Talk:Cook County Democratic Party/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cook County Democratic Party

Does the Cook County Democratic Party have an article? Hugh (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they do. They probably ought to though. The Garbage Skow (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree, Cook County Democratic Party does not have an article, but should. I would like to wl to Cook County Democratic Party, for example, in the bios of members. Do you think Cook County Democratic Party should be a separate article from Cook County Regular Democratic Organization? Hugh (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it should be separate. In theory, it should be longer, and should contain a heading and paragraph about the Regular Democratic Organization, with a "For more information, see >...". That's what I think. There should be plenty to write a fairly large, detailed article about the CCDP. It's probably worth starting out in a sandbox until it's in good shape and then requesting deletion of the redirect from Cook County Democratic Part, and then moving the sandbox to that name. Good luck with your writing! The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. So, the separate Cook County Democratic Party article, separate from Cook County Regular Democratic Organization, don't you suppose Cook County Democratic Party would have a lot of duplicate content from Cook County Regular Democratic Organization? Hugh (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. The history of the Democratic Party begins long before the Regular Democratic Organization existed. The latter did not exist until about 1930-1931 when it was basically created by Anton Cermak. The modern Democratic party goes back into the 1800s. A lot has happened in the Democratic Party that had nothing to do with the Regular Organization... elections, many politicians, etc. I would imagine an article about the Party would be much broader and as I said, a subhead about this article with a paragraph and a link to this article. The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"I would imagine an article about the Party would be much broader" in talk space but in article space "The organization is not the Cook County Democratic Party itself, but a subset of it." which is it? diff Hugh (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. The Regular Organization does not equal Cook County Democratic Party. I've been very clear and consistent about that. As I've said above, the history of the Democratic Party in Cook County and Chicago has a great deal of history, reducing it to an article that is just about the Chicago Machine (essentially a clique that has existed on and off since roughly 1931) is like saying that the English aristocracy didn't exist before Henry VIII). The Garbage Skow (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

When you say Cermak "basically created" the Cook County Regular Democratic Organization, did he incorporate a corporation or register a political committee or otherwise establish an organization called the "Cook County Regular Democratic Organization?" Is that what he called it? Hugh (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Read this [1] which explains it in pretty clear terms. Particularly, The potent Democratic machine that dominated Chicago politics for nearly half a century formed under the leadership of Anton Cermak, a Bohemian immigrant of working-class origins. Are you planning on writing an article about the Democratic Party or not? There is more than enough material to have both an article about the Regular Organization and the Democratic Party. The Garbage Skow (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. It does not mention a Cook County Regular Democratic Organization. It mentions Democrats and Republicans and a Democratic machine. Did Cermak call what he created the "Cook County Regular Democratic Organization?" Hugh (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Democratic machine and Cook County Regular Democratic Organization are the same thing. You know it yourself. Are you planning on writing an article about the Democratic Party or not? This article can either be named as it currently is or can be renamed "Chicago Democratic machine" or "Chicago machine", all names it is recognized by. I don't care which. But the machine is not the party, and vice versa. The Garbage Skow (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. "The Democratic machine and Cook County Regular Democratic Organization are the same thing." Do you have a reference for this? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning on writing an article about the Democratic Party or not? Do you think they are not the same? The Garbage Skow (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous as the Party and the organization are one in the same. The "machine" generally refers to the party during the years after Cermak until either the defeat of Bilandic or Byrne or later - our article has cited, reliable sources documenting the organization's rise and fall as a machine, as well as its early history and continuation to the present . - Homeaccount (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"The "machine" generally refers to the party..." A WP guideline specifies how we are to refer to political parties:

The title used in reliable English-language sources both inside and outside the political party's county (in scholarly works and in the news media), should be preferred. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties)

Hugh (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That is my point. That is why the article should be moved to Cook County Democratic Party. I take it you also concede that the Cook County Democratic Party and the Cook County Regular Democratic Organization discussed in this thread are one in the same? That would be additional progress. -- Homeaccount (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues requiring a third opinion

I made another request. Perhaps the last two were unclear:

Opinion #1

Restoration of

1. the article template for geographic coverage;
2. the article template for coat rack; and
3. the sentence from the lead which identifies "machine" as a derisive term,

Opinion #2

• "the article template for geographic coverage"

The scope has been broaden significantly in the last week. While this tag was never called for, it certainly is not needed now.

• "the article template for coat rack"

The case being made is not that this article is a coat rack, but rather one editor feels it has POV issues. The NPOV tag remains on the article pending discussion.

• "the sentence from the lead which identifies "machine" as a derisive term"

This sentence does not belong in the lead section as it is not cited anywhere in the body. This sentence can be added back into the body with a reliable source. It could then be included in the lead.

--Homeaccount (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming point 3 has been conceded by Hugh. His addition of {{blpo}} to this page reminds us we are required to WP:BLPREMOVE contentious, uncited material. We seem to all agree on that. -- Homeaccount (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I want to start by saying one thing: YIKES!!! This article has gotten a whole lot of attention lately! 331 edits in the last 2 weeks... that's certainly something!} Firstly, regarding "geographic coverage"... that's completely bogus. Political parties do not operate under a geographically-balanced model; they focus naturally on their offices, and the homes, offices, and meeting places of their largest contributors (monetary and volunteer-wise). Thanks for your opinion. Political parties in Illinois, as in many US states, operate at state and county levels; and within the Cook County Democratic Party, the nominal subject of this article, are two committees: one comprised of Chicago ward committeemen and another of suburban township committeemen. AFTER the "geographic coverage" tag was reverted, some progress has been made toward balance, but, fundamentally, far & away most of the content of this article remains a non-neutral POV on Political history of Chicago. Note for example the lack of focus on party chairs compared to the focus on Chicago mayors, and then note the reverts in the edit history of edits which attempt to subhead the long sections about Washington, Byrne, and RJD as to their actual content. For example, the section headed "Under Tom Lyons" has one sentence that mentions that Party chair in two long paragraphs about Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, then note the revert of the subheading edit. Hugh (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Regarding political machines: "Political machine" is more accurately defined as a subjective term, not a derisive one. Much like the term "heap." Trying to define a political machine would be a lot like trying to define a heap. One grain of rice (or even five grains) are not a heap; however, a heap of rice as tall as you are certainly is. If you remove one grain from the heap, it is still a heap. At what point does the heap cease to be a heap? Likewise, at what point does a "grassroots movement" transform into being a "political machine?" Much like a heap of rice, I can tell you when I've seen one, but I can't necessarily define it accurately. This seems like more a comment on Political machine than Cook County Democratic Party. Hugh (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC) A funny thing is that an article making heavy use of the term "political machine" came out on the same day that this went to page protection. Whether your opinion is, "I'm not part of some horrible machine, MY party recognizes ME as a PERSON!!!" or you believe that "OUR party's political machine can really get things done!!!", the goodness or badness of the term is really up to the individual to decide. Some people will hate the term; that certainly doesn't mean that everyone does. "Some people will hate the term" Thank you for this. We're done! Let us relate this conclusion to WP:BLP considerations. While not technically a BLP, the nominal subject of this article is an existing group of living persons, a group with a century of history, and the article contains material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, and many living persons involved in the subject matter. Thus we have an additional burden of neutrality, and neutrality applies to naming and word choice. This page was moved from Chicago machine (political machine). I believe this move was non-neutral, as it blurs an important distinction between a part and a whole. But if that move is accepted by the community, minimally, the lead of this article should explicitly explain that Political machine is an acceptable synonym for Cook County Democratic Party, WP:MOSBOLDSYN, WP:R#PLAT. Then WP:NPOV and BLP as applied to groups require us to explicitly in text mention that "machine" is derogatory to be consistent with ourselves at Political machine. But it is not a synonym, it is part of the story. Outside of one sentence in the lead which explicitly labels the term "political machine" as an derogatory epithet, and delineates the distinction in terms of years, any sentence in this article of which "political machine" is a subject or object invites increased scrutiny as off-topic, non-neutral, and/or non-encyclopedic in an article on the nominal subject of the Cook County Democratic Party. Outside of the lead, the derogatory term Political machine is completely unnecessary except in service of a POV push. We have a goodly variety of perfectly acceptable neutral alternative terms to use for the subject of this article, including the nominal title, Cook County Democratic Party, "the Party," and "the organization." Further, experienced careful encyclopedia editors will note that the term "political machine" is an excellent red flag for quickly zeroing in on extraordinarily sloppy writing. "Living Person X rebuilt the machine" is nothing more than bad writing, so bad as to be wholly unencyclopedic. What was built? How did he build it? What were the facts and events? It's easy to write about a "machine," and fun!, writing for an encyclopedia is hard. Note that this article cannot even agree with itself on when this thing "the Machine" started or stopped, completely unsurprising as the popular writers of machinology do not agree, but this article papers over this discrepancy in its sources by postulating a series of machines that are born and die; "machines" come & go like dragons I guess. "The Machine was revived..." was bad writing in Star Trek: III and it's bad writing here. So, in summary, equating the Cook County Democratic Party with Chicago machine (political machine) conflates the whole with the part and is unnecessarily offensive to living persons, non-neutral, and unencyclopedic. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Not at all. Some people hate the term "African American," and have gone on record as saying so. It doesn't mean that we quit referring to people by that descriptor. The fact that some people hate the term "political machine" is not of itself a reason to not use it. Secondly, calling the "Chicago Machine" redirect non-neutral says absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. The material question isn't whether the redirect is neutral, it's whether people searching for "Chicago Machine" will find what they're looking for on this page. Despite the fact that I think that this is a good candidate for that redirect, the redirect question is another subject entirely. Don't muddy the issue. You do make a good point that saying "Person X rebuilt the Chicago Machine" is less-than-factual. However, the role of an encyclopedia is not to be an endless compendium of facts, but to present information in a clear and concise fashion. (The article on the Civil War states who won, not just a list of "facts" on this battle, that battle, this appointment, that resignation.) I don't know who or what comprised the Chicago Machine in its heyday, but it certainly did exist and merits inclusion in the appropriate articles. On the other hand, the term may be overused here. Perhaps there are better terms to use than "political machine" at several points in the article. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC) "The article on the Civil War states who won, not just a list of "facts" on this battle, that battle, this appointment, that resignation." Does WP say Abe Lincoln won the Civil War? and stop there? Does WP summarize to the exclusion of facts and events? The content in this article on the Chicago machine (political machine) relies too heavily on a Great Man theory of the Political history of Chicago, but we are discussing how to improve an article on the Chicago machine (political machine) and forgetting the issue of the coat racking of Chicago machine (political machine) on this Cook County Democratic Party coat rack. Hugh (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC) We have to be able to call African-Americans something to tell the story of Africa and America on wp, so we try to find the least offensive, most neutral term available. We have several terms for the Cook County Democratic Party that are more accurate in delineating the class and more neutral than "Chicago machine." We can provide some variety in our prose by mixing up the official name with "the Party," "the Cook County Democrats" or "the County Democrats" once context is established. "Chicago machine" is a derogatory epithet and also complete unnecessary for us to tell the story. Hugh (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I'm a member of WP:CHICAGO, and a Chicagoan. There's Democrats here. (Maybe some want to punish us for that.) When in conversation I discover a neighbor with a mutual interest in local political lore, and I say, "You know, you might enjoy contributing to Wikipedia," I fully expect to hear "Wikipedia will never let me tell the story." At this point I'm comfortable explaining, "You're right, wp has some pretty strict editorial policies, and they might seem strange and baroque at first," but, if I have to explain, "Oh, by the way, we've agreed to use 'Chicago machine' interchangeably as a synonym for 'Cook County Democratic Party,' you don't mind, do you?" we're hosed - we can't grow our project and attract diverse POVs without a real commitment to neutrality. Hugh (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC) You're arguing points I've already conceded. Yes, we need to fix POV issues. However, that doesn't mean that we make demons look like angels to appease potential Wikipedians of one political party or another. Call a spade a spade. Tell the story from NPOV. Fix POV issues where they exist. I don't know about the political history of Chicago, and it's not really an issue I care about all that much; I just dropped by to give a simple 3O. You know much more about the issue than I do; I don't know what literal body was best called the "Chicago Machine" -- in the brief reading of it, it seems that Daley had his own machine that was fully independent from the Cook County Dem Party, which would imply that Daley's Chicago Machine really doesn't belong in this article. I cordially invite you to fix the issues you're bringing up. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC) "Call a spade a spade." ouch! Hugh (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Finally, the coat rack. I think that the coat rack is really the hardest thing to address here. One question I'd ask is, when most people think of the Democratic Party of Cook County, Ill., do they think of the political machinery of the Daley era, or do they think of who's running for office for county auditor in the midterm election? I think the article should focus on both. It currently seems slanted toward the historical side, and covers that very well. While a little more coverage of the modern party would be beneficial, I see no reason to call this a coatrack article. Among other things, coatrack articles are by definition biased. The historical side of the article appears to be fairly neutral. Jsharpminor (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC) "The historical side of the article appears to be fairly neutral." I'm astonished at this assessment. To take one easy example of a POV that is abundant in RS but conspicuously absent from this article, how about the POV that the "Chicago machine" does not exist? If you are going to write about at thing at length is it not incumbent to mention a competing POV that it is not even a thing? Perhaps it is not mine or your POV but it is represented in RS, and we are tasked that coverage in our articles be proportional to RS. What about the historical figures and living persons mentioned in this article, might it be important to mention their POV? Were RJD or RMD ever asked about "the machine?" What did they say? Should we at least mention that? Further, the article dwells too heavily on causality, as opposed to facts and events, for example, relying too heavily on Great Man theories. To take one of many obvious examples of this pattern "Under the leadership of Anton Cermak, a Czech American, the party consolidated its ethnic bases into one large organization." The historic fact is that the diversity of the Party changed over time, but so did diversity in the City as a whole with waves of immigration, and implying that Party diversity may be attributed to any individual is so simplistic as to be unencyclopedic, ignores competing theories, and is grossly unfair to the many courageous immigrants and sons and daughters of immigrants who screwed up the gumption to walk into a ward office and ask for a job or precinct. More generally, the article is non-neutral in relying too heavily on an overly simplistic explanation of Chicago political history as a succession of bosses. So, in summary, in addition to being off-topic here, the treatment of Chicago political history is non-neutral. Hugh (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC) You're really pushing your own POV here. The Chicago machine doesn't exist? If there ever was a political machine, Richard Daley had one. To say otherwise defies all sense. Yes, "Chicago-style politics" is presumed to be dead in modern times, by many... but you'll find many others that point fingers at such names as Blagojevich, Emanuel, and others, to make a convincing case that Chicago-style politics are alive and well. It may be well said that the information you are referencing belongs in a different article. Which article should it be moved to? Jsharpminor (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC) (I don't recall stating my POV, it is irrelevant, we are called to write in POVs other than our own). "The Chicago machine doesn't exist" was mentioned as ONE example of MANY legitimately held POVs conspicuously absent from this article, however counter-factual, a POV readily available in RS, and a POV deeply held by many of the historical and living persons covered as actors in this story; further, this non-neutral content is off-topic in an article nominally about the Cook County Democratic Party. Thanks for your agreement on the point of the wide divergence of opinion on the "health" of the "machine," this problem illustrates the fundamental issue of the non-encylopedic nature of the "Chicago machine" telling of the story of the Political history of Chicago (again, the Political history of Chicago being off-topic here). Hugh (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC) So basically, we move most of the content to Political History of Chicago, point the redirect there, include a few opposing POVs such as the idea that the Chicago Machine is a figment of right-wing imagination, and we're set? Sounds like a plan to me. I don't know if you'd like to continue this discussion somewhere else, but it seems to be relevant to discuss the idea that the Chicago machine did in fact exist, and even suggesting otherwise is somewhat analagous to mentioning in the Barack Obama article that some people have much documentation to support the idea that he is from another solar system. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC) "move most of the content on Political History of Chicago" The content in this article on Chicago machine (political machine) would be more appropriate in Political history of Chicago, but has many problems such as WP:NPOV, over-reliance on one source, quality of RS, some OR, and over-reliance on causality and Great Man theory at the expense of facts and events, and so we would be doing Political history of Chicago no great favor without serious rewriting. And I hope we would agree that Barack Obama's own statements about his origins be included in any wp article about the origins of Barack Obama; the POV of the various "bosses" themselves are conspicuously absent from the off-topic material here on the Chicago machine (political machine). Hugh (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Requested move The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Democratic Party of Cook County → Cook County Democratic Party – The subject of this article is a currently active group with many hundreds of thousands of living registered members. The proposed move is non-controversial; it is to the official name, as registered with the Illinois Secretary of State, the Illinois State Board of Elections, and most significantly on the contact page of the group's self-published website. Also, one-week old consensus on this move above on this talk page. Page is currently edit and move blocked, but not for the name. Hugh (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Support I think this was approrpiate for a WP:BOLD move. What is the consideration here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Hi Tony, thanks for stopping by and thanks for your support. I agree, the move is non-controversial, but perhaps an abundance of caution is warranted as this content was moved to its current name just a few weeks ago, 23 March 2013‎. Admin is required at this time. Please be bold AFAIC. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Support There was consensus on this in a thread above. -- Homeaccount (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. "Machine" is a derogatory epithet for a group of living persons Really? You need a rs ref that "machine" is a derogatory epithet? Because you're not sure? Really? How about common sense? We are allowed to use common sense on wp, you know. If you were introducing RJD at a speaking engagement, might you say, "Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the undisputed Boss of the Chicago Machine..." If you ran into RMD on the street, would you shake his hand and say, "Great job rebuilding that Chicago Machine, sir!"? Failing common sense, any way you might check with wikipedia? Not to blindly accept everything on wp, might you accept William Safire, one of our leading political rhetoricians? Hugh (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Having just written the 3O above, I feel the need to respond to this. Calling someone the Boss of the Chicago Machine sounds to me like you're introducing a retired politico for a Lifetime Achievement Award or somesuch. Secondly, William Safire is the one who is quoted in the Political machine article as saying that it is a negative statement to begin with... so your points #2 and #3 are really just repetitions of each other. Thirdly, I'll repeat my point mentioned above. Some people -- probably even most people -- like to feel that they're part of a "grassroots movement," that most people on the street approve of their cause, whether they personally have time to devote to it or not. However, there are some people who really do like the thought that they are part of the machinery that can steamroll dissenting opinions, and would think that being part of the "Chicago Machine" is a grand honor. Jsharpminor (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC) If you have a reliable source, please suggest it. Really you need more than a source that claims it is derogatory, you need a source that states the CCDP was not functioning as a political machine when our article claims it was. The article has copious citations backing that claim. I have a copy of Ethnic Chicago, a scholarly, peer-reviewed work by two University experts. The book won the Illinois Political Science Association award for "best book on Illinois politics". The chapter titled The Multiethnic Road to Machine Success provides extensive backing for our usages of the term in this article. I will be adding these citations (along side the citations from "popular" sources) and much new material in the coming days. -- Homeaccount (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Political Machine Is there a particular reason that the CCDP is not expressly referred to as a Political machine? Both the volume and tenacity of reliable sources on the matter is vast. I seek feedback from other editors, but I do think this deserves mention in the lede. Also, I think the level of corruption involved within the organization deserves mention. From 1970 to present, no local government in the US has had more indictments for crime than Chicago. The reader needs to understand Chicago corruption, and the current writing does not reflect this. As a member Wikiproject Crime, I feel it is my duty to make this article a more accurate portrayal of significant perpetrators within the Cook County Democratic Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC) I have added a well sourced section on crime within the organization and I welcome any and all feedback. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Standing Committees Given the importance of some of the committees, particularly the judicial slating committee, it would be nice to add details on membership on the standing committeees of the party. At the least it would be good to have the chairs identified. Does anyone know of a source for that information? (adding dummy comment so this archives some day Hugh (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)) Corruption and Crime section Greetings, I wanted to stop in to discus this section as it has been requested by another editor. The CCDP is widely studied among both criminologists and sociologists alike due to the tenure of their reign and their propensity for crime. . They have not had a Republican mayor since the 1930's, but Richard J. Daley is what really began the system we all know today. . This level and historical longevity of corruption is certainly notable, and it would do potential readers a disservice to not make mention of those responsible, rather than in a more generalized sense in another article, though I am certainly open to suggestions from more experienced editors. Supaflyrobby (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Hello. Thank you for your contributions. Respectfully some comments for consideration. The subject of every sentence in an article need not be the same as the subject of the article, and the main subject of every source need not be the subject of the article, either; we are expected to provide background. But, a section of which every sentence is not the subject of the article, and none of the sources mention the subject of an article, can be a problem. Our articles Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, Mel Reynolds, Isaac Carothers, Arenda Troutman, Edward Vrdolyak could all use some help. Please bear in mind the subject of this article has roughly a million living persons who identify enough to pull Dem ballots, and many tens of thousands of living persons who identify more strongly with the subject of this article and are honestly working hard every day. Also, Cook County is not interchangeable with Chicago, and Cook County has large areas of GOP strongholds, so statements about conviction rates in Chicago and Cook County are not necessarily statements about the subject of this article. Also, most politicians in Chicago are members of the Cook County Democratic Party, so obviously if the threshold of inclusion in this article is merely membership, then all individual public corruption stories from Chicago are admissible, regardless of the relevance to the Cook County Democratic Party. For example, Byrd Bennett was appointed by a Democrat, yes, and if asked I assume she would self-identify as a Democrat, and sure, she was indicted and pleaded guilty of public corruption, but she is not notable as a Party apparatchik, so it is not clear to me what her case says about the Cook County Democratic Party. The UIC poli sci reports are a goldmine for Wikipedia, the level of scholarship is high, and the references in there are excellent; with those reports and decent online archive access an editor with an interest in public corruption could be busy for a long time, but what we need most here are sources that talk specifically about the Cook County Democratic Party. Does this make sense? Hope this helps. Let's talk more. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Hugh, I can certainly appreciate your perspective, and perhaps the section takes one too many leaps with Wikipedia policy. However, when aprox. 98% of the high profile convictions I mentioned in previous citations are all members of the CCDP leadership, should we then not mention this obvious connection at all? Even if it is not explicitly stated in the reference? I am certainly happy to make some contributions to the other generalized articles if that is a more appropriate venue as crime is a specialty of mine. I just find it problematic that a reader scanning some articles on Wikipedia about Chicago's political infrastructure would not come away with an accurate representation of the culture of corruption which exists. Sure, I agree with your argument that rank and file members of the CCDP are not directly responsible for the criminal actions of their leadership. That said, the fact that they continually put forth candidates with a high ratio of later being indicted, or, at the very least, investigated by the federal prosecutors office, seems inclusion worthy. Cheers. Supaflyrobby (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. We are mostly in agreement, I think. We share an interest in improving coverage of public corruption and Chicago. For this article, we need to find multiple reliable sources that speak to the direct role of the Cook County chapter of the Democratic Party in corruption, if any. If I may, please see Wikipedia:No original research. May I illustrate with an example, one of the excellent UIC poli sci reports included comments specifically about public corruption among the members of the Chicago City Council, and content from that report was summarized in our project's article Chicago City Council, supported by reliable secondary sources like the Chicago Tribune. Please take a look at how that was done. Other articles to consider include Political history of Chicago, History of Chicago, and Crime in Chicago. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Hugh, will do, and my apologies for my level of of inexperience in these matters. Additionally, I have read (and highlighted and dogeared) the book "Corrupt Illinois: Patronage, Cronyism and Criminality", which does make mention of the CCDP specifically. One of the authors was a former Alderman. I will give it a scan after I get off duty tomorrow and see if there is anything that might be usable, assuming the book itself is considered a RS. I have also been privy to a couple of doctoral dissertations in the last couple of years which have dealt with the post J. Daley Chicago political machine, and subsequently did some rounds in the peer-reviewed criminology presses, that might contain useful information. Supaflyrobby (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) No need to apologize. Be careful out there. Hugh (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Dilettante passing thru, but the section looks fine to me, enough so that the I assumed the controversy was due to partisan edit wars and clicked over to the talk page in hopes of seeing some drama. Obviously I'm disappointed in that department but to illustrate my point I'll quote the first sentence "The Chicago metropolitan area,[relevant? – discuss] firmly under the control of the Cook County Democratic Party for over 50 years,[original research?][citation needed] has long been identified by various media sources as the most corrupt city in the United States.[62][irrelevant citation][63][irrelevant citation][64][irrelevant citation]" The Chicago metro area is the same thing as Cook County, so of course that's relevant, the extent and duration of CCDP control thereof, 'firmly' being the operative word, is a reach I'll grant, but 'control' is an original inference at worst and it feels disingenuous to pretend otherwise instead of finding a cite that shows party registration numbers or whatever is deemed appropriate. Further, I truly fail to see how media perception of corruption in Chicago, demonstrably a one party town, in an article about that one party, is irrelevant, and finally, and I mean no offense to HughD but "Please bear in mind the subject of this article has roughly a million living persons who identify enough to pull Dem ballots, and many tens of thousands of living persons who identify more strongly with the subject of this article and are honestly working hard every day" just sounds suspicious. I know all this is almost certainly coming from a place of due diligence rather than CCDP partisanship, but it did tingle my senses which surely is worrying in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.199.135 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC) I would be inclined to agree, IP, and I have been meaning to switch up some of the wording here to make it more palatable for encyclopedic content, just been busy of late. Cook County politics is clearly monolithic, and has been for over 80 years. [1][2]Elections in Cook County are never a question as to if a Democrat will be elected, only which Democrat. This is in contrast to places in the burbs like Lake County,DuPage County,etc that are not primarily one dimensional, politically speaking. The fact that officials from the Cook County Dems are notoriously corrupt is notable, though I admit this section needs some polish. I was also going to go into some detail on arrests, trials, prosecutions, etc., as officials from the Delay eras alone would be enough for a Masters Thesis, but I will save the legal and law enforcement content for the pages of the individual perps. I did add a small paragraph on some of the shenanigans of Joseph Berrios however, which could stand to be articulated better. Supaflyrobby (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Hello Rob. Again, it is simply not true that Democrats have exclusively controlled Cook County, there are mayorships and village boards and legislative districts in suburban Cook County that have only elected Republicans in living memory. Respectfully, may I observe that it seems to me you may have an essay in mind, about crime and corruption in Chicago and Cook County, rather than reading quality reliable sources about the Cook County Democratic Party and summarizing what they have to say. Every source need not be mainly about the subject of a given article, but a ref that makes no mention of the subject of an article is going to be suspect. Here in this article we need to summarize what reliable sources have to say about the Cook County Democratic Party. Chicago and Cook County and Illinois have their problems, but if there are no quality reliable sources that describe the Cook County Democratic Party as a criminal enterprise, it's really not the same to substitute general statements about Chicago or Cook County or Illinois. What do you think? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC) I have removed the paragraph. Alternatively, to give the article some balance, perhaps I will perhaps use the sections of the article for Daley, Lyons, Vrydolyak, etc. to highlight specific criminal activity under their leadership? I noticed the Barrios section was devoid of any mention of his legal/ethical challenges which are well known to anyone living in Chicago who reads the Trib or the ST. I will attempt to work in the material on Chicago's ugly political past on more broad articles. Political history of Chicago, for example, is almost laughable due to it's lack of coverage of criminal behavior. Cheers. Supaflyrobby (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your edits and your engagement with this article and this subject. The article as is has an overall chronological structure rather than topical, so I agree the best section to note convictions for public corruption is under the respective era. I agree our project's coverage of political corruption in Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois could benefit from your energy, and that the best place for in-depth treatment of the individual convictions is not this article, unless the conviction is somehow directly related to the Cook County Democratic Party. Before we move on to other articles, can we collaborate on a little bit of effort to see if we can leave this article tag free and section hat free and article hat free? For example, the current article presents general conviction stats for Cook County, are there more specific numbers broken out for just Cook County Democrats? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC) I would also like to see a tag free article. It would be hard to get conviction numbers by party affiliation without engaging in OR. I do have some connections with CPD but their data it is incomplete at best. They only occasionally make the arrest since these are federal crimes in almost all instances, and thus under the jurisdiction of the FBI. Chicago's FBI field offices sometimes share information, and sometimes not, on an almost arbitrary basis. The Federal Prosecutors Office and UIC Data might be worth a look. I can also scan Simpson's book, "Corrupt Illinois: Patronage, Cronyism, and Criminality". I have read it but it has been awhile. Though suffice it to say from my recollection of the text that It would probably be easier to find convictions that are not tied to the Democrats. Ryan is the only one I remember being mentioned. Consequentially, his article is outstanding from a crime/legal perspective.Supaflyrobby (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on Cook County Democratic Party. 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/20130203113153/http://southlanddemocrats.com/html/party_orgs.html to http://southlanddemocrats.com/html/party_orgs.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407085043/http://www2.illinois.gov/alplm/library/collections/oralhistory/illinoisstatecraft/legislators/Pages/RockPhil.aspx to http://www2.illinois.gov/alplm/library/collections/oralhistory/illinoisstatecraft/legislators/Pages/RockPhil.aspx Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514151712/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6b.htm to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6b.htm Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928075028/http://www.chicagoreporter.com/2001/1-2001/sentencing/Mel.htm to http://www.chicagoreporter.com/2001/1-2001/sentencing/Mel.htm 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: 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) 20:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Committeepeople This section uses "<double-left-curly brackets>Cook county democratic committeemen<double-right-curly-brackets>". However, that "Cook county democratic committeemen" list is STALE - only correct "As of 2017-2018". It should also have it's name changed to "...committeepeople", following 2018 legal name change by Cook County. Acwilson9 (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)