Jump to content

Talk:Jon Burge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Quick note

Don't get caught up in WP:BLP concerns with this one, it's already looking like a WP:COATRACK. IvoShandor 00:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've used only .gov sources. Am I screwing up somehow? Speciate 00:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You're not screwing it up. My concern is that without much detail on Jon Burge the man, this article is inappropriately titled, as it appears to discuss the torture incidents (which are surely notable) more than Jon Burge. By having the article under this title, (unless expansion is planned, which I see its the COTW so I assume it will be worked out) it appears to be heavily biased against Burge (who I can see from the article was not the only officer involved with the incidents.) IvoShandor 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well I was going to say he is an Irish-American and give his b-day. He was the Commander of an Area (contains many precincts), which is above Watch Commander, which means he was in charge. I'm having trouble with my internet connection right now. Speciate 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole reason to have a {{CUR-CHICOTW}} tag is to tell people the article is under construction. That means both that you should reserve judgement on its quality/notability and you should note that it will likely be a completely different resource in the very near future. Read the header and take head.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I hear ya, no probs, just making sure was all. :) IvoShandor 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is looking real nice too. IvoShandor 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Areas

Deleted "Burge and his fellow detective’s conduct were so outrageous that Mayor Richard M. Daley dissolved Burge’s police district, Area 3 in 1991.[citation needed]", because it's untrue. -CPD is broken down by police 25 districts. Leading multiple districts are "Areas", numbered 1-5. Area 3 (where Burge did work for a time roundabouts 1988, after running violent crimes out of Area 2) was never 'dissolved'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.212.130 (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're correct. Speciate 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

Would this image be useful? File:Http://www.moveonandshutup.org/files/images/button 0.jpg It's a button from a fund raiser held in 1993 after Burge was fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.163.119 (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

"....but has been delayed by attempts to protect Mayor Daley from criticism."

Should be deleted - it's opinion. There were a lot of factors into the delay of the settlement. Perhaps most notably one of the alleged victims being under federal investigation for the same murder/arson he was allegedly tortured to confess too. Additionally: saying that the Mayor has been protected from criticism is about as non-factual as saying that Bush hasn't been criticized for the Iraq war. Quoting John Conroy in the Chicago reader is hardly NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.163.119 (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

More work

The Jon Burge article needs a bit of rearranging, section-wise. I'm not wedded to my original section titles like "Fallout", go ahead and change things. The article could use a bit more about the discovery of the torture, it could name a few of the guys that got tortured (some of them already have a Wikipedia article), and the Chicago Reader reporter John Conway needs to be mentioned as the main guy behind breaking and pounding away at the story. Speciate 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the connection the death sentence revocations and commutations needs to be better clarified, not sure of its relevance, especially the bit about Ryan's 2003 commutation of all death sentences in Illinois. It all appears to be somewhat of a non sequitur, I was gonna fix it myself but am not familiar enough with the topic to do so. IvoShandor 12:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone enlighten me here? Nothing there has changed, the sentence about Ryan commuting death sentence apparently has nothing to do with this, I will remove it unless someone can present a good reason not to, it is still a non sequitur. IvoShandor 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean it has nothing to do with this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I can only go off what is in the article, there is no apparent connection between the two, make it clearer if there is one. What did you think I meant? IvoShandor 19:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The connection seems tenuous at best and there is certainly no evidence presented in the article to support the connection. I am guessing you were tying "He then pardoned 4 inmates of the "Death Row 10" inmates" in 2000, to the commutation in 2003, if there isn't a source connecting the two then it would be OR, as you know. This has to be made clearer of removed, as I said, I am not familiar enough with the topic to make any alterations myself, but you must keep in mind that this will be the same case for any reader, it must be clear. IvoShandor 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know either, perhaps the most that can be said is that there was the climate at the time. Speciate 23:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous statement

I was confused by "A Northwestern University journalism professor and his students uncovered exonerating evidence." Exonerating evidence of what? Who was exonerated? Jeff Dahl 16:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Discovery

Does Discovery here refer to the events being uncovered or legal discovery. If the former, the first instance of the abuse being uncovered was not by the CPD, bu by an independent newspaper, the Chicago Reader. Here is a link to the first article, "House of Screams." http://www.chicagoreader.com/torture/900126_1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.199.254 (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Torture Methods

A sentence in this section is misleading. "The turning point . . . " makes it seem that Burge and his secondaries began torturing over the cop slaying, when allegations of abuse went back to 1973, nine years earlier.

Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Stubbed

Sorry, but this article really seems to push the limits of BLP. It should be rewritten and carefully sourced, preferrably using Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People. Danny 16:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I second this - it's a well-regarded academic press book that would give a very nicely sourced overview. Phil Sandifer 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me note, the BLP issues in this article really were egregious - the price of the man's house? Ironically, the main sources here - the Conroy articles - exist in better forms in the academic book Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People. But it is important to remember, in any case, that Burge was never convicted of any of this, and that we have to be conservative and careful in our phrasings here. But this is clearly not a GA - no way. Phil Sandifer 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Another note, as apparently the issue is being discussed everywhere but here. In any case, I have no personal doubt that Burge tortured people. But he's a living person, and we need to be careful to report such a huge accusation in as bulletproof a fashion as possible. And a Chicago alternative weekly, while a great paper that I would use without blinking for some claims, just isn't bulletproof enough when there are better, academically vetted sources. to be clear, I would like to see this article re-expanded. But I want the sourcing to be more meticulous, and I want every claim to be bulletproof in its reliability and its significance to why Jon Burge is a notable figure. This is not something we can afford to do any way other than perfectly. Phil Sandifer 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I do understand your concern about WP:RS as it pertains to this controversial WP:BLP. However, I think a more appropriate approach might be to leave the text and tag the appropriate sections. It seems pretty clear you agree the story as written may be fairly accurate and pass WP:V and WP:ATT, but oddly fail WP:RS. I am not looking to get into a pissing contest with a pair of admins over this, but I do think the blanking to be excessive. I think the first thing we should do is expand the article to its previous state and then discuss sentences, facts, and sections that you fell are not properly cited. I would guess that over half of what you blanked should remain unchanged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
And on that you'd have to talk to Danny - my position is mostly that I agree there were BLP concerns, and I support caution - better to serve a stub for a few days than to serve BLP violations for a few days. I looked, I saw some definite BLP violations, and I was surprised to see the academic source getting passed over for inferior sources, so I shared his concerns. But I'd go talk to him and get him to come to the talk page. :) -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As I read the relevant policies (BLP, ATT, RS, V, NPOV), I see nothing where it says you must use the best source available. I.E., if I can find it in the USA Today, I don't need to wait until I can get access to the Wall Street Journal. Blanking due to ATT preference is not an acceptable argument. If you look at my user page, you will see I write a ton of fairly well respected content for the project. I am not a good writer and only a passable photographer with a point and shoot camera. Where I have found success is in citing my work (usually with linkable sources). I claim to be one of the most productive WP:GA authors on the entire project and User:Speciate has been right by my side on several of them. I always ask that we find WP:RS for all our claims and always err on the side of overciting. In this case we have an article that is highly sourced from the Chicago Reader and Chicago Sun-Times. I think on a scale of WP:RS there are better and worse, but these probably achieve the current thresholds of adequacy even for a current WP:GA. User:SandyGeorgia would probably contest their adequacy for WP:FA, but they are not unknown bloggers. What Sandy would say is a good source really boils down to whether the fact are checked or the writer is unfettered. I do not know the standards at the reader, but know that the Sun-Times would pass. I suspect the reader passes by this standard, but am not sure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If you don't want to discuss the direction of the article after the direct invitations to meet here for discussion, I will revert the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, frankly there is a lot to say. You just haven't said anything worth answering. You are about to revert to serious allegations about someone, without clarifying notability, without using impeccable evidence, and without considering the impact this may have on a person's life, or the implications for the WMF for that matter--after all, he does live within half an hour's drive of the office. And the justification for this is because you write GAs? Yes, sourcing something adequately is hard, or else we would be inundated with crap like this. Oh, and thank you for establishing that gossip-mongering, not encyclopedia-building, is the true objective of Wikipedia. Danny (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point about the meaning of WP:ATT above. I was hoping you would clarify your opinion on my statement of its meaning and use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TonytheTiger asked me to weigh in here because of my experience reviewing featured article candidates. Tony, WP:BLP makes an emphatic distinction about using the highest quality references available when including negative facts on BLPs:

  • We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
  • Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
  • WP:BLP#Reliable sources

To answer your specific queries: whatever GA accepts is entirely irrelevant here (and usually at FAC as well). GA is not a community process; its standards depend on what any one editor passes, and for that reason, it has limited credibility. With respect to whether the Chicago media constitutes a reliable source, reliable sources are not set in stone and vary depending on article type and subject matter. For example, the popular press is almost never an acceptable source for the kinds of medical articles I usually edit, where the highest quality sources demand peer-reviewed journal articles and the popular press usually gets it wrong or sensationalizes medical reporting. What the Chicago papers report about Chicago politics may be our best reliable source; what they report about autism may not. BLPs require the highest quality reliable sources available, and if there are scholarly or academic publications which are superior to even a well-respected newspaper, we would not pass along newspaper gossip in a BLP. Just because a major Chicago paper (whose fact checking and reporting might be entirely reliable for reporting on another topic) publishes something, that does not automatically render that content acceptable for our higher BLP standards. I hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd question calling the Chicago Sun-Times, a major and reputable Chicago newspaper, any less than reliable for a major Chicago news item; but fortunately, we don't have to make an either-or choice, as many pages from the book in question are available on-line at Google Books. If Tony is willing to source as much as possible from that book, will the others in the debate agree to let him do it? In other words, if Tony agrees to use the book as much as possible, do the others of you agree to allow me to unprotect? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not likely to buy any books to contribute to WP. I am willing to find more reputable online sources. If things are online, I will use them and supplement them with stuff from The New York Times or Washington Post.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't buy many books to contribute to WP either, but libraries with inter-library loan are free, and darn useful! :-) Don't "swap out" the Chicago Sun-Times refs either, just add additional references from the book, with page number. Anyway, I remember you from even before your RFA way back when, so trust you are well meaning, but Doc Glasgow is afraid that you are a loose cannon, and I am a reckless mouse, so just to make sure we have everything clear, please copy and paste and "sign" the following statement:

I, ~~~, will not add any controversial BLP material to the article that is not sourced per the book Danny and Phil suggests, without getting consensus, hopefully involving at least one of them, on this here talk page. If anyone removes any material I add, I will consider it controversial, and get consensus for it, and will not edit war about adding it back. The medical profession is the queen of professions, and Glasgow is the best city in Scotland.~~~~

The last sentence is optional, but can't hurt. :-)--AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Formal statement: I Antonio Vernon, known throughout the Martial Arts world and on WP as TonyTheTiger, have never been involved in an edit war and consider this debate to be fairly inane with arguments that fail to discuss the issue at hand, which is the editorial caliber of the Chicago Reader and Chicago Sun-Times and specific claims that fail [[WP:BLP]. I.E., it does not sound like anyone has made a cogent statement on whether on issues of local news these sources count as WP:RS and whether individual claims are meritorious of inclusion in the article. I have agreed to, as I always have in the past, add sourced facts to the article. Many of these will be from the book mentioned above. Others will be from the New York Times and Washington Post. The article will have a {{underconstruction}} tag on it while it is under construction. I agree to participate in talk page discussion of controversial material, but given the way this debate has gone with people blanking over 90% of an article without propounding any specific BLP material, it really seems like people are picking fights and demanding to be bowed to. I am also curious why an argument would be put forth that the article is a cornucopia of junk and then an instruction be given not to remove anything, but just add to it. I think at this point, people with mops are partaking in gangland wikiviolence that has caused undue destruction of a decent article that would in all likelihood pass WP:GA otherwise. I don't weild a mop, but look out for my nunchucks. I hearby pledge that: "Have nunchucks. Will travel."TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've no idea what you're on about for the most. But I'll assume your threat to replace material that's being disputed under BLP is withdrawn, and I'll remove the protection.--Docg 15:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey DOC Can you show me a diff where I threatened to add BLP material? Actually, first can you show me which parts of the text from a preceeding diff have been established to be BLP. I have been trying to get people to disucss which claims stated in the article are BLP to better understand things. I have done my best to add other credible sources. I will be back later tonight to add more, but no one has named a single claim in the article that is BLP, yet removed things like where he went to high school and such, which clearly aren't. BLP needs to be specific if it is claimed. However, I think what I have done is well on the way to being sufficient. "Have nunchucks. Will travel.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding. I intend to work from my contested article. I will do so in userspace and present the final version, since there is so much disagreement and yet no guidance on what parts are WP:BLP violations. You can watch at User:TonyTheTiger/Jon_Burge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I will be offline for a few hours, but I have done some of the necessary editing on the article. I hope to do another hour or two later tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You still don't seem to understand. I've no idea whether this article violates BLP, since I've not recently looked at the contents. However, where a user (and particularly one as established as ex-WMF employee Danny) suggests that material may violate BLP, then we keep the material out of the article until everyone is satisfied that it does not. You clearly indicated that you would revert unless you got a detailed explanation, and that is unacceptable[1]. We wait till we are sure, even if that takes weeks. There is no rush here - and the onus is on you to show it does not violate BLP - if there is doubt it stays out.--Docg 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
All I am saying is that blanking an article is not proper if it is largely correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
If an editor believes that it violates BLP, he is mandated to remove the material. No other action is proper. If it is later established that he is mistaken, little harm is done, whereas if we mistakenly leave violating material much harm is done. The material stays out as long as any doubt remains - and we never rush to replace it.--Docg 22:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Tomorrow, I intend to renom this at WP:GAC, if all is in order. I will make a few changes before 23:00 today and let it sit overnight for any remaining contestation before renomination. Thanks for everyone's concern in the project and noticing this controversial topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If one would like to contest, my suggestion would be to name specific quotes that you believe fail WP:ATT and are either WP:OR or are sourced by something failing WP:RS. For a controversial article like this either type of ATT violation would constitute a WP:BLP violation. Thus, state "XXX" is WP:OR or "YYY" is inadaquately sourced as per WP:RS. That would be most helpful for me to endeavor to bring the article up to BLP standards if it is still considered failing. Blanket claims would not be very helpful in terms of creating a viable article for the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I am preemptively protecting this article. There is a serious dispute regarding the allegations and sources concerning a living person, and one editor has threated to revert, and replace material that may violate BLP. Until this is resolved, any replacement of the material would be unacceptable. The article should remain as is, until the dispute is satisfactorily resolved. Dispute resolution lies open to all parties.--Docg 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA again

This article is not substantively changed from the previous failed version. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This is a difficult one. I was considering offering to undertake the GA review, but as it stands I think this article would have to be quickfailed again. So I'll just make a few comments about where I think it needs work to balance the POV.

  • "Police Commander Jon Graham Burge ... has gained notoriety for allegedly torturing more than 200 criminal suspects ...". Was Burge the alleged torturer of all 200, or is the allegation that he was in charge of a police department (of how many detectives?) that employed torture techniques?
  • The lead says that the allegations cover the period 1972-1991, but The Turning point section says: "The frenzied police effort to seek the most recent assailants in the name of justice may have gone beyond normal police procedures", suggesting that alleged torture began in 1982, unless normal police procedures already included torture by then.
  • "He returned to his parents' home, took a job as a mechanic and gas station attendant, and watched a bitter population shift. Bowen High School, which had been 93 percent white when Burge graduated in 1965, was only 14 percent white in 1972." Why is the percentage of black/white students at Bowen High School relevant to Burge's life and career? In what way was the population shift "bitter"?
  • "Burge's parents sold their home in 1973." So?
  • "Burge became a police officer in March 1970 at age 22 on the South side of Chicago. In May of 1972, he was promoted to detective and assigned to Area Two Robbery. In twenty years of service where he developed a reputation for defusing volatile situations, he earned 13 police commendations and a letter of praise from the Department of Justice." Not much of a summary of 20 years of police service.
  • Burge joined the police service in 1970, and the torture allegations begin in 1972, the same year the he was promoted to detective. This begs the question of whether torture was already being used by the Chicago police at that time, or is there an allegation that it was introduced by Burge? Whichever it is needs to be made clear instead of leaving the question dangling.
    • People don't make allegations that so and so started a pattern of police brutality, they make allegations that you committed police brutality on me. There is no relevant dangling concern, because it is not relevant if it was done before Burge or not. He is the guy who is prominently charged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I share the concern raised by SandyGeorgia about using the best possible sources for an article like this one, and the consensus appears to be that that's the Conroy book. So I'd like to see citations to specific page numbers in that book wherever possible, instead of to newspapers whose credentials I'm uncertain of, like the Chicago Reader.
  • "Since being fired Burge has lived in Apollo Beach, Florida, a suburb of Tampa. In 1994, he bought his current wood-frame home for $154,000 and a 22 ft (6.7 m) motorboat named The Vigilante." I think that this is too much personal information, and is neither relevant nor appropriate to include.

This is a worthwhile subject, and I wish you luck in developing it, but I'd recommend withdrawing the article from GAN for the moment, as I don't think it's got any chance at all of passing as it stands. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

More

Since so much is mentioned about the victims, perhaps it should also be mentioned that Andrew Wilson admitted to being a murderer and that famed alleged victim Aaron Patterson is back in jail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.182.94 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


    • It appears that (Phil Sandifer) quickfailed this article on 7 December, but although he removed the GANominee tag he forgot to remove the article from the GA nomination list. I've updated the article history and the list to reflect that fact, so the article's current status is failed GA and its 23 November GA nomination has been marked as Failed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

profanity in art

Can we crop http://www.flickr.com/photos/beigephotos/2622689510/ and add it to the article? Does it violate WP:BLP--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Jon Burge GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jon Burge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Ok issues that have been raised before are still apparent, but I will put the article on hold to see if they can't be cleared up: -

This article will be watched for seven days and if no signs of improvement are seen maybe failed. Good luckMillion_Moments (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)!

I am having problems with these sentances: "After all of the police excesses, mere coincidence enabled the capture of the suspects. The police had been led to a co-conspirator of theirs in an earlier burglary." Does this mean that they arrested a man in a burglary, who gave up Wilson? Because I don't feel it's very clear. Possibly it's the use of the word "theirs", almost implies it maybe a co-conspiritor of the police. Million_Moments (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much fine with everything but this, so if it's sorted I should be able to pass this. Million_Moments (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the sentences at issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

{copied from Talk:Jon Burge) This article has now passed the good article nomination process. Congratulations! The article is very detailed and broad in converage. Areas for furture improvement could include the tone of the article, which in some places is written more like an article for entertainment (say from a book or a newspaper) than for an encyclopeadia. Million_Moments (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

This article has now passed the good article nomination process. Congratulations! The article is very detailed and broad in converage. Areas for furture improvement could include the tone of the article, which in some places is written more like an article for entertainment (say from a book or a newspaper) than for an encyclopeadia. Million_Moments (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Developments

Jon Burge was arrested today in Florida on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. See the Sun Times article here. I'll leave the update up to you guys. --IvoShandor (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Burge picture

This article needs a picture of Burge, uploaded with a fair use rationale. There must be one somewhere in all the news reports about him. If you find one and don't know how to add the fair use rationale, leave a note on my talk page and I'll help you out. Cla68 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand very much that a picture would be useful. However, unless we can show him on the cover of something in a way that is relevant to the article, I don't think a fair use image is appropriate. There are in fact images very high in the search results on the cover of the Chicago Sun-Times. However, I do not see the newspaper article as significant to his biography. Thus, I am staying away from fair use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably be going to some of the trial. Maybe I could take one. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

An article without a photo of the subject isn't so weird. But articles with multiple photos of other things and none of the subject make it conspicuous by its absence. It's even a tad weirder when three of those four pictures match the subject's description (older white lawman). That Fitzgerald fellow even appears prominently in a Google Image search for "Jon Burge", thanks to us.
Did you take one five years ago, User:Cool Hand Luke? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Small correction needed

I should avoid editing this article, but would like to point out a small correction: the caption for Daley is incorrect. He was not a "city prosecutor." As State's Attorney, he was the prosecutor for all of Cook County. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to whomever made the above correction Cool Hand requested. This article will continue to need revision as history marches on in confirmation of its importance. Am not sure what to do about: "The cases against Cook County and the other current/former prosecutors continue as of July 2008. Having never been convicted of a felony, Burge continues to receive a police pension to which he is entitled under Illinois state law.[4]" so gonna hope one of you who's been working on it can fix this formerly true statement now contradicted in lede. - phi (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As of 6/12/2016 the article continues to contradict itself as to whether he is or is not a felon drawing a pension. Given the continued national conversation initiated by Ferguson regarding police impunity, accountability, and the possible modalities of reform (which include effects on the pensions of the culpable) it would be well if this historically important case were reliably treated here. 97.123.115.87 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Lewis Goudy

Removing sociology project

I've removed the Sociology project tag from this page. While sociology is interested in felons, human rights, legal abuse, and many similar topics, it does not usually study individuals. The scope of that project is in sociological concepts and terms, and sociologists. Issues that affect Jon Burge are of interest to sociologists, his case may be mentioned in some sociological works, but he himself is IMHO outside the project scope. Because on another level, every single person is of interest to sociologists due to various life circumstances, and we are not going to tag all biographies with sociology tags (or all cities, even through a field of urban sociology is interested in them in general). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fitzgerald image

I don't know what the point is about removing Fitzgerald's picture. It is used in a common manner for the encyclopedia in that article and belongs as a referent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm unable to open a single Newsbank article on this page. On navigation, all I get is a page that says "requester private data is incorrect", titled "OpenURL Error", which is literally the entire document! Is this just me or is there a problem with Newsbank??Test35965 (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have the same problem and cannot access any of them. It makes it nearly impossible to work on this article; I am having to use other sources.Parkwells (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jon Burge. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jon Burge. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jon Burge. 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) 15:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited Lead

I edited the Lead to add cites for Gov. Ryan's actions, and rearranged that material slightly to improve chronology. It appeared that the Lead confused the order in which some things happened. Ryan pardoned 4 men and commuted sentences for 167 on death row in early Jan. 2003, while the investigation of Burge was still underway. Other convictions may have been overturned after the report on Burge was released, but that was not until 2006, long after Ryan had left office. Will review these areas in the article.Parkwells (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Confusing addition of material

After the section discussing the acquittal of Burge on charges in the civil suit brought by Andrew Wilson, there is suddenly the following long and detailed paragraph (see below) about Burge et al.'s alleged abuses. Where does this information come from ? was it introduced into the record by Wilson? or when? If it is from the 2006 report, as appears to be the case from the dates of the cites, putting the material here interrupts what is roughly a chronological account. It also confuses the issue of who knew what when, unless there is more of an introduction for it, telling where the information comes from and when it was determined to be true.Parkwells (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

<<Burge and other Chicago Police officers allegedly used methods of torture that left few marks. They were accused of slamming telephone books on top of suspects' heads. They were accused of using three distinct electrical devices: a cattle prod, a hand-cranked device, and a violet wand. They allegedly used a Tucker telephone, an old-style hand cranked telephone which generated electricity, and attached wires to the suspect's genitals or face. According to veteran sergeant D. J. Lewis, this was a method of torture commonly used in the Korean War, and usually results in a confession. Burge has denied ever witnessing such telephone torture procedures.[1][2] The violet wand was said to be regularly placed either on the anus, into the rectum or against the victim's exposed genitals.[2] They also used stun guns and adapted hair dryers.[3] Burge and officers under his command also allegedly engaged in mock executions, in putting plastic bags over heads, cigarette burnings and severe beatings. At one point he is alleged to have supervised the electrical shocking of 13-year-old Marcus Wiggins.[4][5][6]>>

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference TOT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Conroy, John (February 4, 2005). "The Mysterious Third Device". Chicago Reader Inc. Retrieved October 4, 2007.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dunropbc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Amendment to House Bill 765". Illinois General Assembly. March 27, 2007. Archived from the original on March 8, 2012. Retrieved October 2, 2007. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Mills, Steve (July 20, 1999). "Torture Allegations Lead To Case Review - Man Convicted In '84 Based On Confession". Chicago Tribune. Newsbank. Retrieved August 6, 2008.
  6. ^ McMahon, Colin; Christine Hawes (January 14, 1993). "Suit Alleges Cop Torture of Youth". Chicago Tribune. Newsbank. Retrieved August 6, 2008.

Consider making a new article

So much has happened through the investigations of Burge, his firing and later trial and sentence, that perhaps it is time to create a new article, so that there is one about him and another about the culture of torture and problems of oversight at Chicago PD- which seemed to go beyond him. That might also be a better place for the detail on these various investigations, trials and hearings. Information was revealed that there was an internal suppressed report that supervisors knew of the torture for 12 years, for instance, which points to problems beyond Burge. In addition, the TIRC, authorized by the state in 2009, has found 130 credible cases of plaintiffs who claim torture, coerced confessions and wrongful convictions based on the hands of Chicago officers other than Burge and his cohort. This might also be a more fitting place for material about the trials of the Wilson brothers, or perhaps they could be summarized in a reduced fashion here. It is hard to follow the thread of Burge himself. Andrew Wilson's civil suit was certainly a catalyst for more investigations of him and officers under him. Have tried to keep material chronological, as well as separating the different civil suits.Parkwells (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I know I've added too much on investigations, but had to get more in this article in order to see them clearly. It still makes me think we should have a separate article from the one on Burge to explore these issues, although he was a central figure. But it has gone way beyond his biography.Parkwells (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Came here to say the same thing. These Chicago police torture cases, 1972-1991, are more than notable in their own right beyond Jon Burge's biography. This is demonstrated particularly by the current content of this article which has a lot of important detailed information about the torture cases that is tangential to Burge's biography. Although he was the most prominent individual in orchestrating the whole thing, the torture and coverup was performed by many others as well. It seems to me that there should be a main article about the torture cases, and the article about Burge should only focus on him and his role in it. Krubo (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Question in Lead

It says that Burge allegedly assaulted more than 200 suspects; where does that number come from? Reports seem to conclude about 150, or perhaps those were cases they thought were more credible. To editors who have worked on this - great job in trying to put together all this complicated information that covered events, trials and investigations over several years, and now, decades. Parkwells (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard Zuley

As the article is already sprawling, I'm not sure there needs to be content devoted here to Richard Zuley, who has his own article. It seems he became the focus of attention in 2015 both because of the overturn of convictions and investigation of his cases, complaints and suits against him, and especially because he interrogated (using torture) a prominent detainee at Guantanamo, who published his memoir in Jan. 2015. I tried to provide some context for why he was being discussed in 2015. Parkwells (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jon Burge. 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) 15:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jon Burge. 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) 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

First known allegation?

The following text was removed recently 12. However, it would be quite valuable to include the first known allegation(s) if a source can be found.

Beginning in the 1970s, allegations were made that Burge and those under his command used physical assault and torture to coerce confessions. Eventually, hundreds of similar claims were made against the department.

Krubo (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Burge/Archive_1&oldid=1216109218"