Talk:George Streeter

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Squatting Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of squatting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SquattingWikipedia:WikiProject SquattingTemplate:WikiProject Squattingsquatting articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bias

Article is written in a biased manner, making assertions that are debatable. There is more to the Streeter story than presented here. http://www.capstreeter.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.61.31 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Now it is biased entirely in the other direction, with absurd amounts of loaded language and more debatable assertions. Even though the article now seems to tell a more accurate sequence of events, it is nonetheless rather blatantly violating WP:NPOV. I'll fix it eventually if no one else does. Vorziblix (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is insanely biased. Even if these assertions are true, this reads like Rhetoric. The OPENING sentence "From 1886 to 1921 Streeter spun lies, forged legal documents and used violence to wrest 186 acres (0.75 km2) of Lake Michigan shoreline away from its rightful owners. Failing in his efforts to defraud the wealthy landowners, he then turned to robbing the poor by selling them land that he did not own," is comically slanted. --StickerMug (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article desperately needs a rewrite to conform to NPOV standards. It may well be the case that Salzman's revisionist research article portrays history most accurately, but for encyclopedic purposes our article should not put this particular viewpoint at the forefront. This is one of the most egregiously biased article summary sections I've seen in years. --Dhartung | Talk 17:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganize

As a biographic entry, breaking up this page into "Myth" and "Reality" does not make sense. It seems to further the previous editor's interest in getting their point across. Elements of both his legend as well as factual life can be incorporated into to the same timeline of his life. For reference on how a criminal bio should be treated on wiki, look at another infamous Chicagoan — John Dillinger. I'd be happy to make revisions. Let me know if anyone has additional thoughts. StickerMug (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Streeter. 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) 04:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting article neutrality

This article may get some more attention of late, as this story was recently featured in a popular history podcast. While I am by no means an expert on this story, the framing of this article biases the point of view of the shoreline landowners and makes unsubstantiated claims to this effect. While it is certainly true that Streeter used fraudulent means to defend his claim, this does not mean that his other legal arguments were without merit, and the actions of the landowners and their agents were often equally underhand. Claims that Streeter was attempting "theft" of the land are unsubstantiated, and I have removed the one in the lead - furthermore, the framing of "myth" vs "reality" I think does not necessarily meet the burden to show that the events presented as the "reality" were strictly true, especially when some of the sources are newspaper articles from the time, while this was a matter of significant public dispute. I'd argue that this article needs re-writing and re-sourcing with more comprehensive and even-handed coverage. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the objection to newspaper articles from the day as questionable. 2600:1008:B073:1972:99A1:3613:EC8E:2D03 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]