Talk:Chicago/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

Archives: Sep 2005 - Feb 2006

Removal of Section Headings

I have noticed that someone has been changing the sub-section headings in the transportation section into simple bold text. I assume that this is an attempt to shorten the TOC, however I think it would be better for the article to have a consistent format. Also, this method of heading sections seems to violate the Manual of style, which is supposed to be a standard for all articles. I have changed the bold text back to headings pending further discussion. --Gpyoung talk 23:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Turkish section of Chicago?

Is anyone aware of a Turkish immigrant population in Chicago? If so, where?119 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

See my message on your talk page. Dralwik 01:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

politics

While Daley is obviously a democrat, city elections are officially non-partisan. Does this fact deserve some mention? Tedernst 20:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following: All precincts of the city voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. I verified the contrary at the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners website. For example, in the 50th ward where I live, precinct #s 25,40,41,44,45 voted for Bush over Kerry. It's true that all wards voted Democratic in both elections. 67.39.182.69 00:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the above edit, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. WBcoleman 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The article calls the machine the Chicago Democratic Machine. Isn't the proper term Chicago Regular Democratic Organization? WBcoleman 04:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

part of O'Hare in Dupage

Where the DuPage County, Illinois page talks about a small part of O'Hare that is in Chicago also being in Dupage has a link to a Maqquest map that doesn't say anything. We need to find a citeable reference for this. This referece is the basis of the Chicago page showing Dupage as well as Cook. -- User:Tedernst

Chicago - A very small part of the City of Chicago covering a western section of O'Hare International Airport falls within DuPage County's boundaries.[1]
Microsoft MapPoint shows this ORD map, with the county line clearly visible going through ORD. The entire southwest corner of ORD is in Du Page. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this reference cited in the article? Seems to me it should be. Tedernst 16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Does it really need to be? I'm not sure we need it. If so, add it. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The point is that I deleted the link to Dupage because I didn't realize it was true. If there had been a reference, I might've followed up on it and not caused the problem. Someone then figured out it was my mistake and I'm asking for someone to update the page so some unsuspecting person in the future doesn't do this again. I don't have time to update the page. Tedernst 07:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have verified using US Census map information (at www.census.gov) that Chicago's municipal boundary does in fact cross the Cook County line into DuPage. Kelly Martin 19:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep, the census map information was referenced before on the earlier Talk page [[Talk:Chicago%2C_Illinois/Archive2#DuPage_County_part_of_City_of_Chicago]] before it got archived. All of this has long since been researched and confirmed, Part of the City of Chicago is in fact in DuPage, I'm not sure why this was ever under any dispute. MysteriousMystery 23:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Without a citation in the article, this non-obvious piece of information will continually be in dispute. With a citation, we'll never hear of it again, I'm quite sure. Tedernst 15:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is the link from the us census site. [[2] Chicago portion in Dupage County from U.S. Census.] I learned something new. It is hard to read but the light grey line is the the boundery between DuPage and Cook Counties. I tried to get a better image, but there site would not update properly in IE6. Part of census tract 8400 is within O'hare airport which is within the Chicago city limits. oclaros1 19:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Reputation?...

"Despite its prosperity and reputation as a safe city..." That's funny - I never knew Chicago had such a reputation. Can anyone site a source for this? SINGLES' BAR mitzvah 00:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wild Onions or Garlic?

Can anyone provide a reference to the origin of the name of Chicago. In some areas it is referenced as meaning 'wild onions' or 'skunk' and in the Early Days section of the main article it says "Garlic not onions" or "skunk."

Jasenlee 00:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem might be an overlap between the terms wild garlic and wild onion in English, and perhaps a different overlap or distinction in the Potawatomi language. Gene Nygaard 04:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Chicago City of Neighborhoods

As a Chicagoan, I've heard the phrase "Chicago, City of Neighborhoods"; perhaps the article can go into further depth about the various neighborhoods in Chicago: Chinatown; the Indian restaurants along Devon avenue; the gay and lesbian neighborhoods, etc.

Earthquake

Is this earthquake section necessary at all? You could mention a blurb of it in the climate part (about the fault line) but other than that it is irrelevant as all it did was cause a desk to vibrate. Otherwise we should include blizzards and other natural occurances that are not necessary as well.

I agree, there really isn't much of a reason for it.
I agree as well, it is of interest as a curiosity but in my mind that is all it is. Jasenlee 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: People and culture

The information in the people and culture section of this article is really informative. Does anyone know where to get information about the numbers of Asian Indians, Asian Pakistanis, Chinese people in Chicago? I will be more than happy to add that info to the article once I find it.doles 16:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That information can be found in the Encyclopedia of Chicago, published last year.Shsilver 23:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Silly redirect

Why on earth does Chicago redirect to Chicago, Illinois instead of visa-versa? Answar 23:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • After reading that page and seeing the opposition involved, it seems that it's one of those illogical conventions that one must deal with (like the US opposition to metric). It just makes us look inferior, when you consider for example Portsmouth and other foreign cities we named ours after and then look at something like this where it's automatically given second-level status. Oh well. Answar 23:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No style is adopted at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) for cities that do not have significant ambiguity issues. The only consensus is to use the [[city, state]] convention for names that have actual significant conflicts and disambiguation pages (e.g., Portland), just like for any Wiki page. But for a famous city like Chicago, there is considerable dispute as to whether the contrived and cumbersome convention should apply. The lack of significant conflicts, by the way, is indicated by the fact that the Chicago page is not a disambiguation page, but a redirect to this article. It seems obvious to me that the Wikipedia convention for common names should apply here, and this article be named Chicago. --Serge 00:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Jasenlee 22:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The basis for the name of this page is an alleged convention. There is a vote on whether the convention should apply in a case where there is no ambiguity issue, such as in Chicago (which is a redirect page to here). Vote here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) --Serge 06:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

One might want to adopt the style of the Associated Press. The AP Stylebook lists cities that stand alone (without state names) in datelines, such as CHICAGO -- , PARIS -- , and LONDON --. DavidH 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Great point DavidH, I agree with that style. Jasenlee 02:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Boldly redirecting within the hour. Using this argument as a citation. :-) --Rob 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Chicago Municipal Device (Y-Shaped Figure)

It would be cool to add an image of the Y-Shaped city symbol. I've seen it on some street traffic control boxes, but I don't have a picture.

The symbol is described in the muni code at: http://cpl.lib.uic.edu/004chicago/chiy.html

--Tiger Marc 06:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

History

I suggest the History section should focus on essentials, allowing for a long and more useful separate History article. Rjensen 23:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Earthquake

A minor earthquake which wasn't epicentered in Chicago really doesn't deserve as much prominence as it ha sbeen given in this article.Shsilver 14:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • All right... Could we add it under the last paragraph in the Climate Section? --Isipeoria 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but... not only do I think it still has too much prominence for something that wasn't even noticed by most Chicagoans, but I question the existence (or at least its misleading name) of the main "2004 Chicago Earthquake" article itself. See its talk page. TresÁrboles 06:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois --> Chicago

I placed a formal request to move the article's name under the supposition that Chicago is a world-class city — that is almost without doubt. If you object to moving the article, please list votes and reasons here. Thanks! --Rob 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. We have a perfectly good standard, and there's no reason to quibble about whether or not every city in the United States is unambiguous or overwhelmingly the most common or whatever. Gene Nygaard 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If it's a standard, please cite where it's spelled out. If it's not a standard, please don't say that it is, nor vote based on the premise that it is. Thanks. --Serge 19:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). Not quite a standard, but a guideline, and the Chicago question has been discussed on the talk page there. Jpers36 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Every U.S. city is titled in this format; the only exceptions, I believe, are New York City and Oklahoma City, as the state is part of the city name. Too difficult to decide where to draw the line for everyplace else; how many Akrons are there? MisfitToys 21:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
16, according to the dis-ambiguation page Akron. Georgia guy 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; but Chicago is also the name of things besides the city, including the musical play and film. MisfitToys 23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Non-issue. We already have Chicago (disambiguation) for all the other uses of the name, which is referenced at the top of the article. The Chicago page is currently simply a redirect to Chicago, Illinois. It should be the other way around. --Serge 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Shouldn't this discussion be at the bottom of the page? — goethean ॐ 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically, yes, but I thought it would get lost as it is a vote. I'll move it in a second. Conveniently, you can read the supporting positions for it in the "Silly Redirect" section... --Rob 01:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Personally the cities outside of the US need to change to the form city, country. Vegaswikian 08:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How many times do we have to go through this? older≠wiser 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    We will go through "this" repeatedly ad nauseum until you folks stop insisting that your contrived [[City, State]] format according to which a bot happens to have generated a bunch of entries is some kind of significant standard or convention. It isn't. And every entry that has been changed from its original name, like Chicago, to conform to this bizarre bot-generated format, is a blot on Wikipedia and embarrassment to its contributors. I, for one, will not stop pointing this out until you guys stop making the false claims about your bot-generated format being some kind of bonafide standard. It's a real shame. --Serge 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no Wiki "standard" for naming cities. There is a controversial proposed [[city, state]] convention for U.S. cities. Since it is proposed and controversial, it is not a basis to be relied on here. That leaves us with the standard Wiki convention for naming all articles: use the most common name, assuming no significant ambiguity issue. By that true standard, clearly Chicago is the most appropriate name for this article. This is axiomatic, and not even subject to a vote, it seems to me, unless the question of whether Chicago is the most common name used to identify this city is at issue, which it isn't. --Serge 19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
So, go to Category:Cities in Illinois and Category:Towns in Illinois and tell us how many do not follow the standard. We do have a standard here, and it is in fact a much, much stronger standard than many standards explicitly stated to be our standards. What we don't have is any consensus to change that standard. Gene Nygaard 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
That de facto "standard" is bogus. It was developed artificially by a bot creating most of the city names according to [[city, state]] format from a database. To give it the same weight as a convention naturally adopted by individuals creating one article at a time, which is what you are effectively basing your argument on, is disingenuous. --Serge 20:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
That is a very good argument for Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names), but it doesn't hold much water here. I don't like turning these decisions over to bot handlers either, and that shouldn't be given undue weight in determining what our standard should be. But this de facto standard shouldn't be attacked on a piecemeal basis on hundreds of different articles, either. Gene Nygaard 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is a de facto standard. Let's not waste time arguing over this stuff endlessly. -Will Beback 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    The reason there is "arguing over this stuff endlessly" is because the bot-generated contrived de facto "standard" you cite is bogus and violates the primary Wikipedia naming principle: use the commonly used name. There is no reason to name this page anything other than Chicago except to comply with this bogus "standard". Due to the lack of any legitimate reason for the current name, until it gets named back to Chicago, people are going to show up to propose it be changed. If you really wanted to stop all the "arguing over this stuff endlessly", you would vote to Support the change back to Chicago instead of to Oppose it. --Serge 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And all other cities should be named properly, too. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    If you really wanted all city articles to be named "properly" -- according to their commonly used names, rather than to conform to some arbitrary contrived default format that happened to be used by a bot to generate a bunch of city names -- then you would vote to Support this change. --Serge 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, logical. I recommend against debating individual votes, though. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I support Wikipedia's standard for the state namespacing of all US cities, including Chicago, and even New York City. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) for previous discussions about the standard, including specific mentions of Chicago. Based on this, a few months ago I personally fixed a couple thousand links to point to Chicago, Illinois rather than Chicago. Jpers36 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Any rational convention will permit exceptions for cause, even if the present wording was against this (which is doubtful). This is such an exception; there is no utility in redirecting, or piping every reference to Chicago, simpliciter. Septentrionalis 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support If this wasn't a global city we were talking about I would disagree, but seeing as it is, I think Chicago deserves the same kind of entry as London and Paris. Robovski 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 14:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A new proposal that would have the effect of moving this page to "Chicago" is being voted on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). -Will Beback 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Archive Pages

Why do we need multiple archive pages? Shouldn't there jsut be one? Jasenlee 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the use of multiple archive pages is to keep the size of each archive page down a bit, pretty important when you get talk pages with a further five archived pages! --Lox (t,c) 15:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Omission of New Eastside

Why is the New Eastside community missing from -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_areas_of_Chicago This is the area bounded by Michigan, Randolph, the River, and the Lake. (or Lake Shore Drive). http://forums.new-eastside.com

Is this an official community area? As I understand it there are 77 community areas and did a google search to see if a new one was added. I came up empty. Jasenlee 01:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The New Eastside is not a community area. It is a neighborhood of sorts, albeit one whose existence/definition is largely defined by developers. It's really a part of Community Area 32 (the Loop), though it arguably has much more in common with Streeterville (neighborhood in Community area 08 just on the other side of the river) than with the rest of the (largely business-oriented) Loop - it is dominated by relatively high end, high rise residential buildings. Babel17 21:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I grew up in Chicago, the 'New Eastside' is not an official community area, similar to 'North Bridge' or 'Shops at the North Bridge'. It is a marketing tool used by realtors to generate interest in moving into the condos and apartment buildings in that area, hence the New Eastside. As far as I know, it was known as Streeterville. Although, the 'New Eastside' is east of State Street, the east side of Chicago is located on the Far South Side. Here is the wikipedia entry about the East Side of Chicago, Community Area 52 - East Side. oclaros1 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying the name...

I know that plenty of people who are not native speakers of English will pronounce Chicago by starting it with "chi" as in "chin". Should we put a pronunciation guide like the one in Illinois? -- KittySaturn 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that also applies to Michigan. -- KittySaturn 23:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Put up the IPA transcription. -Iopq 09:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Columbia College article cleanup

Hello everyone, Columbia College desperately needs expansion and cleanup. For being the largest arts and communication school, and for its significant downtown presence, the article could use some help. Please vote for it or go to the article and go to town! -- Un sogno modesto 20:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Precipitation

Sitting here on a rainy Chicago day in January, I find that the National Weather Service lists the following seasonal "normal" precipitation figures (in inches): Spring (Mar-May), 9.36; Summer, 11.76; Fall, 8.99; Winter, 5.81 (total=35.92). [[3] -- DS1953 talk 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Best and most loyal fanbase

I moved the following statement, They have one of the best and most loyal fanbases in all sports. here from the Cubs entry under Sports because this kind of statement can only be used when it is reporting someone's opinion. Cite a verifiable source for this statement, and it can go back in. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Best is rather POV, but the loyalty seems quite appropriate to the Cubs entry - especially since the Cubs spent all of the 20th century not winning the world series and still sees high attendance figures. Robovski 00:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Link

What's wrong with this link? *Ethnic population of the Chicago Metropolitan Area

You can also add something about the Sears Tower. (Hpetwe 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

RE:Link I don't know, what's wrong? Wikipedia is not a guessing game, it's a encyclopedia. Jasenlee 01:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How to cover attractions?

I'm using this page as a guide while doing the Quincy, Illinois page. That said, the Attractions subsection there that I know I don't like in its current state doesn't seem to exist in the Chicago page right now. What would be the best practice for including something like that? —Rob (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Image change

I changed the infobox image from Image:Chiacgoskyline2005.jpg to Image:Chitown jc01.jpg. I realize this is probably not the best image to use, but the former image is about to be deleted for lack of copyright/source information. Please feel free to replace with a free use image. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

There have been a number of recent edits with information that is, at the risk of coming off badly, patently incorrect. I already fixed the area codes (I'll include links to NANPA later if necessary), and there are a number of other areas that need to be ammended. I don't have handy research on all of them so it will take some time, but I am going to immediately address (of all things) the deep dish pizza section. Lou Malnati's did not create deep dish pizza, and certainly did not popularize it prior to Pizzeria Uno, since the first Lou Malnati's opened in 1971. Rudy Malnati did, however, work at the place that deep dish pizza was invented (Uno). Perhaps he was the one who invented it while there, though even Malnati's own website doesn't make that strong a claim (it says that he "helped" create it). I am going to edit/revert accordingly. Links supporting this: http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/Pizza/PizzaHistory.htm, http://members.cox.net/jjschnebel/ddishpiz.html, http://www.foodreference.com/html/artdeepdishpizza.html, and http://www.loumalnatis.com/about/about.html. Babel17 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the pizza section, though I probably need to clean up my own sentences as I've been working in a bit of a rush and they don't have the best possible flow. I put in a bit of information on stuffed pizza and Chicago-style thin crust. Similar information is in the Chicago Cuisine article. I felt it was relvant to mention in the main article because the difference in pizza to be had in Chicago as compared with the rest of the country definitely goes well beyond Uno's. (In fact, speaking from anecdotal evidence, as a native I know more Chicagoans who eat stuffed or thin crust pizza than "deep dish" in the Uno's sense. Also to be noted, many people mis-identify what is actually stuffed pizza as deep dish due to the similarity.) That was a lot to say on the subject of pizza, but I suppose I'm feeling verbose at the moment.  :) At any rate, if anyone so desires, feel free to clean up my edits for style if I don't get to it first. Thanks. Babel17 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess we must all be careful, then, since even the links you provide for reference say that it is "probably" true and that it is the best "story" about the pizza - from rumor control during World War II, and is so far "undisputed" - although it is still a 'story' of sorts, there is no historical fact recorded (unless we can find it). The difference between deep dish and stuffed is that most of the better stuffed pizzas have less overall crust than the deep dish variety. There are two layers of crust, but neither has much thickness, whereas deep dish pizzas tend to have a thicker bottom crust. Either way, Lou Malnati's website has a direct statement that Rudy Malnati helped create it. However we debate it, we can write this up to give credit where credit is due. Rarelibra 00:01 15 FEB 06 (UTC)
I agree that credit should be given where credit is due, and I don't have any interest in taking away anything from Rudy Malnati. I agree that the website for Lou Malnati's says he helped create it; I mentioned that in my original post. However, that is not quite what the edited text in the article said, and my strong reaction to it was based on the fact that it seemed a bit like an ad for Lou Malnati's. Since I have seen Wikipedia used before to advance personal/"fanboy"-variety opinions far too often, those types of things get me irritated, and fast. Assuming you didn't intend that, I apologize if I seemed to overreact. I will also stipulate there is no definitive historical record on this, but there is a general agreement that Ike Sewell and Uno's are to be credited with the invention, or at least the first popularization of deep dish. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to go with this consensus and avoid what may border on original research. Without getting into a lengthy discussion on the problems of incomplete data, bias, or even worse, the poetics of historiography...: The past is always in some doubt anyway, and the best we can do is make a good faith effort to represent what we can best determine to be the "truth." I think in this case, the Uno's story (story though it may be), is the best we have to go on. (I would also add the disclaimer that I have no personal bias on this and am not attempting to glorify Pizzeria Uno or get into an OMGBBQWTF-UNOS-IS-BETTER-THAN-MALNATIS!!!!\\\1 type of argument. Not only does that have no place on Wikipedia, but arguing with people on the internet is, well, pointless anyway when you talk about that kind of argument. And quite frankly, as a matter of personal taste, I'm not a big fan of Uno's /or/ Malnati's.) Babel17 16:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to reply to my own reply, because I just saw that you (Rarelibra) have edited the article and turned it back into a Lou Malnati's ad. There is absolutely no support for the idea that Malnati's is the most recognized name in deep dish. Hardly. I doubt it would be the name that would come to mind if you walked around the Loop and did a word association test with "deep dish pizza." Now, I can't prove that without doing the research, but there is certaintly nothing to back up your claim, and it is absolutely 100% "original research" - minus the research. I see that you changed the wording so that Rudy Malnati was THE inventor of the deep dish pizza. This is ridiculous, and I don't want to get into a revert war, but I'm going to change that WITHOUT taking away the partial credit that Malnat deserves. I don't want to get all ad hominem here, but this makes me think you're a friend of the Malnati family or something. --update-- I have changed the article and am being very, very careful to be clear about the generally accepted truth without diminishing the accomplishments of either Rudy Malnati or Ike Sewell. There is NO reason for reinserting the unsupported claims that I have removed. Babel17 16:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the current write-up seems rather fair and complete. As far as the most recognized name in deep dish, that is what Lou Malnati's website states (and Uno/Due does not, nor does any of the other popular deep dish brands of Chicago). As a Chicagoan through and through, I have asked coworkers (city dwellers) about deep dish, and half the time the name is Malnati's. Take that as "research at heart", really. Lou Malnati's will deliver a pizza overnight on dry ice ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD (I've had this done in both Mexico and Germany). Can Uno claim this? Would this qualify as name recognition? BTW I am only sharing friendly debate with you, no advertisement, no revert war, nada. :) Rarelibra 00:47 1MAR06

NPOV

Enough is enough. The cliquish nature of the editing on this article, and the almost nonstop power playing by the well connected few are no secret. There is nothing even remotely NPOV about this article; when an entire category (local image galleries) keeps vanishing purely based on Jasonlee's individual personal preferences, and actual historical events (the Arctic express winter of 1981-2) can't even be mentioned because one of the in-kids living in Florida hasn't heard of it, NPOV has been gutted and left out for the scavengers. I could say something about some of the racial business in some of the related articles, but I think I've made my point.

I hesitated at responding to this due to your tone but since you feel so strongly I will. First please log in to Wikipedia if you have such a strong argument rather than just using the IP address of 65.182.172.120. Wikipedia is a community and in order for it to work we need to have forum discussions on our differences. I'll start by saying I'm not perfect and I have gone back and changed my own Wikipedia edits in the past and have even been embarrassed by some of the idiotic mistakes or poor writing I've put down but even still I won't stop working to make Wikipedia better. You see for me Wikipedia is about improving a little bit each day through thousands of people. It's better to make a little tweak here and there than try and make the Sistine Chapel all in one go.
Now with that said I personally don't believe I or others monopolize the content of this article but if you really believe that I encourage you to take a few steps. First, research the information you think needs to belong (i.e. Artic Express Winter) and make references in the Cite Sources section. Second take a look at the Wikipedia guidelines. I know that they are long in many cases and hard to remember (I mess them up from time to time and don't know them all) but sometimes you'll find there are really good reasons for these standards if you read them... and what's more sometimes you are wrong. And in the case of the Local Image Galleries I do believe you are wrong and apparently so does JeremyA as he/she cited guidelines at WP:EL for removing this. And finally as a last step I would encourage you to use this discussion page to build a concensus for your beliefs if you have a disagreement. If you have a strong enough argument we'll take a vote and then we can all move on. I assure that this process can work as all of those who were involved in the main article image voting know.
Also, I'd be highly interested in learning about the racial content as if it is I'd like to personally take a look and make sure that this is corrected if it is out of line. Please respond with the article titles and what you noticed. Thank you and good day. Jasenlee 07:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what this person that will not show who they are, IP address of 65.182.172.120, is getting at. I was raised and live in Chicago. The winter of 1981-2 was one of the coldest on record. I believe the coldest day was January 20, 1985 when the tempurature at O'Hare was -27 F, not including wind chill factor. I don't understand the 'in-kid' in Florida, I thought this page was discussing Chicago. As far as the racial articles, which ones? You do not specify. So far, I don't find the articles offensive. oclaros1 21:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago/Archive_3&oldid=1050014365"