Jump to content

Talk:Richard M. Daley/Archive 1

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

City Boss?

Is there anything referring to him possibly being a city boss. The article for his father states that he was a city boss. It is very suspicious that the son of a city boss who has almost run the city longer is not a city boss. I don't have any information on this. I was just curious if there is any truth to this and if so should be in the article. Lambedan (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Voter turnout

I do not understand why we have all this talk about voter participation and whatnot. I have not seen any page on any politician go to such lengths to try to analyze how many people did NOT vote for him.

I'm not going to delete it but I'd like to see the justification for this. I'm no big Daley supporter and don't even live in Chicago, but this seems like the sort of thing you could say for any elected politician in America, since voter turnout in most of the country averages 50-60%. There are probably relatively few sitting politicians who can say they mustered a majority of all eligible voters.

I also don't see the point in including all this voter turnout information. It could have easily been described with one line... --Vikingstad 21:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

voter turnout analysis removed

"While Daley has won an ever-increasing share of the votes in each election since 1989 (with the exception of 1995, when he ran against Roland Burris and Ray Wardingley, also known as "Spanky the Clown"), voter turnout has also declined significantly during this period. In 1989, Daley won with 55% of the vote and 67% voter turnout. This means that, counting eligible voters who stayed home on election day, 37% of registered voters cast a ballot for Daley. In 2003, Daley won with 79% of the vote but only 34% turnout, for a total of 26% of registered voters. In other words, while Daley's vote percentages have been going up, fewer total votes have actually been cast for him."

Considering lower turnout is trend that has infiltrated every region of American politics, devoting a paragraph to Daley as if he were a unique case study makes the wrong insinutation. lots of issues | leave me a message 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Add Voter Turn-out Back In or Remove Note of Popularity

I think it's important that actual numbers for voter turn out is included. In the article we have for him, his popularity if substantiated by the high percentage of votes he received. It's specious reasoning to base his "popularity" on a high percentage when there's such a low number of people voting. The reader of the article should be able to determine his "popularity" based on a full-knowledge of the voting numbers.

His approval for the past few years has been the lowest it's ever been. It's hard to believe, that when he won by 70% of the vote, it was because he was "popular".

For the editors who aren't from Chicago, his low voter turn-out isn't solely just because of US trends in voting, it's because our mayoral elections fall on drastically different dates from year to year. You'd be hard pressed to find a Chicagoan who could tell you when the next election is and that says a lot about Daley's control of his seat. I'd be impressed if any editor here could even search, find, and list the future dates of Chicago's mayoral election. In most major cities, it's the same date as federal/state elections which have much higher turn outs than city elections, but not Chicago.

I'm removing the bit about his popularity because 26% of the city voting for him isn't indicative of astounding "popularity". If someone wants to argue that he's popular, I suggest adding back in the turnout information that could justify that or finding a current approval rating that indicates he is popular. --208.44.234.50 17:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Chicago municipal elections fall not only on odd/varying dates, but are always in the winter (February or March). The weather is often bad which discourages turnout, except from those voters who are specially encouraged (brought to the polling places).

Concerning Mayor Daley, in his first four races (1989, 1991, 1995, 1999) he faced serious opposition from African American candidates (incumbent Eugene Sawyer, Timothy Evans in 1989; and then (order uncertain) Congressman Danny Davis, Roland Burris, James Gardner, Judge R. Eugene Pincham, and then Congressman Bobby Rush in 1999. The pairs of candidates resulted from a challenge in the Democratic Party primary election (February/March) followed by a challenge from the Harold Washington Party candidate in the general election (April). The end of partisan elections ended this dual challenge (and the farce of a "Republican" candidate in the general election). Incidentally, the big story in Rahm Emanuel's election in 2011 was that he avoided a runoff in April. Jtelser (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Political Party

I could swear that I saw a bit a while back that Daley has actually run the last couple of elections as an independent instead of a Democrat. I came to wikipedia hoping to find this info but did not. Can anyone confirm this? --Senna27 02:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

He has run as a Democrat, but since Chicago mayoral election have become non-partisan, other Democrat can run against him in the general election. Shsilver 12:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Planes

I would like to know more about his hatred / fear for small planes / pilots ?

  • It's not about the planes, it's about his hatred of Meigs Field and the fact that it existed. Where people land on this issue is entirely up to personal taste, and the airport was on the wrong side of the mayor's taste. ---Rob 18:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Daley wants a site for a downtown city owned casino, and Meigs Field is a perfect location for that. He knew damn well it was illegal to tear it down, otherwise he would have had the stones to do it in brad daylight instead of sending bulldozers in at 1:00am to make the runway inoperable. TDC 16:22, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is totally bogus to bring this issue up. With all the fantastic things Daley has done. Also note the city of Chicago was paying millions of dollars a year to maintain this field for the elite, the island was suppose to be a park in the first place, Daley never floated the idea of the Casino going on the island. Daley had every legal right to close the field...thus the FACT there have been NO CHARGES Filed. The manner he closed the field...classic chicago!- Wil Chicago 11-17-05

Classic Chicago bullshit, more like. Daley is a scumbag. —Slicing (talk)

Building a park that benefits 100% of Chicago instead of keeping an airfield that benefits .5% makes Daley a scumbag. Who knew? 76.223.85.97 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Meigs Field is not an airport for the "elite." It is a part of a dwindling network of General Aviation airports also shared by the not-so-elite-pilots that are learning to fly and become your next airline captain, or your next military fighter pilot, or your next hospital emergency helicopter pilot, or your next fire fighter pilot, or your next astronaut/space shuttle pilot, or, like me, a Private Pilot and an Aircraft Engineer designing your next airplane. Flying helps me understand how to design an airplane. To get to the big planes, we all start small, elite or not. Are you saying the money the city is spending on maintaining the airport is not worhty of even the simple flight school that operated there? Don't let the pictures of Gucci bags coming out of poshy jets make you think that's all there is to General Aviation. Watch "One Six Right" the movie!

Very well put. I might also add that Meigs Field was more than just another GA airport; it was a part of aviation history. And refering to it as an airport for the elite is a display of ignorance. One of the many social programs at Meigs field involved giving children, namely those with disabilities and chronic illness, the opportunity to ride in an airplane. This service was offered for free to any family that could not otherwise afford to do so...yeah, Meigs Field was for the elite alright. Meigs Field was a legendary airfield, and God willing, it will be back one day.

Driving your car on a runway at night is both incredibly dangerous and a violation of federal law. Bulldozing a runway is even more dangerous. One plane that night had to be diverted. Had the pilot not realized there were vehicles on the runway that night, the outcome could have been very tragic. Richard Daley, is just lucky such an catastrophy did not occur.

Wil Chicago, SADLY YOUR ARE MIS-INFORMED. CHARGES WERE FILED: Mayor Daly closed the airport without the requried notice to the FAA. They fined the city the maximum allowable amount for the penalty for this very dangerous practice. As it was a plane was trying to land when the bulldozer's arrived. The FAA also sued and successfully won their case, that the city owed more than ONE MILLION DOLLARS to the FAA for the recent upgrades that were installed in the airport. This was not about fear of small planes, as a heliport is there now. It was nothing more than one man's arrogance that he thought he knew what was best, but he was not willing to test the intelligence of his thought in a democratic discussion.

There is a special place in hell for people like that, and for those who close an airport with the stroke of a pen. How many life flights, Angel Flights, (free flights to the medically needy to get them to medical facilities for treatments such as chemo-therapy) and how much commerce was killed and will never be realized due to Richard M. Daly? The world will never know. You can not bull doze a village, and teach one child to read, and think you are going to get to heaven. Neither will Richard M. Daly. Helicoptersmith 11:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC) helicoptersmith

It's not as if there are not other GA airports in the Chicago area. I've flown in and out of Meigs, and it was an amazing experience. But it's lease had expired, and it was time for it to go. The security there was minimal, and in a post 9/11 world it was too great of a risk to continue. From what I had read in the newspapers, the main opposition to its closing was from State officials who loved being able to hop in and out of downtown without having to deal with the traffic on the expressways - an issue the Mayor thought was something the controllers of the state's budget should be aware of. Now they have to come in and out of O'Hare or Midway just like regular people and we have a lovely concert venue with Northerly Island. 68.20.183.187 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I encourage those of you who are interested in this topic to visit and help edit the Wikipedia article on Meigs Field. That article is apparently dominated by a handful of grieving airport fans who have written that Daley acted "illegally". I am no fan of Daley, but no one should be accused of a crime when a crime has not been committed. 216.80.110.88 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If he had not committed a crime they would not have been fined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.115.74 (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What's Not There

I'm new to Chicago, but it seems to me that this article is unusually brief and lacking much in the way of specifics (biography, policies, controversies) for an article on a prominent and sometimes controversial politician who has been in office for nearly two decades.

I'm not sure why most of the article is about voter turnout when there are so many other things that Daley is more associated with: his support of "green buildings" and bicycling, the Hired Truck scandal and other embarrassing examples of corruption, the Millennium Park boondoggle, the revitalization of the South Loop, the resurgence of the Chicago Transportation Authority, the takeover of the Chicago Public Schools and the Renaissance 2010 plan, the legacy of patronage and "clout," the City Council's subservience to him, his cross-party support of George W. Bush and his pressure on Sen. Dick Durbin to retract his comparison of Abu Ghra'ib and Guantánamo to the works of totalitarian regimes . . . speaking as a Chicagoan, all these things loom larger in my mind than his margins of victory in mayoral elections. As the previous poster said, half the big-city mayors in the United States could probably make the same claims. --Mr. A. 01:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Right, how is it possible to omit the Hired Truck scandal, and, more generally, the corruption allegations which regularly surface? (See John Kass's column in the Chicago Tribune.) WBcoleman 03:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mayor Daley does not get enough bipartisan credit for elevating politics above personal. For all the personal attacks on the President, Daley has gladly come to his defense. As an ardent GOPer- I salute hizzoner!

are you kidding ? EVERYTHING is personal with Daley. You cross him on something, you're gonna get the bizness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.88.171.22 (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"FMD"

I removed the following text from the article: "There is a graffiti tagging crew FMD (Fuck Mayor Daley) devoted exclusively to denouncing the mayors image. This comes as a direct result of the mayors 1993 creation of the 'Graffiti Blasters'." The editor who added it has twice created an article about this group, and it has been deleted both times. I don't believe it adds much to this article and it strikes me as unencyclopedic and an attack. TMS63112 16:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Daley's Support of GLBT Rights

Mayor Daley, for all his faults, has been an unwavering supporter of Lesbian and Gay rights in Chicago. He created a GLBT liaison position/office in city hall and has city-scaped --with Pride color themes- - nearly 10 blocks on N. Halsted Street. Despite efforts from the Cardinal to discourage him (and Daley is a practicing Catholic as far as I know), he has supported domestic partnership registration (a symbolic gesture) in the city and has publicly stated many times that Chicago welcomes and treasures it's gay residents. He spoke passionately about GLBT rights at both the opening and closing ceremonies of Gay Games VII recently held here (7/15-7/22/06). He's also a regular customer at a well known gay owned and operated restaurant in the Bridgeport neighborhood (AKA the Duchy of Daley).

Last I heard, he goes to mass every morning. I wouldn't know where to find a cite, though. 67.103.5.26 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to cite some of this information on the page devoted to him in Wikipedia. Such citation would not only give credit where credit is due, but it would also serve as an example for other public community leaders to emulate.

I personally wouldn't know where to begin in posting such a citation, but perhaps there is someone out there who could do this with finesse?

Yesse?

Hope so.

Frater Greg 00:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I added an entire section on GLBT Rights with direct quotes from news sources. I also added a relevant image of his revitalization of the Northalsted area. --Gerald Farinas 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

thats daley working for those votes!!! he cares nothing about you!! wake up

Citation needed

This section needs verifiable references for its numerical claims. Please reference citations and then put back into article where it's appropriate. Because of the sensitivity of number values, this section was moved to this talk page. --Gerald Farinas 20:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Although support for Daley is no longer as deep as it once was, it has grown considerably wider. Daley's election in 1989 can be attributed largely to his pluralities in wards on the city's Northwest and Southwest Sides, generally the more conservative areas of the city. In 1989, Daley's pluralities in his 15 highest vote-getting wards (out of 50) accounted for 264% of his citywide plurality. This means that support for Daley was incredibly concentrated in these wards. In 2003, Daley's pluralities in his top 15 wards accounted for just 57% of his city-wide plurality. This signifies much broader support. If support for Daley were uniformly distributed throughout the city's 50 wards, we would expect each set of 15 wards to deliver around 30% of Daley's total plurality (+/- a few percentage points due to population differences between wards).
On a semi-related note, for anyone providing links to Chicago Tribune articles -- please try to find free alternatives first, if possible. The Tribune is a site that requires registration to read full articles at times, and articles more than a week old are archived and require the user to pay fees to read the full text. The current Tribune reference links are almost useless. --Undertow87 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Prosecutor, not District Attorney

He never held the office of District Attorney, so that category does not apply. He belongs in the Prosecutors category though.

The title in Illinois is "States Attorney", and Daley was States Attorney for Cook County. Jhobson1 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Meigs Field, Hired Truck Program, Patronage, Stroger crisis

An anonymous editor is deleting these four sections in entirety, asserting that they have been "inserted by Republican party operatives". Suggest discussion of facts/sourcing/NPOV here.Yonmei 19:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing of the sections are highly POV. The news stories are not notable enough for their own sections. Some of the stories are unrelated to Daley. They also are only negative news stories, even though there are much more positive things that Daley is notable for. I came across this article, I saw this vandalism, and I removed the vandalism, and I think the vandalism should stay out of the article. 75.3.23.157 19:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove it as it is unrelated, libelous, and very biased with the amount of coverage given to some of it. 75.3.23.157 03:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of removing them, how about reverting them with phrasing changes instead? It would seem someone doesn't want people knowing the facts, regardless, with this election coming up. It's an undeniable fact that he violated FAA policy in doing so, to the tune of over $1M in fines and even greater losses annually.

Richie Daley

Should a small note be made about the fact that Richard M. Daley is more commonly known as Richie Daley and his father is referred to as Richard? Many people in or from Chicago know him as Richie and his father as Richard, a change that helps to avoid confusion. ptfreak 02:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've never heard anyone call him Richie in all my life in Chicago or read it written as such in any paper. I think the differentiation came from Richard Daley (sr.) and Richard M. Daley (jr.). --208.44.234.50 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
He's usually referred to as "Da Mare". 68.20.183.187 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
His father was "Da Mare." And I have heard many Chicagoans refer to him as Richie, although I've never seen it is any sort of "official" forum (such as a newspaper, etc.)Shsilver 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made "Richie Daley" direct to this page. I didn't add it to the intro, but I know that many Chicagoans refer to him as Richie. If you need a source, Brian Lamb of C-SPAN refers to him as "Richie" on an episode of Booknotes about his father. Johnnyt471 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

nah ... we just call him Little Napoleon

His father was referred to as Dick Daley; the son as Richie Daley. In both cases, this was largely prior to their becoming Mayor. After becoming Mayor, they were/are referred to as The Mayor (Da Mare in Chicagoese). This is a little bit analogous to Hirohito becoming the Showa Emperor. Jtelser (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

References: www.chicagoreader.com/policetorture

I have removed http://www.chicagoreader.com/policetorture from the references section because it doesn't seem to be a reference for anything in this article. The linked page looks like it would make a good reference for an article on police brutality in Chicago, and maybe even on this article if it's closely linked to the mayor, but at the moment this article doesn't even mention the police. -- Andy Smith (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

On the confusion, a perspective

I wrote a critically acclaimed book on the mayor and how he holds power. I am seeing here the same lack of balance I see elsewhere in the media. Clearly, Daley is highly controversial, and a good deal of the controversy has continuously made local news. Why is this not reported here? Why so much difficulty even getting mention of the very controversial aspects of his tenure?

This mayor has indeed been very deft at deflecting public criticism. Certainly, he now pays about two dozen public relations and FOIA experts, one at the right hand of practically every public official under executive control. No other city power in the world, to my knowledge, maintains this kind of media wall. But the more effective tool he has used has been to co-opt the middle class. Chicago looks wonderful to the minority of residents in areas gentrified in the last 20 years. They don't see much of Chicago.

In the rest of Chicago - the great bulk of Chicago - much damage has been done that the middle class rarely sees or hears of. To them, it may as well be another country. The homeless and working poor have been losing housing options to the middle class and displaced to distant parts. A caste system has developed in the school system: generations of children in poor areas have lost hope through the mayor's schools takeover. Yet public schools in gentrified areas are rivaling private schools in quality.

The CTA is, in fact, in deep financial trouble: after midnight on many of Chicago's major thoroughfares, there are no longer buses, and fare options are making the poor pay more for transit than the rich at this moment. The rail system, though in difficulties, is getting quite a bit more attention than the buses, which serve outlying neighborhoods. Police in Chicago have pitted themselves against young minorities and the left, while trim cops in bicycle gear appear fair, even cultured, to the middle class. The money going to most of the mayor's cosmetic projects, including Millennium Park and his extravagant street beautification, is being taken from schools, outlying parks, libraries, and other basic needs.

The Machine, though fragmented, still holds sway. If the mayor has achieved much, it has chiefly been through deft co-optation, divide-and-conquer politics, backroom power-brokering, and very careful spinning of his media position. I say, let the controversy in or you are doing a great disservice to history. Zelchenko 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Grant Park

Shouldn't it be added to the controversy section of the article that Daley rigged the voting in his favor for the addition of a children's museum in Grant Park? Although this tip in the scales went greatly under the radar, I feel it should still be included. Eenyminy (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Article split

I'm proposing that the "Controversies" section be split into an article just for that. This article is mainly about Daley as a person and this section seems inappropriate for a biographical article, especially when it is longer than everything else in the article combined. -- Ryankiefer (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with keeping it in the current article, but the section does need to be broken up and incorporated into the rest of the article instead of acting as an inline WP:COATRACK. Burpelson AFB (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Replace "Controversies" and "Political positions" sections with chronological events by term

I agree the section headings "controversies" and "political positions" are inappropriate, and violate WP:NPOV: the principle of letting the facts speak for themselves, but WP:STRUCTURE exhorts us not to split to segregate content based on POV. The length of this article is not the problem, it is within the guidelines of WP:SPLIT. Rather let us work together to integrate the content in the "controversies" and "political positions" sections into a chronological, neutral telling. A section "political positions" violates WP:NOR; rather the subject's verifiable acts should speak for themselves. An article "mainly about Daley as a person" is frankly irrelevant from WP perspective, Daley the person is notable only for being Mayor of Chicago, and politicians tend to be controversial. WP:DUE requires that the weight of "controversial" content be proportional to the weight of controversy in WP:RS, which is considerable weight in the case of reliable sources regarding this subject. Controversy cannot be split from an article on this subject without violating WP:NPOV. [User:HughD|Hugh]] (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of a separate controveries heading is quite common in articles about people; I don't follow how it violates NPOV, since "controversy" merely indicates disagreement. The political positions section is not OR so long as the positions being put forward are non-controversial and properly sourced. The current section mostly reflects this-- a source for labelling him a liberal Democrat would be an improvement, however, but mostly it's just a list showing his actions (and thereby positions) on various political topics, like gun control and same-sex marriage. siafu (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"The use of a separate controveries heading is quite common in articles about people" - doesn't make it right. Hugh (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"I don't follow how it violates NPOV" - let's read the WP:STRUCTURE section of WP:NPOV together and discuss. Hugh (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"The political positions section is not OR" - it is WP:OR to the extent categorizing the actions as expressions of "political positions" implies the existence of an ideology which is not verifiable and therefore outside the scope of WP. Hugh (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"a source for labelling him a liberal Democrat would be an improvement" - the label is clearly WP:OR; it is contradicted by as many verifiable facts (corporate subsidies while school and parks systems go broke) as support it (handguns). Hugh (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make it "right", it makes it uncontroversial. Moreover, the actions listed are not extrapolated into a broad ideology-- read the section, it is in fact just a list of specific positions he has taken on specific issues. This is not OR. siafu (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with using this section heading of "controversies". It's inherently POV and a sign of poor writing. I would also argue that as a whole, this section violates WP:UNDUE. The section should be split up and incorporated into the rest of the article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how labelling something as "controversial" is inherently POV-- it is, in fact, something that's quite verifiable. A label of "controversial" is not the same as "wrong" or "bad" or anything of the order. The meaning of controversial is that it creates controversy or disagreement, and in wikipedia this means that this disagreement is notable and verifiable, which can be determined using the relevant RS's, like the newspapers and other media, statements by other local politicians and community leaders, etc. The parking meter lease issue, for example, is patently controversial, and has resulted in thousands of pages of investigative articles, editorials, court briefs, and other things. How is it POV to label such a controversy as a controversy? siafu (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not standing for reelection

Breaking news: [1]; this will need to be confirmed, of course, before inclusion, but is quite important. siafu (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that he is running for President in 2012? President Daley... Kinda rolls of the tongue173.58.64.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC).


Toolbox

Single-sentence paragraphs

If you're aiming at GA, the editors of this article should try to cut down on the single-sentence paragraphs. Take each section and figure out what the overall narrative of that section is. Then put the sentences together in a way that flows naturally, rather than creating a staccato list of facts. —Designate (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, done, thanks! Hugh (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Richard M. Daley/Archive 1/GA2

Detail of Bridgeport in Richard M. Daley

Greetings neighbor User:Ryecatcher773! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and in particular to WP:WikiProject_Chicago articles.

Anyone reading Richard M. Daley who is curious about the details of Bridgeport, including its history and in particular the history of its complex ethnic composition, can click on the wikilink here in Richard M. Daley.

The cited source is a student-written website. Clearly it is not a peer-reviewed journal. It may have been given a grade but it is not clear to me that it was edited, which is a key aspect of reliability. The students name their teachers but it is not clear the teachers wrote, edited or vetted the content. Don't you agree? In your judgement it is a reliable source?

I read the cite. Can you please be more specific about where in the cited source that Bridgeport is described as an "historically Irish-American and Italian-American nhe hieighborhood" or words to that effect? We need to be careful to stear clear of original research. Clearly, the whole point of the source is the rich, diverse ethnic history of Bridgeport. After reading the source, I thought, might Bridgeport just as easily be described as an "historically French, Indian, Irish, German, Norwegian, Bohemian, Swedish, Czech, Polish, Lithuanian, Croatian neighborhood"? Clearly it would be off-topic to do the ethnic history of Bridgeport justice in the context of an article on Richard M. Daley. May I ask, what is your basis for singling out the Irish-American and Italian-American history for inclusion in Richard M. Daley?

Might you have an additional source that describes Bridgeport as an "historically Irish-American and Italian-American neighborhood" or words to that effect?

As you know, the lede of article summarizes the most notable aspects of the subject WP:LEDE. The lede of Bridgeport does not described Bridgeport as an "historically Irish-American and Italian-American neighborhood." Rather, the last sentence of the lede of Bridgeport describes Bridgeport as "diverse." Of all the things that might be said of Bridgeport, how is it that what belongs in Richard M. Daley is that readers of Richard M. Daley should be aware of Bridgeport's Irish-American and Italian-American ethnic composition?

I look forward to hearing your views. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the subject of Daley -- the family's Irish heritage is a prominent -- and subsequently subject of Chicago political history (there have been 12 Chicago mayors of Irish heritage and four of these were from Bridgeport), it is helpful to a reader studying Chicago's history to know that Bridgeport was a largely Irish area and Catholic at that. The Italians were here in sizeable numbers (and some are still), but they largely fall into the bordering neighborhood of Armour Square and hence don't have a lot of press to cite. Bridgeport's tight knit Irish-American community, however, was of great importance to the 11th Ward's political composition (which includes more than Bridgeport, but I seem to recall we've had this argument before).
Suffice to say that I've lived here in Bridgeport for a number of years, and although it's now arguably more Chinese than anything else it isn't original research to say that it was historically an Irish community -- the neighborhood is even mentioned by name (along with Beverly) in the 'South Side Irish' song (perhaps you've heard it played on the radio around St. Patrick's Day? Or you own an old 45 of it?). At any rate, I have added new citations (I removed the mention of Italians given that there aren't a lot of reliable resources regarding their presence in Bridgeport -- although if you were to ask the Scarlata's and/or the Impallaria family, they could probably produce enough pictures and press clippings from the 60s to account for the Italian presence in Bridgeport... Gio's and the St. Joesph Club on 28th are certainly still there too... but none of that is cite-able). The citations I've added regarding the Irish in Bridgeport are from the Trib and from the book American Pharaoh, which was published in 1995 (I had to read quite a bit of it while writing a paper for Prof. David Solzman's class at UIC not long after it was published). Anyhow, hopefully this clears things up. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is super biased

Like I'm just reading the head paragraph and it's already very super critical and insinuating about this guy. I don't know jack about his politics so I can't comment on the allegations it has about him but I mean I do think per WP:NPOV the article needs to be made more neutral. 108.60.35.76 (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Richard M. Daley. 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) 09:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Thanks for saving my life"

I suffer from depression, and live a wierd life. I had to give up my job, because of depression, epilepsy and crohn's. Usually I felt like ending my life. But whenever I hear about something that you plan to do, to better the city(Chicago), it give's me a reason to live longer to see the outcome. I love what happened to items like Lake Shore Drive; Dan Ryan Express; the jobs that are showing up all over the city; the safety improvement throughout the city; and the list goes on and on. So, "Thank You!" I now have a reason to keep on living.

-Jerry Tasker

Is this for real?

Jerry Tasker a.k.a Richard M. Daley

Stroger?

Is the section on the Stroger thing really deserving of its own section? After all, Daley is only related to it tangentially.

I don't believe the Stronger scandal really should have its own section. Perhaps a mention of it in a section that breaks down some of the lesser-known Daley scandals would be more fitting.

Marine Corps service

There's no record that this Mayor Daley served in the Marine Corps or any of the other branches of the military. You can simply do an FOIA with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri to see if he has a DD214 or a basic summary of his military service. I found out about this from this website that lists false famous former Marine rumors like Don Knotts, Burt Reynolds, Beatrice Arthur, Charlton Heston, and Mr. Rogers. Just press Ctrl+A on the webpage to highlight the list if you can't see the names because the background color and font color. The real Marines who operate that website did careful research with the National Personnel Records Center when they added the names to the list.

Title Change

I would suggest this article be retitled "Criticisms of Mayor Daley by his Detractors." The article simply discusses things that the author(s) dislike about the former mayor, or areas of criticism/controversy during his long tenure. While many of these items warrant inclusion, it is clearly written by individuals who did not think much of the mayor's record, and have incorporated their bias into the article. I realize Wikipedia editors do not have the time to check articles on ex-mayors of mid-tier American cities, but there should be at least some effort to make this read like an encyclopedia.

Ironically, most of the contributors to this likely moved to the city during Mayor Daley's tenure largely due to enhancements he made that prevented Chicago from turning into Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, etc... Also, Harold Washington's article on here makes him out to be a near deity that was only constrained from turning Chicago into a utopian paradise by a racist city council, when in actuality he was a mediocre politician running a city that was far more dangerous and less welcoming during his terms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.181.14 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 August 2012‎

Talk:Richard M. Daley/Archive 1/GA1

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_M._Daley/Archive_1&oldid=1098602685"