Jump to content

Talk:Dorothy Tillman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from Vfd

[edit]

On 18 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dorothy Tillman for a record of the discussion.

discussion

[edit]

I did some moving around to have text grouped more appropriately. I also added the controversy and corruption section and added the HWCC and the "waitergate" sections.

Spotsdoes 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page mostly wiped out?

[edit]

In the last two months the article was whittled down from a modestly detailed biography to a nearly-empty page for no reason that I can discern. I have reverted it back to its version from February 28. If there is some reason all of the text should have been removed as such please let me know. Fractalchez 00:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I've got a discernable reason for you. An IP registered to the city government of Chicago [1] has repeatedly removed sourced, negative information about Ms. Tillman. She is currently facing a hotly contested runoff election [2] (see 3rd ward section). This is not the first time I've seen political operatives sanitizing wikis about Chicago aldermen - check the history of Richard Mell. I reverted to your last version; I'm going to keep an eye on this page in the future. Cheers, Skinwalker 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifist?

[edit]

Dorothy Tillman is listed in the Category Category:American pacifists, but I have not been able to find any verification of this. I'm seen some circumstantial evidence that she might be, but no statement from her or anyone else that she is (though she might fit into Category:Anti-war activists. Removing until evidence is found. Much thanks. Fractalchez 03:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifists don't whip out pistols at city council meetings. I concur with your removal. Skinwalker 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

I restored the controversy section. Some of the linked references were dead, so I tracked down live links and replaced them. None of this material is sourced to blogs - it is all sourced to reputable reputable media in Chicago, and thus does not violate WP:BLP. I'd appreciate if there could be discussion before information is removed in the future. I did not replace the external link blogs - I agree that they needed to go. Skinwalker (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed two sections again.
  • One was sourced to an editorial column (not a reliable source for BLP facts,) and only says that some say Tillman brandished the gun. [3]It also contained unsourced statements, about calls from alderman etc. I don't doubt that there are a reliable sources out there for this, but we need to find it first.
  • I have also removed the section about the candidates meeting, which seems to be more about her daughter and staffer than anything else. It is also sourced to a rather sensationalistic article in an alternative weekly, which isn't the best source for a BLP article.
Please note that as I said at the BLP noticeboard, [4] there are probably lots of interesting, well sourced things to say about this lady. I note some interesting events in the last month, for example. But it needs to be written neutrally and sourced appropriately.--Slp1 (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Is the information about the Caucasian employees sueing in the newspaper article? I can't see it. And is it really relevant to this article, do you think? Slp1 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They sued sometime after the included article was published. This[5] article discusses the suit. I think it's relevant, as there was a fair amount of local press coverage of the incident that mentioned Tillman. As for the pistol incident, I agree that the editorial I sourced may not be the best reference. Here's[6] a better one from the Washington Post (yes, this made national news) that specifically attributes the act to her. Can we use this source?
The candidates meeting material can be excluded, since it revolves around her daughter and not her, but I wouldn't discount everything that comes from the Chicago Reader. Alternative paper, yes, but their reporting on city politics is notably better and more in-depth than the docile (and fairly servile) coverage typical of the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times. For instance, they broke the Jon Burge police torture scandal at a time when the Trib and Sun-Times refused to pick up the story. The implications of the scandal are still felt 18 years later in coverage of police misconduct and the death penalty in Illinois.
I would prefer to leave Ms. Tillman's recent incident out of the article on BLP grounds. It happened after she left office, and seems comparatively minor. This article should focus on her service as an alderman, I think. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know nothing about Tillman, but have now done a bit of a survey of material about her and downloaded some full articles about here which I can send you if you like. For the specifics of your questions
I do not thinking the suing of the hotel is relevant and should be removed. It is only tangentially related to her and several news articles confirm that she was not named in the suit. In fact I will be removing it after saving this.
Just so you know, from my quick survey it seems that the Chicago reader had their own incident with Tillman in the history, which might make them a bit less kindly disposed to her. But anyway we seem to be agreed about not including this.
Most references to the gun story are careful to use the word 'alleged'. Even the article from the Washington Post you cite distances itself from accusing her by quoting the Tribune and unnamed sources etc. The WashP article is called a 'letter' which only indicates that it is opinion piece too. This section would need to be written very carefully and stick very closely to the sources.
The tone of the controversy section is not very neutral, and seems to contain some original research type things, which I will clean up. --Slp1 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Chicago Alderman" section

[edit]

This part is pretty blatant pro-Tillman puffery. It really needs to be rewritten, or perhaps just pared down to the bare facts.—Chowbok ☠ 22:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed one line about property values increasing during Tillman's tenure: unless there is some verifiable statement by some reliable source that this is causation and not correlation, this seems to clearly violate WP:OR. As for the rest, I'm having a hard time telling exactly where the line between relevant fact and hagiography is, so I'll leave this to others for now. Thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dorothy Tillman. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dorothy Tillman. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorothy_Tillman&oldid=1195373820"