Talk:Jon Burge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Jon Burge was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on October 9, 2007.
This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week. Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is List of Chicago Landmarks update. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Image

Would this image be useful? Image: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Failed GA again

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

[edit] 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.
  • 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)


[edit] 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)