." WP:NPOV trumps any and all useability best practices or search engine optimization concerns. Hugh (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A good deal of content concerning suburban activities has been added. It was never the case that the article had "no content related to the 30 suburban townships", but this charge is completely baseless after the addition of the new, cited material.-- Homeaccount (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

From my talk page
I do not think it helpful to remove this discussion to any individual editor's talk page. This is moved my personal talk page:

29-30 March 2013 reversions to Democratic Party of Cook County
Of your many recent reversions, kindly restore just and I will not request an investigation at this time. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) the article template for geographic coverage;
 * 2) the article template for coat rack; and
 * 3) the sentence from the lead which identifies "machine" as a derisive term,

What is the purpose of this template? Have you read the article recently? The scope has broaden significantly in the last week.
 * "the article template for geographic coverage"

The issue you seem to have explained, as best as you can, is not that this article is a coat rack, but rather you feel it has POV issues. I have left the NPOV tag in the hopes we can discuss improvements here on this talk page.
 * "the article template for coat rack"

This sentence does not belong in the lead section as it is not cited anywhere in the body. Again, you say you have an extensive library. Add this sentence back in and cite it with a reliable source.
 * "the sentence from the lead which identifies "machine" as a derisive term"

I don't know what kind of "investigation" you want to call, but I have asked for a Third opinion on these subjects. Let's give it the requisite six days and see what other editors think. -- Homeaccount (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: I am not sure that the material above was cut & pasted to your talk page or simply copied & pasted. In any event, WP:OWNTALK says it is proper for you to remove (or simply ignore) remarks posted on your talkpage. Removal from your talkpage constitutes acknowledgement that you read the material. You can, of course, post a reply on your talk page. As to the remarks here, on the article talk page, you can reply, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC) .

Coat rack
"An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article." Our history section discusses the machine-era of the party's history. There is material concerning the eras before and after that period. How is this article a coat rack? -- Homeaccount (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A coat rack need not be 100% coat rack. I agree the article to date includes some scant material that might actually properly survive to a start class article on the nominal subject. But the middle third sadly veers off into this wholly derisive and appallingly non-neutral essay regarding a particular point POV, the political machine interpretation of the Political history of Chicago. But I repeat myself. I have little to add that I have not said before and that you have ignored or dismissed. Hugh (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "How is this article a coat rack?" This article is a Chicago machine (political machine) coat on a Democratic Party of Cook County rack. How is that not obvious? Hugh (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "How is that not obvious?" is unhelpful. The history section is not an "essay" but rather it is a recounting of events and exact quotes, supported by extensive citations to reputable sources. If there is another point of view that you feel is unrepresented, please add material cited from reputable sources that supports your position. I am removing the tag until you can explain why it is there on this talk page. "How is that not obvious?" doesn't cut it here at Wikipedia and I remind you that there are now admins keeping an eye on our progress here. -- Homeaccount (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "If there is another point of view that you feel is unrepresented, please add material cited from reputable sources that supports your position." So, I take it, in answer to my earlier question, which you ignored, yes, you do believe that how we work on wp is that each editor writes up a particular POV and leaves it to other editors to provide balance? I will highlight the earlier question on this talk page since you somehow missed it. I am confused that you seem so naive about WP:Core content policies such as WP:NPOV yet have a demonstrated mastery of such policies as WP:3RR. Please explain, before I believe this discrepancy in apparent experience level is merely in service of POV pushing. Sometimes it seems like your goal is to make me repeat the same things over and over. Hugh (talk 17:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove article templates or inline inline without consensus. Hugh (talk 17:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not reword, remove, or tag cited material. Such edits can be reverted as vandalism. Speaking of core content policies, our article discusses the years that the Cook County Democratic Party functioned as political machine as part of a wider section on its history. The article is painfully referenced with reliable sources. The idea that the party functioned for a time as a political machine is not my idea, it is not a fringe theory, it is an accepted fact. It is well within the bounds of, "Ideas that have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories" - as well as numerous cited books. I don't see how anything I have added or cited to this article violates core content policies, nor have you made it clear how this article is a coat rack in its present form. -- Homeaccount (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Do not reword, remove, or tag cited material." Please site specific wp policy or guidelines in your commands to fellow editors. Exactly who do you think you are to tell other editors what not to do? We are a community of policies and guidelines. Is your view that a citation immunizes wp content from modification, deletion, or inline templates? May I respectfully repeat an unanswered question from earlier, which you ignored: you don't like inline templates, do you? You do not seem to understand vandalism. Sorry to inform, vandalism is not "stuff I don't like." Do you own this page? Are you are the gatekeeper for changes or deletions? Thank you for clearly documenting in your own words your serious WP:OWN problem. Hugh (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The source makes a claim. Wikipedia repeats the claim with a citation. You reworded the claim to your liking, but left the citation in place. The claim is now no longer backed by the citation that accompanies it - compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. Sorry to inform, you can not reword cited material because it is "stuff I don't like." Do you own this page?  Thank you for clearly documenting in your own words your serious WP:OWN problem. I know you like inline templates. Had I not reverted your edits, anyone could tag the new statements with this: Failed_verification -- Homeaccount (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Summary of attempts at dispute resolution
This article has severe problems of POV, style, tone, word choice, precision, and level of detail. The content issues are clear-cut, with straightforward remedies, and would be resolved quickly and collegially were it not for some frustrating counter-productive ownership behaviours of one editor. The record is one of lip-service to consensus but short-falls in practice. If one is to assume good faith, the short-fall may only be explained as consequence of a genuine lack of understanding of fundamental WP policies, guidelines, and practices; alternatively, the counter-productive behaviours are in service of a POV push. These short-falls of understanding need to be addressed, or, failing that, a topic ban may be required, for this article to progress to a start-class article on its nominal subject that is minimally acceptable under WP policies and guidelines.

Index of attempts at dispute resolution
Hugh (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 17:36, 23 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on subject of article and on the role of inline templates
 * 2) 18:27, 23 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on the role of inline templates
 * 3) 18:47, 23 March 2013 good faith suggestion for dispute resolution
 * 4) 19:05, 23 March 2013 another good faith attempt to disambiguate the subject of this article
 * 5) 00:17, 24 March 2013 yet another good faith attempt to disambiguate the subject of this article
 * 6) 00:21, 25 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on nominal and actual subject of article
 * 7) 04:27, 25 March 2013 another good faith suggestion for dispute resolution
 * 8) 04:46, 25 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on geographic coverage and on WP:EXPERT
 * 9) 17:59, 25 March 2013 yet another good faith suggestion for dispute resolution
 * 10) 20:31, 25 March 2013 another attempt to engage in dialog on WP:EXPERT
 * 11) 20:36, 25 March 2013 repost good faith suggestions for dispute resolution
 * 12) 21:18, 25 March 2013 attempt to engage in discussion of a wp editor's responsibility w.r.t. WP:NPOV, also repeat good faith suggestion for dispute resolution
 * 13) 21:28, 25 March 2013 another attempt to engage in dialog on the role of inline templates
 * 14) 22:05, 25 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on WP:NPOV issues
 * 15) 16:49, 26 March 2013 another attempt to engage in dialog on role of WP:POV
 * 16) 17:03, 26 March 2013 yet another attempt to engage in dialog on the appropriate role of inline templates, also on the relationship of rs POV, tone, and word choice relative to wp guidelines on  POV, tone, and word choice
 * 17) 18:27, 26 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on scope of calls for consensus
 * 18) 19:26, 26 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on the role of WP:NPOV in redirects and article titles
 * 19) 15:48, 27 March 2013 another attempt to engage in dialog on role on appropriate use of inline templates, relationship of rs tone, style and word choice to wp tone, style and word choice
 * 20) 16:01, 27 March 2013 attempt to convey that WP:WIP is not a license to violate WP:CCPOL such as WP:NPOV
 * 21) 23:06, 27 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog regarding WP:NPOV
 * 22) 23:19, 27 March 2013 another attempt to convey that rs style, tone, word choice is not wp style, tone, and word choice
 * 23) 16:03, 28 March 2013 yet another attempt to convey that rs style, tone, word choice is not necessarily wp style, tone, and word choice
 * 24) 17:11, 30 March 2013 another attempt to convey that WP:WIP is not a license to violate WP:CCPOL such as WP:NPOV

RS style, tone, POV, and word choice is not necessarily WP style, tone, POV, and word choice
Editor defends the mistaken belief that text in any style, with any tone, with any word choices, and with any POV, is acceptable in WP as long as it is found in somewhere in RS. Believes a citation to RS exempts WP content from WP policies and guidelines, and immunizes a passage from criticism, inline templates, or further edits. Apparently believes, in effect, WP:CCPOL and WP:MOS need not be mastered or practised, as paraphrasing text from RS the only skill required for WP editting. Acts on this misconception by reverting attempts to conform content to WP policy and guidelines, and demanding that other editors not alter material with a citation.

Examples:


 * 1) 20:24, 25 March 2013 "when the citations were supplied you went back and tagged the cited passage as "vague" or "awk""
 * 2) 21:57, 26 March 2013 "you have an issue with the reliable sources listed, not with me"
 * 3) 22:52, 26 March 2013 "You tagged this as "vague". This is cited with an article from a reliable source..."
 * 4) 21:19, 27 March 2013 "The passage is almost verbatim...from a reliable source."
 * 5) 19:59, 30 March 2013 "Do not reword, remove, or tag cited material. Such edits can be reverted as vandalism."

Good faith attempts to resolve this dispute:


 * 1) 17:03, 26 March 2013 attempt to engage in dialog on the relationship of rs POV, tone, and word choice relative to wp guidelines on  POV, tone, and word choice
 * 2) 23:19, 27 March 2013 another attempt to convey that rs style, tone, word choice is not wp style, tone, and word choice
 * 3) 16:03, 28 March 2013 yet another attempt to convey that rs style, tone, word choice is not necessarily wp style, tone, and word choice

Hugh (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Core content policies such as neutral point of view are the responsibility of every editor
Editor does not accept individual responsibility to conform to WP:CCPOLs. Editor mistakenly believes core content policies such as neutral point of view are someone else's to worry about. Acts on this misconception by including inappropriate content justified erroneously with WP:WIP.

Examples:


 * 1) 20:24, 25 March 2013 "The criticism...is probably best shrugged off by reminding you that Wikipedia is a work in progress."
 * 2) 21:56, 29 March 2013 "If there is another point of view that you feel is unrepresented, please add material cited from reputable sources that supports your position."
 * 3) 22:21, 29 March 2013 "ADD material to this article that represents these other points of view you keep saying exist in your head...ADD the other POVs you think this article lacks."

Hugh (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Good faith attempts to resolve this dispute:


 * 1) 16:01, 27 March 2013 attempt to convey that WP:WIP is not a license to violate WP:CCPOL such as WP:NPOV
 * 2) 17:11, 30 March 2013 another attempt to convey that WP:WIP is not a license to violate WP:CCPOL such as WP:NPOV

Hugh (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is dialog
Editor peppers talk page and edit summaries with calls for talk page discussions, so that a quick read of the talk page or edit history leaves the impression of an attitude of collaboration, while consistently avoiding actual dialog. Other editors make good faith suggestions, or raise good faith direct questions which might serve to tease out possible areas of consensus or clarify WP guidelines or policy, but the suggestions and questions are ignored or dismissed.

Exempts self from calls for consensus:


 * 1) 20:28, 25 March 2013 "What can be done to make this article more neutral? That should be established before too much more work is done it." --Homeaccount
 * 2) 18:27, 26 March 2013 "I note you made a dozen some edits after this post. May I ask, do you include yourself in your calls to hold off on edits pending consensus?"

Repeated direct questions and comments attempting to clarify the subject of this article:


 * 1) 17:36, 23 March 2013 "Chicago machine (political machine) to Democratic Party of Cook County, are they the same thing?"
 * 2) 19:05, 23 March 2013 "May I respectfully ask again..."
 * 3) 00:17, 24 March 2013 "Yet while leaving unanswered attempts at dialog from a fellow wikipedian..."
 * 4) 00:21, 25 March 2013 "this article is not about its titular subject."
 * 5) 21:18, 25 March 2013 "Again, the political machine interpretation is a worthy wp topic, and the Democratic Party of Cook County is a worthy wp topic, but claiming they are one & the same and trying to do justice to both in one article is futile and misleading and biased..."

Repeated suggestions for dispute resolution advanced and ignored:


 * 1) 18:47, 23 March 2013 propose merger to integrate POV fork
 * 2) 04:27, 25 March 2013 "...may I suggest a way forward..."
 * 3) 17:59, 25 March 2013 yet another good faith suggestion for dispute resolution
 * 4) 20:36, 25 March 2013 "May I respectfully repeat some some suggestions posted earlier, to which you did not respond, despite your repeated calls for developing consensus on the talk page?"

Hugh (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Closely related to the behavior of frequent calls for discussion in edit summaries and talk pages, while ignoring or dismissing talk page contributions, is the behavior of repeated claims of lack of comprehension accompanied by calls for clarification, even after thousands of talk page words.

Examples of repeated claims of lack of clarity and calls for more repetition:


 * 1) 21:57, 26 March 2013 "I am somehow STILL uncertain what material you object to..."
 * 2) 21:26, 27 March 2013 "...explain your position here..."
 * 3) 22:21, 29 March 2013 "...you have not been able to explain what exactly you object to."
 * 4) 19:59, 30 March 2013 "I don't see how anything...violates core content policies, nor have you made it clear..."
 * 5) 18:49, 1 April 2013 "...it should be easy for you to lay out those issues here..."
 * 6) 22:18, 3 April 2013 "You still have not made a clear case for what you are even trying to achieve."
 * 7) 20:21, 8 April 2013 "...you STILL have not explained what issues you have with current version."

Generally speaking, one can claim of another editor, "I am somehow STILL uncertain what material you object to," or one can revert that editor's inline templates, but to do both in tandem may indicate a lack of comprehension or lack of commitment to the fundamental principle of consensus. Hugh (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hugh (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to the so-called "attempts"

 * Hugh, you wrote, "This article has severe problems of POV, style, tone, word choice, precision, and level of detail. The content issues are clear-cut, with straightforward remedies..."


 * If that is the case, it should be easy for you to lay out those issues here, with your proposed remedies for discussion. I have been asking you to do so for over a week. This whole talk page is a testament to that. You don't really have any position beyond blanking the article and redirecting it to a POV Fork of your creation. That was the last tangible suggestion you have made and it was about a week ago. Since then, I have provided every citation you have asked for. I have substituted exact quotes for material you felt was vague or synthesized. I have added much cited content and photos.


 * I have asked you to add cited content to this article supporting your position, since what that position is remains unclear. Instead of constructive editing or discussion, you have been engaging in Tendentious editing and a quixotic campaign to get me blocked that has been laughably unsuccessful. You claim I am defeating consensus, but what this talk page shows is that you WP:OWN this article and you are enraged that there is another editor trying to work on it with you. You keep talking about my edits vis a vis "other editors" - but nobody else has an issue with my edits except you. Not. A. Single. One. By "other editors" you mean yourself - and nobody else. No other editors have raised any issues here since you started edit warring. In fact no one other than me, you, and a bot have edited this article in that time period. We need for an editor who is not me or Hugh to weigh in on the "problems" with this article. We need more opinions. Thankfully the article has been mercifully locked and we now have a week for editors to provide them. I'll try again to get a third opinion. The next step after that is Requests for comment, but that seems like a waste since there are only two editors in dispute in this case. -- Homeaccount (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "This whole talk page is a testament to..." As I stated above and on your talk page, I believe we need to achieve consensus on a shared understanding of some fundamental policies and guidelines before we invest any more time in discussing content issues here. Thank you in advance for your patience. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am waiting on the third opinion on the hat tags before attempting to engage you on any other issues. We seem to have achieved consensus that discussion thus far has been unhelpful. Finally, common ground - good for us. -- Homeaccount (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)