Talk:Winnetka, Illinois

message: Can anyone add more info about Sacred Heart and Faith Hope? Thanks! Qslack 05:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: There is far too much vandalism on this page. The "Famous Winnetkans" section is being heavily vandalizied. You can check the archives of this page, it's the same person every time. I keep deleting them, but something should be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SinHarvest (talk • contribs) 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Well, it has now been installed, I will check the article and see that it reflects it. (It already does...) N9jig (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Luther King Plaque 

message: Most of the factual statements in this article are unverified (lacking citations) and have been that way for years; it's probably not illogical to assume that some such statements have been sitting there since the article's creation itself. While header tags like {unverified} and in-line tags like {fact} are indicators to this problem, they do not by any means rectify it--a common misinterpretation I see in many articles here on Wikipedia. People see an unverified statement and, not wanting to delete it in the event that it's actually correct, slap a tag on it and then walk away. The problem occurs when the person doesn't come back however much time later and deletes the statement after giving other editors sufficient time to try to get some research (preferably, the tagger would've also done some research himself). While I don't enjoy mass deletions of other people's hard work, these unverified claims have been here for a really long time. We wouldn't want people reading about Winnetka, IL to get false impressions. I've tried to look for citations for some of the facts stated here, but some of them are so obscure that there's no sources available. Therefore, I'm proposing a cutdown per WP:VERIFY--if we cannot find sources for the unverified information by the end of the this month (March), then I personally will delete the questionable information that is unverified. Questionable information (i.e. information that requires sources) is defined by WP:V as "...any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." Specifically, I'm challenging the entire "History" and "In film" sections, since those two most blatantly exhibit a lack of citations, especially given the attractiveness of the information. If anyone else would like to challenge any statement(s) or section(s) to be deleted at the end of the month or otherwise argue against this proposition, please do so here. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Found where the author of the first paragraph of the History section got his or her info here. Don't know why s/he didn't bother to add the citation. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this source is published by the Village of Winnetka itself and furthermore is not one that's been particularly subjected to any expert review, I checked WP:IRS to see if it could be considered reliable: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources." I emboldened the statements which are relevant to this source. As seen in the Winnetka, IL article itself, the source makes claims about the actions several people and one organization, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. I just checked the railroad's article and it makes no mention of Winnetka, IL. I'll be doing more research as the month goes on to see if I can dig up anything else. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul etc. railroad is the one that's linked to in the article itself when it mentions the railroad through Winnetka. Assuming your information is accurate, I'll correct that link. 24.15.197.87 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the linked railroad to Chicago and Milwaukee Railway, which seems to be the article on Wikipedia that's referring to what you were talking about. Note that I'm relying on your judgment and that there's still no citations in the entire section. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clearing that up; the source didn't make any mention of an actual railroad, only the two names of executives (Gurnee and that other one). All of the things you added to the section will eventually need citations, but those can wait--with what you've said so far, it sounds like you know what you're talking about when it comes to railroads on the North Shore. I'm more concerned with the other parts of the History section--those mentioning an Erastus Patterson, the dates of the town's incorporation, and so forth. What's your opinion on the reliability of the one source, considering my argument above? I'd like another view before I wipe the slate of everything pulled from here that's been sitting in the article for years. I'm still looking for other sources online to confirm the statements. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I suppose at this point it would be better overall if we assumed it were a valid source. More information will be preserved that way. We should find some way to cite this Wikipedia article with that book, but beyond that, I think we've come to the heart of it. Even though it's almost the end of the month, I still haven't done much looking into the "In Film" section of this article, so I'll spend a bit more time on that--as well as the other sections--before I go ahead with this "cutdown." We sometimes forget that the goal of Wikipedia articles is to make them better, not worse; perhaps calling this process a "cutdown" put the accent on the wrong syllable, so to speak. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified Information Cutdown 

message: Perhaps a better choice of words could be used here to have less bias, particularly the word "Forcing" this could be at least changed to "requiring". Gamerwierdo100 (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality in Geography>Northern Boundary 

message: The history section should include at least a mention of Jungle gyms. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:51B3:D2CF:DE31:6A1C (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junglegym