Talk:Dolton, Illinois

History

Maybe someone could add the history to this stub-article. Some information are given on the homepage of Dolton, but I guess more information is needed. --Sebbe xy (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dolton, Illinois. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801113624/http://www.cookcountyclerk.gov/ to http://www.cookcountyclerk.gov

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of harassment and misspending

I added information pertaining to the ongoing allegations of harassment going on in the city, and it was reverted by @Magnolia677: with an explanation of These were all published today; this isn't a newspaper. Actually, the articles were published several days ago, but that is neither here nor there.

Mention of the WGN TV investigation is warranted in the article because it actually is a meta-story, and are the results of an investigation into prior allegations; instances which received coverage from other news outlets previously. The WGN News article positions itself that way: It’s a town in turmoil. Village Board meetings erupt into chaos amid allegations of misspending and harassment. And lawsuits accuse officials of targeting political opponents. It’s becoming a regular occurrence in south suburban Dolton. Prior reporting makes it clear this is not just the news of the day, on-going coverage has been demonstrated. and due weight requires mention at this point. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

References

This is a criticism by one local news outlet. Find some additional sources to support that this really is a story with enduring notability, per WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I supplied references from two other news outlets (above). A very quick Google makes it clear that the harassment issue has been covered multiple times over the past year by those and other reliable sources. This is not "news"... this is reporting on a long-standing and on-going situation in Dolton, as the WGN source put it: It’s becoming a regular occurrence in south suburban Dolton.

I am of the opinion that encyclopedia article should be enough to bring one reasonably up-to-speed on an issue... enough so that so that one could consider oneself "briefed" about an issue, just by reading the encyclopedia article. This is not a universal opinion, obviously, as we see here. In this case, someone wanting to get up to speed and be "briefed" on Dolton would be left woefully uneducated about high-level and very public goings on in with its government, from reading our article. Our article is, in its current state, a failure in that mission, considering the level of coverage this humble town of about 20K residents has received. Such editorial practices literally require the diligent reader to go elsewhere in order to be assured of being adequately educated. It is continual glaring holes in articles like this which require our readers to not trust Wikipedia to provide a proper and complete high-level briefing on a subject. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Lawsuits happen all the time, and their contents are merely allegations. However, your many reliable sources seem to indicate dysfunction in the local government. I'll self-revert. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not there is actually dysfunction in Dolton's government is irrelevant for our tasks as editors. This is purely a due weight issue. Thanks, though. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This actually raises competency questions. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marcus Markup: Which ones? Please be specific. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That you admit to judging sources not on their reliability or their weight, but on whether you agree with them or not. As I said, Whether or not there is actually dysfunction in Dolton's government is irrelevant for our tasks as editors. This is purely a due weight issue. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marcus Markup: Again, which specific competence issue are you referring to, per WP:CIR? --Magnolia677 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not cite the WP:CIR essay. I'm moving on. If you want to haul me in to ANI for sullying your reputation, be my guest. Also, you can stop pinging me with every reply... I am watching the page. Marcus Markup (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)