Talk:Park Grill

Suggestions
I am working on improving this page. It is the main dining attraction at Millennium Park in Chicago. Suggestions are welcome.Anngroothuis (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a need for independent sources- writing about this restaurant in newspapers, magazines, and books, especially if it's sources other than local restaurant reviews (which nearly all restaurants, notable and non-notable]], get. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope these links are enough. Let me know what else you think it needs.Anngroothuis (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Synthesized claims?
what are synth accusatory claims? Hugh (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Synth is when you assert the baby and this and that so it all show bias, the review found no wrongdoing, wiki is not a scandal magazine repeating titilating claims, we also attempt to protect living people, especially completely innocent babies. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing here is synthetic or OR. I'm not asserting anything about any baby or anyone else. Every sentence is derived from neutral, verifiable, reliable sources. Your del gutted the section lede. After your edits a person is mentioned with no background. It's going to be challenging to tell this notable story without mentioning the word "baby." I was editing while you were deleting, adding additional references. May I ask that you hold off for a just a few minutes, we can look at it together? Hugh (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the review found no wrongdoing" - the review found that Chicago's ethics ordinance was not violated.Hugh (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with the deletion of the block quote, I expanded an excerpt from another editor to improve NPOV. Hugh (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the full mayors name and a internal link. There are more than plenty links, especially to the chicago sun, titillating claims and partisan commentary does not make a good informative article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "titillating claims and partisan commentary" I don't understand, what do you mean? Hugh (talk)
 * Thank you for your interest in the Park Grill. Thank you for your contributions to this article.Hugh (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, you too Hugh. I find it preferable to just simply state the bare unequivocal points and link to the highest quality citations as possible and not too many of them, tell the simple story, people can click on the links to read the bloated content and can google for more exciting content. Best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "simply state the bare unequivocal points and link to the highest quality citations as possible and not too many of them, tell the simple story" we are in complete agreement Hugh (talk) 19:28, 18 March 010 (UTC)
 * "not too many of them" another editor stuck after every sentence and I over-reacted Hugh (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the edits Off2riorob has been making and I made a few of them earlier. For example, mentioning the baby is different than starting a section with with a reference to someone "impregnating" someone as if is the most essential part of the story. It's a loaded sentence and immediately insinuates impropriety when the reader should judge for his or her self.
 * Please sign your posts. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The lede of this section has been gutted. Obviously the Park District awarded a contract to someone. Without mention of the particulars this section fails notability. Hugh (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC) The owners' political connections are what make this notable. The familiar names among the investors are what make this notable. The owner's relationship with a key decision maker in the awarding dept. make this notable. I plan on restoring some of these deleted notable facts by excerpting from neutral, reliable, verifiable sources fully referenced and within WP:NPOV and WP:VER. Hugh (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Paragraph deleted...if you've already read it, I take it back. I was thinking more of some of the previous incarnations of the property tax section, but I think it's fine now. And I may just find the whole lease vs. concession issue more notable than most b/c I have a legal background so trying to remove that way of thought.)
 * Please sign your posts. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The section on the tax issue is narrative, it is not a discussion of Illinois law or the distinction between lease and license. At the time of the assessor's notice, this was not settled. Hugh (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that, after another look, I reconsidered. I agree. Thanks.206.111.142.135 (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Please consider an account. Hugh (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * lease or license? see WP:STRUCTURE folding a controversy into a narrative to avoid pro/con debate is recommended Hugh (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation 31
There is a lot of content linked to this link which is dead and there is no wayback? Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to provide a more persistent link, that is a good suggestion. Hugh (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I repaired it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How did you do that? I would like to do the rest. Hugh (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Get the citation and then go here and there insert the dead broken link in the wayback machine searchbox in the middle up at the top of the page, click on take me back and there comes any of the versions of the page that the web has saved in its memory somewhere, this is a very useful tool to repair old links. wiki has a Wayback machine article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to make more permanent the other article URLs I got through proxy from my public library: 35, 36, 38, 39, 41. I'm getting "0 pages found" on the wayback.
 * done altho wayback didn't help - I had to borrow a netbank acct - now everyone can evaluate OR claims Hugh (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you haven't used it,this is also a very good wiki tool to see what all the links on an article are doing, the pinky red results need looking at and repairing, Checklinks just put the name of the article in the box at the top and press go. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Investors
I think it's right that investigative journalism pieces contain paragraphs like this, but please convince me that they belong in Wikipedia. We have a list of associations like "clout-heavy" "is a neighbour of" "is a son of" "had business dealings with", "controversial" "has ties to" that, combined together, is both interesting politically, and convincingly unencyclopedic, as it does nothing more than say that there are opportunities for impropriety. It does not bring forward any verifiable statement that O'Malley, Horan or any investor acted improperly or properly.

The reliable sources may say this, but copying them here does not provide the type of information we want to give our readers, IMO.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "acted improperly or properly" Just the facts. WP is not a judge or jury. The article does not state or imply that anyone acted properly or improperly. You don't need improper for notability. OJ was innocent. IMO the investors and their relationships are at least as notable as the Kobe beef burger. Should we mention in passing that the Park Grill was the subject of investigative journalism pieces and let it go w/o any detail so as to let tourists enjoy their meals? Hugh (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "a list of associations" When WP:CHICAGO is done telling its story the notability of these references will be apparent to readers, meanwhile the inadequacies of the Roti, Barbara, Simon, Chinn, Degnan, etc. articles should not be held against the Park Grill article. Hugh (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that some negative information always belongs in a Wikipedia article. For example, Andrew Regan was innocent, but he paid to settle a civil suit and spent ten years of his life untangling himself from a business scandal, with a lot of press coverage. We have thrashed out a couple of paragraphs on it, despite the OTRS ticket  (see Talk:Andrew_Regan).  As I understand Wikipedia's consensus is, rightly so, that negative information should be both verifiable and be about the person themselves.  "Clout-heavy" and the other phrases I highlighted are neither.  To be blunt, OJ evaded arrest; he didn't play on the same football team as someone who evaded arrest.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV with respect to essential details of decision-maker contractor relationship
There are excessive opinions being asserted it this text, please stop it, this article is rubbish, absolute rubbish. This article is not about the park grill at all, it is an attack on what someone want to portray as insider dealing and such rubbish, tiresome, the courts rejected it but it is desired that wikipedia prints all the dirty secrets, awful. Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "opinions" Can you please be more specific? There are no opinions. All content is highly (overly) referenced, and taken directly from neutral, verifiable, reliable sources. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense, its an attack, good article, you must be joking. Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "good article, you must be joking" I respectfully disagree. This may be my favorite article in all of WP:CHICAGO. It has it all, clout, scandal, high cholesterol food. In fact I think "Chicago" should redirect here (ok, now I'm joking). Hugh (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "attack" What in your opinion constitutes an attack? Can you please be more specific? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you find mention of women giving birth offensive in WP? Birth out of wedlock? Because I don't see anything "dirty" about human reproduction or "awful" about childbearing out of wedlock, and the timing and circumstances of this particular blessed event is an essential aspect of the notability of this subject. Hugh (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the courts rejected it" The facts you deleted were never in contention and were never litigated. Hugh (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "this article is rubbish, absolute rubbish" The whole article? Can you please be more specific? Thanks in advance for your help. Hugh (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tough crowd. One editor not happy with terms like "clout" another unhappy with level of detail. Hugh (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we are a tough crowd. I can't speak for Off2riorob, but while the opinions of journalists come from reliable sources (their papers), they are still opinions.  Reporters and newspapers have agendas: that doesn't stop us reproducing verifiable information from them, but statements that are not verifiable, or are not required to give a balanced comprehensive article, are off-limits.  I agree that this sentence:
 * ''O'Malley also has been a business partner with the son of power broker and former Ald. ...
 * does not belong here. I would request that if you feel it should stay, you discuss it here and seek consensus. When I read that sentence at face value, it puts the alderman a million miles from an association with Park Grill, which makes it way off topic.
 * "I would request that if you feel it should stay, you discuss it here and seek consensus." What happened to this idea? Is leadership thru example important to you? Are you an editor and I am not? Hugh (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * you deleted the detail of the chips being fried in beef fat to which I was quite attached Hugh (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The background of the partners and investors is essential to the notability of the subject. The sentence is not an attempt to link Vrdolyak to the Park Grill, it is an essential aspect of the background of one of the partners in the Park Grill. Hugh (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the exact birthday of a minor does not belong here, which means I also support Off2riorob's version of this dispute: Excessive detail is also a matter of prose style, and something that the collaborative process often corrects.  It may be sufficient to say something like "during the period of the contract negotiations, Foxgrover gave birth to a child fathered by O'Malley,"  though I would also be comfortable with cutting the whole account down to:  "Foxgrover had an intimate personal relationship with O'Malley, as well as a prior employment relationship.  Though she formally recused herself, she participated in some of the discussions between Park Grill and city agencies."
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the exact birthday of a minor does not belong here" fixed, thanks! Hugh (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Excessive detail" I don't think the level of detail is excessive. I think the level of detail is appropriate and not undue weight given the weight given to location and menu. Hugh (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "cutting the whole account down" will run afoul of charges of OR and NPOV-violating short-hand like "clout" and euphemisms like "intimate personal relationship," best to simply state the facts and let the reader decide. Hugh (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "cutting the whole account down" That young lady has gotten a LOT more press than the burgers. Will you also take your editor's snips to the menu section? The burgers get 4 sentences but the baby gets no mention and the relationship between the contractor and contractee gets boiled down to 2 sentences? Hugh (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "during the period of the contract negotiations, Foxgrover gave birth to a child fathered by O'Malley" your suggestion is essentially what the article says now. Hugh (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "she participated in some of the discussions between Park Grill and city agencies." This suggested edit is too severe. The details of the participation after recusal are necessary for NPOV in order to provide context & balance for readers to have a reasonble chance of fairly evaluating the statement "Foxgrover recused herself." If we effect your edit the next objection will be "So what? She recused herself! Delete this section!" Hugh (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "she formally recused herself" Yes, a formal, Chicago-style recusal: all form, no substance. Recusal means something different in Chicago than most places. This needs context. Hugh (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The burgers get 4 sentences". I agree: the burgers deserve one short sentence or less.   The reviews I looked at gave them as little, and Wikipedia is not a review site!
 * "The details of the participation after recusal are necessary for NPOV in order to provide context & balance for readers to have a reasonble chance of fairly evaluating the statement " - I disagree.  Listing the facts (a list of all the meetings she was present at) is exactly what I recognize as an attack job: it is a list of opportunities she had to give preferential treatment to the winning consortium, but doesn't add or take away evidence to help the reader decide whether she did or did not give preferential treatment.  It is more than enough to say that she discussed, without listing when, where and with whom she met.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "a list of all the meetings," "she participated in some of the discussions" The post-formal-recusal activity is more than attending meetings and participating in some discussions. Are you reading what you are deleting? Are you reading the references? Foxgrover was the point person within the Park District for the project. Foxgrover headed a committee that selected a music promoter. Foxgrover secured the liquor licences. Hugh (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "doesn't add or take away evidence to help the reader decide whether she did or did not give preferential treatment." I agree, the examples of post-recusal participation do not provide additional evidence for preferential treatment of a vendor; they provide evidence for evaluating the effect of the recusal. Hugh (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral, reliable, verifiable sources mentioned other examples of post-"recusal" participation which I did not include in the interest of brevity. Would more referenced examples help in your assessment of this issue? Hugh (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This phrase, especially the quote, should not be in a wikipedia article. "A spokesman for the state’s attorney’s office, which defended the assessor in the case, said the contract is a lease, even if it doesn’t specifically call itself a lease: "...our position is that the Park Grill is a leaseholder and as a leaseholder they are subject to taxes."" An out of court statement by a representative of an attorney on the losing side of a case is not important. Attorneys say a lot of things outside of court. Their job is to advocate for their client. This is not a neutral point of view, in fact it is the opposite.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.12.246 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Please consider an account. Hugh (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This paragraph has a history. Let me catch you up. It's narrative. Open with filing of suit. In the middle, once sentence each for the complainant, 1 for the defendent. Close with one sentence on resolution. Sound fair? Hugh (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * from the summary of your anonymous edit: "wouldn't a quote from the winning side or from the actual jud. opinion be more appropriate?" as a policy WP has a bias toward 2ndary sources where available, see WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Hugh (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * QuotationsWhere a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbda (talk • contribs) 06:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Section: Contract award process
This section is getting substantially out of hand. It has serious undue weight in the article about this restaurant. It requires a huge trimming exercise to be correctly weighted in this article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "article about this restaurant" This is not just an article about a restaurant as restaurant. This article is of interest to several WP projects. It is a member of WikiProject Food and drink, yes, but also Business, Chicago and Illinois. The history of this restaurant is a notable episode in the history of Chicago, the administration of Mayor Richard M. Daley, and the key year 2005 in his 5th term, a year noted for scandals including Hired Truck, this restaurant, and others.
 * "serious undue weight" The weight of the contract award process in this article is proportional to its converage within all references to this restaruant in neutral, verifiable, reliable sources. See the references list. More neutral, verifiable, reliable references, not yet included in this article in the interest of brevity, are available and I could add them if it would help in your assessment of the appropriateness. In fact, if anything the weight afforded such issues as the location and view are what need trimming. Hugh (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is starting to look more like a crusade than an article. The restaurant is not the contract award process. That appears to be some sort of conflict or interest and may warrant an article as a valid content fork in its own right. Articles need to stick to the point far more than this section allows. Adding more references does not increase the need for coverage, it simply adds to what I believe to be undue weight within this article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * regarding your invocation of WP:SOAPBOX, can you please be more specific as to which content in particular appears to you to be opinion, rumor, self-promotion or other example, with specific reference to WP:SOAPBOX? thanks Hugh (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...stick to the point...The restaurant is not the contract award process." Your assessment of what is the "point" of this article is your opinion. The history of a restaurant is a legitimate subtopic within an article on a restaurant, and the contract award process is the single most important event in the history of this restaurant, in fact it is the single most notable aspect of this restaurant period, as ably shown by the vast preponderance of the neutral, reliable, verifiable sources. Is it your contention that histories of restaurants, particularly if deemed somehow unseemly, be forked so as to not interfere with the digestion of diners? We are not a tour guide. Regarding your suggestion I have no conflict of interest and no crusade other than that the story of the Park Grill get told in unbiased encyclopedic fashion, it's not like I got some bad onion rings, so I'll thank you to please stick to WP:PG and lay off the ad hominim. Hugh (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem that portions have become a crusade. I don't think there's a conflict, but the main editor may have become somewhat enamored with the sexy, political side of this story and is having trouble offering a NPOV. I would like to help edit this and have tried to do so anonymously, mainly in the section about the property tax case b/c I have a legal background and found it interesting. But I'm convinced that if I try to help, the edits will be reverted by the main editor partially because, yes, I'm new to WP and may not be doing everything right. But mostly as I've watched this article and tried to help it along, this is the pattern that sticks out to me... Someone comes in and makes suggestions and edits that would make this a more neutral article. Then main editor overwhelms other's edits/suggestions with pure time and energy spent on edits that seem to emphasize the contract process, and a non NPOV that pushes a clout angle. I honestly don't know what to do. Even the edits I think should be obvious changes (see comments about quotes from representatives of lawyers spouting losing legal theories outside of the court) are not allowed to stay in place. Hope someone w/ experience can help.Mjbda (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hope someone w/ experience can help" Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you will find your experience as a registered editor rewarding, and perhaps consider contributing to other articles, as well! Hugh (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the main editor may have become somewhat enamored with the sexy, political side of this story" please. it would help everyone if we could rely more on citing WP:PG and less on speculating on the motives of editors WP:AGF thanks Hugh (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I shouldn't have stated why I think there is undue influence, though it is clear to me that it exists from reading the policies.Mjbda (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I think there is undue influence...it is clear to me that it exists" nice drive-by! Care to be more specific Tom? My understanding is everything in the article is drawn from neutral, verifiable, reliable sources, and that in overview the article is a fair representation of RS. Hugh (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is Tom? Sure. "An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic." While the contract process is absolutely significant and crucial to the article, I don't believe, and apparently neither do some others users, that it is as significant as it is made out to be in the scheme of things for this restaurant's article based on the amount of verbiage it is given. Perhaps we need peer review as suggested. Plus the amount of verbiage given to Foxgrover, especially, seems designed to push a non-NPOV that she was doing something scarily unethical. It's a sexy story that embodies Chicago politics for sure, but is it really that significant to the restaurant in the grand scheme of things? And what, exactly, did Foxgrover do that is so important assuming the worst and that she was under the undue influence of the Grill owners? I have some questions about the logic of including everything that Foxgrover did that touched Park Grill. Did she recuse herself from the negotiations or from dealing with Park Grill or anything in general? I assume the negotiations, but I can't see those articles because links are only available to U of I students. So why, then, is it relevant that she recused herself from the negotiations, if that is so, and then after negotiations became involved with things that helped Park Grill, looking at that time line? At some point when it was clear that Park Grill and the Park District were in a partnership after negotiations, wouldn't it have been clear that the success of Park Grill was important to the success of Millennium Park, and wouldn't it have behooved Foxgrover to help the Grill? Why would her continuing the recusal be necessary at that point? Maybe missing something, but I just don't get why her actions are so relevant to take up a majority of the article. Hmm, what else...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbda (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts. thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have some questions about the logic of including everything that Foxgrover did that touched Park Grill." Glad you found the policies! It's not everything. There's more in RS that was not included in the interest of brevity. It's select examples which are required to demonstrate what "recusal" means in practice in this context (not much). It's select examples added in response to an objection from an earlier editor, "she recused herself, delete this section." Interesting theory, but your theories about the possible justifications of a person's actions are beyond the scope of WP. Hugh (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely not proposing my or anyone else's theory be included in the article. I'm proposing that there is no explanation from what she recused herself and that is absolutely crucial for the facts that follow. I can't see exact language of her recusal because I don't see the article. If it was, in fact, a recusal from specific park grill negotiations prior to the signing of the contract, which I'm guessing was the case because it makes sense for her to work more closely for the Grill once the contract was signed in order to do her job with the park district since they were then partners and not nemeses, then why is anything she did which touched Park Grill after the contract was signed relevant and significant in any way to this article about the restaurant? And why is it relevant to a paragraph that leads off talking about her involvement "well after" recusal? It's potentially misleading, irrelevant, and leads one down the path of a Non-NPOV based on one editor's clout narrative.Mjbda (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't believe, and apparently neither do some others" please speak for yourself, thanks Hugh (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have a legal background" Please see WP:EXPERT "Wikipedia is The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it does not make a distinction between editors based on their expertise." thanks Hugh (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying my edits should count for more. But I do think they should at least garner respect and not automatically become reverted as has been the operating procedure. "Reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive." It's not like I was adding legal terms of art. In fact, that quote which you were trying to keep was more based on legal theory and on comments from an attorney's representative who was vigorously advocating for a client, which is why I felt it was misleading. I'm only saying my legal background is what attracted me to that part of the article to the point where I felt comfortable editing specifically in that part, despite feeling uneasy and unsure about the POV of other parts of the article.Mjbda (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have a legal background" Welcome again to Wikipedia! Thank you again for registering! Given your interests I thought I might take a moment to let you know about a WP project you may not be aware of: WP:LAW. You might consider joining this project. I'm sure the project members have a backlog of interesting editorial work and no doubt one of the articles will intrigue you like this one did. Hugh (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A solution that works in other articles where there is controversy is to thrash the consensus out on the talk page for every POV or suspect POV edit. I agree that it appears to be one editor's opinions carrying the day by weight and enthusiasm, hence my flagging the undue weight here. The article has also been proposed for Good Article status when it is far from ready, as one may judge from the discussions about the entire article either here on in edit summaries
 * I don't care at all about the Park Grill, but I care about bad articles. My view on this one is that it is bad because it is now way off topic.
 * With regard ro conflict of interest, I see that what I wrote might be ambiguous. I am not accusing any editor of COI here. I meant that the section is about a conflict of interest. That COI, if notable, could have an article in its own right. I would support the splitting out of the section into its own article, noting the controversy in the Park Grill article, but not featuring it, as now, as a major part of the article Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I would support the splitting out of the section" Please reference WP:SPLIT or other WP:PG in support of your suggestion. Thanks. This article is well short of the guideline for length, may I respectfully ask, what is your justification for your suggestion? I oppose splitting. This article cannot be split without violating WP:NPOV in particular WP:DUE. My understanding is that split should not be used to segregate content deemed favorable from unfavorable. Hugh (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." WP:POVFORK Hugh (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"undue weight" Please include the AFD discussion at in your consideration of appropriate weight. Much of the content regarding the history of this restaurant was added in a collabartive effort to achieve notability. In turn, much of what may appear as excessive detail was added in support of content necessary to establish notability, that is, to address concerns expressed by editors regarding OR and POV; let the fact speak for themselves. Hugh (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been somewhat collaborative. Edits are suggested and done by other editors. It is vastly improved from where it was, but those edits cannot be matched by the pattern of enthusiastic overruling of others by one editor. Some of Off2riorob's were simply reverted. "Reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive." And more content about the contract process continued to be added on top of Off2riorob's and others' edits which added to the undue weight of the section.Mjbda (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"article about this restaurant" I understand how it may not be typical to read about such an episode in an article about a restaurant. But I don't have a preconceived notion about how an article about a restaurant should read. Do you? I do have an idea about how an article about the Park Grill should read, and, pardon me, it's that it should tell the story and fairly represent the RS. This restaurant is somewhat unique in that it was the subject of investigative journalism and wide-ranging press coverage, and not about its food. That's no one's fault. I don't think you can charge undue weight based on your impression that a section seems somewhat longish to you. WP is going to get longer and more detailed. Bottom line, the content is proportional to the RS. Please cite WP:PG in support of your contention of undue weight. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Step back from the article and look at it. It is hardly about the Park Grill any more. It is, instead, about the contact award process. Now, if the article is going to be about the contract award process then that's fine, but it has the wrong title and the sections are out of order.
 * Undue weight is undue weight. However you slice and dice it, the section carries undue weight. Propose it for peer review, something I will back you in, and you'll see what is said. But do take away the proposal for GA status, it just isn;t going to cut the mustard. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Undue weight is undue weight" WP:UNDUE provides us a quantifiable, objective measure: "How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." This is the case here. Hugh (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Step back from the article and look at it." Read the references and look at it. Hugh (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "It is hardly about the Park Grill any more. It is, instead, about the contact award process." The article is about a restaurant and includes a section on its history. The contract award process is the single most notable event in the history of this restaurant. The contract award process is the single most notable thing about this restaurant period, as per RS. But I repeat myself. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You do, rather. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Feb 11, 2005
I take issue with this part of the phrase. "On February 11, 2005 Daley said he is asking state lawmakers to impose tougher punishments on public employees who engage in misconduct, people who steal government property and companies that falsely claim to be owned by minorities or women to get government contracts, on the same day he was peppered with questions about why the Park Grill has not paid any property taxes and, as part of its deal with the Chicago Park District, gets free gas, water and garbage pick-up" I understand that it is taken from a neutral secondary source. But the bold part could be construed that the bolded part was specifically aimed at Park Grill (so is it relevant?) or, alternatively, construed to push the non-NPOV that Park Grill was one of those companies or that those involved were one of those public employees and that they are deserving of such a punishment. Again, can't tell much b/c link is only available to U of I students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbda (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mara Georges Quote
"In a Feb. 9 2005 letter to Park Grill partners O'Malley and Horan, Chicago's Corporation Counsel Mara Georges warned that the concession agreement "does not authorize your occupation of the Park Grill facilities" because the city owns the land and City Hall was not party to the agreement." Same issue as the last lawyer quote. Quotations "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Here it gives the article a non-NPOV by giving false credence to a quote from an apparent a city official which many people might find authoritative. When, again, lawyer rhetoric advocating for a client in a letter doesn't hold much weight in real life other than simple posturing. Also can't read article to clear it up. Link is not available to people outside the system. Mjbda (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you found the policies! Yes, quotes CAN be a backdoor method, but please don't read the policy as "quotes are to be avoided" or "quotes from lawyers are to be avoided" or "quotes from non-neutral parties are to be avoided." Quotes are OK. What about this quote violates NPOV in your view? The substance or the identity of the speaker or what? Hugh (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not. Just quotes from attorneys posturing. Would you be comfortable including a quote from PG att'ys espousing their response to this letter that included their legal theory? I wouldn't because it's rhetoric from a clearly non-neutral party.Mjbda (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Would you be comfortable including a quote from PG att'ys" well, I'm not sure you understand the quote policy yet, try reading it again. Possibly, we'd have to see it, without seeing it we can't decide, if it were neutral & dispassionate and a more concise statement than what we already have and contributed to the story, yeah. The identity of the speaker alone is not sufficient to show a quote is a NPOV problem. ok? Hugh (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "from an apparent a city official which many people might find authoritative" Are you uncertain as to whether the Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago Mara Georges is a genuine City official? FYI the Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago is head of the Department of Law of the City of Chicago, and if someone thought that voice was the authoritative voice of the City of Chicago in legal matters, they would not be mistaken. Hugh (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in this context she's acting as an advocate for a client (the city). This is how lawyering works. That's why it is confusing. This isn't an official gov't decree which Park Grill is ignoring. It's an attorney working for her client. That makes it rhetoric in and of itself and that doesn't belong on WP and, thus, runs afoul within the quoted the guidelines.Mjbda (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "That makes it rhetoric" um, no. What part of the 10 words "does not authorize your occupation of the Park Grill facilities" do you find rhetorical, non-neutral, or passionate? Hugh (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think it's non-neutral, again, because of the context. Perhaps it's not the quote itself, but the phrasing that is used to accompany it. Using "warned," when coming from someone acting on behalf of a government entity, for merely assertions of a legal theory in trying to get your opponent to renegotiate, is too strong of a word. Calling these assertions and not warnings sounds less loaded.Mjbda (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "warned" well, that's progress I guess, we're down to 1 word. "warned" is direct from RS, it is not my word. You could be very busy Wikipedian changing all the quote attributions in WP to "asserted" because you think it is less loaded, but before you do please read WP:SAY. Hugh (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "can't read article to clear it up" sorry, perhaps your local library could help, a working link to a reference is not required by WP. I think it would help if you had access to the references. Hugh (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "neutral, dispassionate tone" This quote from Georges is included precisely because it concisely states the City's argument for standing in the negotiation process, based on their position on ownership of the land under the Park Grill, in a neutral, dispassionate tone. Hugh (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The source of the quote is explicitly identified inline by name, title, and affiliation, more than adequately alerting astute readers to the possibility of a non-neutral point of view lurking in the 10 words between the opening and closing quotation marks. Hugh (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Foxgrover and recusal confusion

 * Clarification of the recusal is needed for a NPOV. The article currently only mentions a recusal took place and does not elaborate. Foxgrover's recusal was a recusal (www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341395/posts/ ... sorry, it's the only open link I found of the text to the article) "from negotiations." The phrasing of the source implies that recusal was for the length of negotiations and thus ended upon the signing of the contract. This current WP article seems to assert, however, that Foxgrover recusal was a "chicago-style" (apparently) one in which she recused herself from ever dealing with Park Grill in any way again in her job (as the sentence "Foxgrover remained involved in the Millennium Park restaurant long after she recused herself," implies), but instead she just ignored the recusal. This makes the article in its current form not of a NPOV as it encourages one to think of Foxgrover's post contract actions as her not abiding by the recusal. When, in fact from what I understand unless someone shows me otherwise, the recusal ended upon the signing of the contract at which point Park Grill and park district became partners, not adversaries in negotiation.WP:NPOVMjbda (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the recusal ended upon the signing of the contract" what is your reference on this? Hugh (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What does recusal "from negotiations" mean to you in reference 21 of this article? Negotiations is unambiguously the contract negotiations involved for the contract to run Park Grill is it not?Mjbda (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "sorry, it's the only open link I found of the text to the article" Please solve the problem of access to sources if you intend to participate. this is pretty fundamental. see WP:NPOV A vital component: good research, thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does lack of access make one ineligible to participate? Honest question. I will "recuse" myself if so.Mjbda (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. There are many ways to participate in WP w/o doing research! But editing articles to repair perceived WP:NPOV and in particular WP:UNDUE problems is not one of them. see WP:NPOV A vital component: good research. Thanks, Hugh (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I was not doing research. Just don't have access to some of the links.Mjbda (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Are you implying the link to the article is not an exact transcription? I think it's fair to point this link out to prove to all that the article includes the phrase "from negotiations" which the current article leaves out. Do you not think that phrase is significant?Mjbda (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "from what I understand unless someone shows me otherwise" whoa, please read & understand WP:NOR Hugh (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand it. I apologize for being rough around the edges lacking an ability to recall WP policy off the cuff. Let me rephrase. I assert that recusal "from negotiations" (as described in reference 21 of this article) is clear. And unless one of the articles I can't access (does lack of access make one ineligible to ask for help from collaborators who do like yourself?) has a more clear depiction of her memo or recusal to which I am not privy, then recusal "from negotiations," negotiations being unambiguously Park Grill contract negotiations, is the definitive description of the recusal.
 * "This makes the article in its current form not of a NPOV as it encourages one to think..." Dates for the recusal letter, contract signing, and for each mentioned illustrative example of post-recusal participation are in RS and in the article. All the facts necessary to support your theory are unambiguously stated without OR. Please see WP:DECISION. Let the facts speak for themselves. A WP article may admit to multiple interpretations. A WP article on a contentious issue is required to admit multiple interpretations. A WP editor is not required to structure an article so as to assure than no reader anywhere could ever possibly draw a given conclusion. Hugh (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, this post-negotiations partnership makes including the pure quantity of text and depth of detail dedicated to much of Foxgrover's actions in the article after the signing of the contract (Feb 11, 2003), and subsequent ending of the recusal, at the least very least giving undue weight to matters that are barely significant to the restaurant and to the contract process, though verifiable. It's tough to see how such detailed Foxgrover's actions in working with Park Grill as a partner after the point the contract is formed are as significant as indicated as implied by the current article. At best, this attention to Foxgrover is giving undue significance. At worst the timeline of actions are included to be misleading and push a non-NPOV discussed above. I propose that those paragraphs dedicated as a timeline for Foxgrover's involvement once negotiations were finished (From "Foxgrover remained" to "Meigs field" (all of which happen after Feb 11) be completely removed or replaced with something to the effect of "Upon conclusion of the contract negotiation process, Foxgrover continued her job with the Park District, in a role that put her once again in contact with Park Grill."WP:UNDUEWP:NPOVMjbda (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "At best, this attention to Foxgrover is giving undue significance." The weight is not undue by the objective, quantifiable criteria of WP: most RS that mentions the Park Grill also mentions Foxgrover. Hugh (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We agree. I'm certainly not advocating writing her completely out of the article. But how many of the reliable sources mention Foxgrover and the timeline of her post-contract actions? Not a lot that I see.Mjbda (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Park Grill WP article does not state that Foxgrover or anyone else did anything right or wrong. Any number of theories legal or ethical or otherwise could be devised to argue one way or the other. That's not what we do. WP:NOR Hugh (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying it states it outright. I'm saying the undue emphasis implies it.Mjbda (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the recusal ended upon the signing of the contract" You are advancing a theory which is not supported by RS WP:NOR regarding a hypothetical "recusal period."
 * No, advancing that the term "from negotiations" is necessary. Perhaps not articulating it well in this discussion because I thought negotiations ended once the contract was signed. Do you interpret "from negotiations" another way?Mjbda (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The date of the recusal letter is in RS and in the WP article. The sentence you are concerned with is taken directly from RS and paraphrased in multiple RS.
 * Indeed. But with the two words "from negotiations" left out. There is no record of her contributing to negotiations post-recusal. And there are two paragraphs of her actions that take place, actually, after negotiations. Subtle, but "from negotiations" is an important distinction for a person to understand those two paragraphs worth of actions. I've added it.Mjbda (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All the sentence says is that F continued to be involved after she recused herself. In any case the period of time after your hypothetical "recusal period" is subsumed by the period of time after the date of the recusal letter. Hugh (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it says "long after." I've adjusted the sentence so it does not pass judgment upon what "long after" recusal is, focusing more on the facts for NPOV.Mjbda (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have offered some edits, but left it in a state that still I feel gives undue emphasis to Foxgrover. Hopefully some others can share their opinionsMjbda (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand WP:UNDUE. How you feel is irrelevant. Weight in a WP article is by definition proportional to WP:RS. Please review these policies. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how helpful, collaborative, or appropriate it is to tell other editors what they do and don't understand. Why is how an editor feels about undue weight irrelevant? Deciding what is proportional takes some estimation, does it not? Is there a quantifiable, exact, scientific approach to undue weight I'm not aware of? If not, it's just too bad that one editor's (possibly more based on the tag which was added by another) estimation of what is proportional to the significance given to it by reliable sources is a merely an opinion that is to be ignored, whereas one editor's idea of what is proportional is correct.Mjbda (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't presume to know what you know or don't know. What I said was I don't think you understand WP:UNDUE Hugh (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Is there a quantifiable, exact, scientific approach to undue weight I'm not aware of?" I don't know what you are aware of or not aware of. Hugh (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE: How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to repeat myself, but it's clear I'm not explaining myself well or not in terms that are customary for wikipedia. I apologize for that. The most troubling part to me is, based on the amount of text and detail dedicated to it in the article, it looks like Foxgrover's most significant involvement took place after negotiations in the timeline of events from Oct. 2003 to Feb. 2005. When the amount of coverage she has received from the research I've done does not reflect that that timeline and those actions were as significant as this article leads the reader to believe. Her most significant contribution according to RS is, by far, the child she had during negotiations. The undue weight comes from including every single documented event involving her that touched Park Grill beyond that in such great detail.Mjbda (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "every single documented event involving her that touched Park Grill beyond that" Not every single example of F's post-recusal involvement is included. Additional examples of F's post-recusal involvement are documented in RS but not included in the subject WP article in the interest of brevity. If it would help in your evaluation of the significance of F's post-recusal involvement, I could add additional examples and RS refs. Hugh (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it your understanding that a paragraph may not have a lead or topic sentence if it also has detail, because if it did, it would be excessive or violate WP:NPOV? Hugh (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I get it: you don't like the lead sentence of this paragraph, you don't like the detail in this paragraph, you don't like this paragraph. Hugh (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RR Hugh (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're going to agree. The sentence is seriously misleading in light of the fact that recusal was from negotiations and because it could be confusing, why not just take it out? Especially when the detailed timeline is included and it's clear that she was involved? Can we get another opinion? For this and the entire section?Mjbda (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination is premature
The article should be peer reviewed first. It is not yet fit for GA status since there is a dispute over the weight of a major section. To help prepare it for peer review I have run the automated peer review tool over it:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * done Hugh (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
 * done Hugh (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, won't, didn't, wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * done Hugh (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Park Grill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815091926/http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/4171.html to http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/4171.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Park Grill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://chicagoist.com/2011/03/25/park_grill_owners_looking_to_sell.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403035550/http://chicagoist.com/2005/06/14/the_way_they_make_you_feel_trib_ranks_best_burgers.php to http://chicagoist.com/2005/06/14/the_way_they_make_you_feel_trib_ranks_best_burgers.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)