Talk:Illinois's 3rd congressional district

Article features

The first two entries have been copied from a discussion on MisfitToys' talk page.

Hi, I just took a look at the Illinois 3d district page. I already split the economy info into its own section and out of the geography section. I also think that having a section on the demographics of the district is important; there's no way to write an article about that district and not mention white ethnics. I will poke around my copy of the Almanac of Amer. Politics and see what I can come up with today. The history section will be harder to find sources for. If you've got any suggestions, why don't we take this to the article talk page? Meelar (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The demographic info was something I planned to include when I added a section about political leanings. I've already got the historical boundaries, though it gets a bit difficult to be exact about the Chicago boundaries between 1913 and the 1960s due to the scarcity of precise maps and the fact that district definitions were explained according to now-obsolete ward boundaries; I'm more inclined to indicate a general outline based on the streets which formed most of the north/east/south boundaries. I could compile presidential voting for 1832-1868 based on county totals, if I can track it down (the district was outside Cook at that point, and defined along county lines; nationwide voting totals by county apparently exist beginning in 1824, though I don't know where they'd be easily found), but 1872 to 1964 is still a problem because of the lack of vote totals for individual Cook County townships and partial Chicago wards (and occasionally, partial precincts); there are a few sources for Chicago voting for president by complete ward, though ironically not by complete districts. The history of voting for House seats is readily available - though there have been 90 elections, so the question becomes how much to include (for instance, Clarence Darrow lost a close race here in 1896, which is certainly worth mentioning). I've tried to look at what's in the articles for other districts, but they're generally quite brief; I've also looked at a few UK constituencies, and Canadian ridings might also be helpful. MisfitToys 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Third" spelled out?

Based on a question presented to me on my user talk page, I think "3rd" "3d" or "Third" would all be good for the title. Uniformity here is not necessary, in my opinion.—Markles 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Representatives list

On the other hand, I would like some uniformity on the list of Representatives. See Massachusetts's 3rd congressional district, for an example.—Markles 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done, I think. MisfitToys 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

CPVI

What was the source used for the CPVI number? I wanted to use it in the other district articles, but I haven't seen where it is published. --Dual Freq 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Barone's Almanac of American Politics 2006. MisfitToys 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was hoping it was from the web. If you still have the book maybe you could tell me what the CPVI is for the 6th and the 15th. No infobox for the 6th, but I can put one up in no time. Thanks in advance. --Dual Freq 23:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I use a copy at the library, but I'll be there tomorrow and will check (I'm presuming we're talking about Illinois districts; I can jot down all of those, but I don't think I'll tackle all 435). MisfitToys 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Illinois districts, don't go to too much trouble though, I thought if you still had the book you could look it up quick. --Dual Freq 02:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I see that some of them are online at this PDF file; it looks like the 6th is R + 3. I think all of them are available online at http://www.cookpolitical.com/ though you'd have to subscribe. MisfitToys 02:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, after I used your link I tried searching for PVI IL-15 instead of CPVI and found this, I think it lists all of them. --Dual Freq 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of those agree with the listings in the 2006 Almanac; however, the Almanac has the 10th as D + 4 rather than R + 4, and the 4th as D + 31 rather than D + 27 (the 6th is indeed R + 3, and the 15th is R + 6). The poster conceded that he might have been off on the 4th, which was perhaps missing in his data; maybe the error in the 10th was a typo (it has a R congressman, which may have led to the error). I'd be inclined to go with the listings from the Almanac rather than those posted on a message board; wouldn't you? On another point, I'm a bit thrown by the fact that the article title is "3rd district" while the opening lines spells it out as "Third District"; I've tried to keep the text consistent through the article when mentioning other districts, even though I think referring to the 4th or 7th district is more appropriate than spelling it out - but I don't want to depart from what seems to have been consistent style in the article intros for numerous districts. Any thoughts on that? MisfitToys 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I won't use the Forum, the D+4 from district 10 is interesting. Though represented by a Republican since 1981, the CPVI pdf you linked above says it is based on the 2000 and 2004 presidential election results. Maybe, and I have no way to verify this, the district voted Democrat for those two elections. It's a multi-county district, so its beyond me to try to add up vote totals. Could the PDF have a typo? Also the district was a bit different in 2000, per 2000 Illinois Blue Book. I'm not a grammar expert, but 3rd seems better third. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Congressional districts uses "State's #th congressional district" for their boiler plate intro backing 3rd over third. --Dual Freq 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The 10th voted 53-47 for Kerry; it voted 53-45 for Gore, though that's based on the district configuration at the time (the 2006 Almanac would have the results based on the current configuration). Still, it would have needed only to go about 50% for Gore for the D + 4 to be correct, whereas it would have had to go about 62% for Bush for R + 4 to be right. MisfitToys 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I like that in the history of the district they talk about the area instead of just saying counties. I also like that they talk about the area this district covers.

Looks like Oak Park not in the Third District

1993-2003 (20): The district shifted significantly to the northwest, and now included: ... most of Oak Park south of the Eisenhower Expressway

If you look at the hi-res map [1] from the census bureau it shows that none of Oak Park is in the Third District.

That map is of the current configuration (2003-present); the text you noted is in regard to the previous configuration (1993-2003). MisfitToys 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Material on Lipinskis

In discussing the politics of the district, it's immensely useful to discuss how the positions of its representatives diverge from those of their parties, as it does little good to explain all the ways in which they agree with their party's typical position - that's usually presumed based on party affiliation. There's little point in cataloging the issues on which both Lipinskis have agreed with the Democratic Party in general, but it's very useful to note the numerous ways in which they have disagreed. I agree that much of the material on the members could be added to their articles as well, but it should also stay here. (This sort of material is specifically included at length for each district in such volumes as the biennial Almanac of American Politics and Congressional Quarterly's Congressional Districts in the 2000s.) As for the POV issue, saying that someone "supports the right to life" is a euphemism (particularly if they support the death penalty, which presumes that the right can be forfeited); stating that they oppose abortion is easily more direct and impartial. Also, the distinction between embryonic and adult stem cell research is clear in the text. As for the proposed bill, it wouldn't give consumers the choice described in the revision unless the cable companies chose to give it to them; there is another alternative for the companies. Besides, characterizing the bill as giving consumers a choice tends to favor its supporters' position, as it mirrors the title of the act. MisfitToys 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned though in relation to stem cell research how Dan Lipinski has been a major supporter of adult stem cell research. Longissue 05:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a good, objective source, I wouldn't have a problem with including it, though I don't think it's advisable to get into minute policy details too much; but as I noted above, the politics section should should primarily describe how local representatives diverge from their party's typical politics, along with noting the issues which they tend to focus on. The point should be explaining what makes the district distinct on the political spectrum. MisfitToys 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

The 120,000 figure for the Irish seems to be based on reporting of both primary and secondary ancestry (see table), while the figure of 117,000 for the Mexicans appears to be only primary (table). The cited sources note a percentage for the Irish which appears to rely only on the primary ancestry. MisfitToys (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

People that reported Mexican could be only half Mexican and half European or half any ethnicity, just as some who reported Irish could be half Italian or half any ethnicity. 75.34.56.26 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Respondents were asked their principal ancestry, and also asked to list any other ancestries, with no limit on numbers; there was no requirement that it had to be at least half. Many of those who listed Irish as a secondary ancestry might have been only a quarter Irish or less. MisfitToys (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No one listed Irish twice, though. 75.34.56.26 (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but they had the option of listing Irish as a secondary background, and it doesn't seem that the same option was present for Mexicans. MisfitToys (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the ethnicities for this District (which I used to live in), according to the table provided in the info box, add up to 133.06 percent? Can we get some updated and consistent numbers that add up to 100 percent? American In Brazil (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

'04-13-09

Dear readers-

First, nice page. very well detailed. I think the area has changed to be honest. I used to live there and  seen how the area has changed( not for the good. ) Though its still police and firefighters, the area has gang problems and  heavy violents. Not how I remember so. Drive by shoot outs in front of Hale Park School for example.  I attended there for grade school. John F. Kennedy High  School is also rough and the area around it is gone! Heavy" street walker" problems also. 

 So, in sad respect, unless you plan to live in LaGrange, Western Springs, or the  Mount Greenwood area, I suggest you look elsewhere. You may not like what you see in the Third Congressional District.  I am only being honest to you, the reader. 

With respect,

Robert L. Jones Former Clearing Area Homeowner and Write In Candidate for U.S. Senate IL. for 2010

http://robertjones2.wordpress.com/'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.244.53 (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Illinois's 3rd congressional district/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 26, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Economy: Lists do not accord with the MoS

   The section on Politics may need updating to the present.

   The Presidential voting section needs an update.

   The population figures from 2000 need an update, and probably the other demographics.

   Prose is adequate but could be improved.

   ArticleName: Surely Illinois's 3rd congressional district should be Illinois' 3rd congressional district, or is US grammar different in this respect from British English? Y

   • "Illinois" is singular, hence the 's.—Markles 01:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Consistency requires that inline html links are converted into inline citations

   I tagged 4 dead links and repaired two using WP:CHECKLINKS

   There are outstanding citation needed tags (some from October 2007) and I added some more where needed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Issue above need to be addressed - on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   No substantive edits have been made to address these issues so I am delisting this article. PLease bring it back to WP:GAN when the work has been done. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Illinois's 3rd congressional district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070303094143/http://www.archives.gov:80/great-lakes/chicago/ to http://www.archives.gov/great-lakes/chicago/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illinois's 3rd congressional district. 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/20090919132954/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/elections/il/house/939/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/elections/il/house/939/

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) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Forest Park no longer in 3rd

There are multiple references to Forest Park. But it's not in the 3rd Cong. Dist. anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QM3z (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)