Talk:James Philip

message: I have no idea what bills he's sponsored, co-sponsored, worked on, or other directives he's spearheaded. Generally Assembly webpage is no help. Any ideas? —Rob (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-critical content 

message: I'll try to summarize potentially useful sources here.
* – First elected in 1966, state senator from Wood Dale. Led Republican-led reform of Chicago schools, instituted tax cuts for suburbs. James Edgar summarized Philip as "opinionated". Also had tougher penalties on crime.
* – Frequently clashed with Chicago mayor Harold Washington, although perhaps due to a reference to the city as "a rathole" (which changed with the election of Richard M. Daley). Hard worker, "one of the most important Republicans in the Midwest". Allowed Illinois to carry electoral victories for George H. W. Bush (president) and Jim Thompson (governor). Pushed through legislation approving I-355, Lake Michigan water supply, and a golf course.
* – Brief biographical information
* – Largely responsible for blocking Lake Calumet airport
* – I just thought this was interesting, and would provide greater depth to Philip's personality
Please add more above. Thanks. —Rob (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've protected this because it seems to have been the focus of a revert war over the same criticism almost since its creation. Please discuss on talk how to add material that isn't criticism, so that this becomes a genuine biography. Otherwise, it's a violation of COATRACK. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Semi-protection would be a more appropriate option at this point for this article. There were frequent deletions of material by anonymous IP accounts (68.7*) that are suspected sock puppets of User:Joehazelton. Currently all critical content has been removed from the article despite there being multiple reliable sources, such as the Chicago Sun-Times, ABC, and Medill News, among others. Also, I was working to add additional information to balance the article, noting non-contentious items such as Pate Philip's professional background and the fact that a state park is named after him. I can see no reason why this type of information should be deleted. Propol (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The continued use of Ad hominem attack on this bio and passing it off as "Encyclopedia" is an insult. This editor continues to push his one sided agenda.  This editor's use of guilt by association and "sock puppet" accusations, to quash any meaning full discussions and character assassination with scarlet lettering any editor that opposes him on Republican office holder's bio should be a clear indication of this editors intent.  This editor has used this for a long time, as the cornerstone of his augments.  His style of writing is as that as an attack copywriter for a Democratic mail piece, rather than a NPOV.  Then this editor, tries to justify it all with bulling and tactics of a Chicago street gang.  All of which is clearly not the original intent of Wikipedia.  Also, as it was stated my me and others, this article is a classic example of Coatracking WP:Coat and a violation of many other policies and regardless of all the minutia of alleged facts used on this biography of a living person still has to conform to policy as to WP:COAT , WP:BLP  , WP:NPOV , WP:WEIGHT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.176.242 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than run-on talk page comments whose content rivals the best of Rush Limbaugh, anon IPs haven't contributed much, if anything, to the article. Pate doesn't seem to have a website, so at the moment, his comings, goings and doings are largely unknown to me. I will, however, post some articles here as I find them. Semi-protection would be better here. —Rob (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob and Propol, the problem wasn't what the anon(s) were adding, but the criticism without any other biographical information to put it in context. Perhaps you could work on the talk page, or offwiki, on putting together a more three-dimensional biography. He's a public figure, so there must be material available. Here, for example. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To festoon this man's bio with total negativity and Ad hominem bilge, is inconsistent with the goals of wikipeida to have an "Encyclopedic" article.  So, until editors can prove that they can write a  NPOV,article, with out sharping up a partisan axe, the article should be protected.68.75.176.242 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I can appreciate that you're frustrated, but complaining about personal attacks by making them yourself probably won't get you too far. The best thing would be for you to create a user account and help to find material that isn't negative so that the legitimate criticism can be added in a less barbed form. I'm going to adjust the protection so that it'll automatically unlock after two weeks. That should give people enough time to find more sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To the anon, I see that more personal attacks from you have had to be removed. I'm going to semi-protect this talk page against anon edits. If you want to take part in the discussion, please create a user account, which will allow you to bypass the semi-protection in a few days. I'm leaving this note here for you because you're using dynamic IPs and have no fixed talk page. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Pointoflight is a suspected sock puppet of blocked User:Joehazelton. Further, Pointoflight is a single purpose account. The user is deleting any critical information from the article, despite there being multiple reliable sources cited. Propol (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some one should stop Propol's harassment of me. Propol is out of control and need to be told to stop this unwarranted abuse. This is outrages and shows the kind abuse that wikipeidia tolerates.Pointoflight (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock puppet

message: Unproven allegations and hearsay around the trial of Scott Fawell is not relevant and should not be on this bio. Again stop the Ad hominem/guilt by association attack nonsense.Pointoflight (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unproven allegations and hearsay

message: During the corruption trial of former Gov. George Ryan's top aide Scott Fawell, "Pate" Philip was called as a witness. Prosecutors asked about Philip's 50 year high school reunion--a 1999 $15,000 bash at Navy Pier set up by Scott Fawell. Philip said he never asked for any special treatment, but was happily surprised by it. It was only after the Chicago Sun-Times revealed the party that Philip paid for it out of his campaign fund.
 
Also during the trial, prosecuters released a document including ten pages of favors granted to former Senate President Pate Philip. Document of political favors released at Fawell trial by Paul Meincke ABC7Chicago
Philip spoke with Larry Hall, who wore a hidden recorder and taped the conversations as a part of an undercover government investigation. Philip agreed to try to get Hall's sister a job with the secretary of state's office in exchange for Hall's fundraising activities. Prosecutors allege Hall gave $1,400 to Philip's campaign shortly after the conversation. Former Illinois Senate President Testifies in Fawell Trial by Michelle Meyer March 5 2003 Medill News Service
Philip has been criticized for looking into the voter histories of students applying for legislative scholarships, which are funded by the taxpayers of Illinois. In 2001, all five of Philip's scholarships went to Republican primary voters or to students whose parents voted Republican, and the same trend was observed over the prior five years. Pat Quinn says Pate Phillip may be bending the rules by Jeff Fischer October 30 2002 Medill News Service
::Note the date of publication....07-MAR-03 All water under the bridge... just more disinformation.Pointoflight (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is not the date, but the source. We need to see that this story was actually published by a third party, not just placed on the student news service website. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed text 

message: See Pate Philip's free class reunion
Chicago Sun-Times, May 28, 2002 by Tim Novak
[removed copyright violation] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propol (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Free party

message: Testimony hits Salvi, Pate
Chicago Sun-Times,  Feb 26, 2003  
[removed copyright violation] Propol (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Testimony hits Salvi, Pate

message: Illinois Blue Book 1973-1974 page 135 states wife Judy, and two children Jase and Cia. Page 52-53 of 2002 Blue Book says wife is Nancy and 4 children. BB 1977-1978 also shows Nancy as the wife. It also says he was in the USMC from 1950 to 1953. I have not found much detail as to the nature of his service, locations etc. I assume means he was not involved in the Korean War. His full name also seems to be James Peyton Philip Jr.(Daily Herald Sunday, January 29, 1995. Page 129) The nickname "Pate" derived from his middle name. Info on parents would be good too. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also be worth noting that Ray Soden filled the remainder of his 2003-2005 term with Carole Pankau winning election in the next term. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Heart bypass at Elmhurst Memorial Hospital, June 2004. "Former state Senate president recovering after bypass surgery" Daily Herald. Chicago, Illinois. Tuesday, June 22, 2004 | Page 102  --Dual Freq (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People obviously want to keep on editing this, so I'd like to unprotect it. Propol, can I ask you please to stop adding that section and allow other editors on the page to decide how it should be written, if at all? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical information 

message: *Details of USMC service 1950 - 1953. Assumed to be enlisted service and not related to the Korean war.
*Wife Judy, Illinois Blue Book 1973-1974 page 135 Divorced? deceased? (Status unknown) At least two children. Jase and Cia. Judy's name is mentioned up to the 1975 - 1976 Illinois Bluebook.
*Wife Nancy, year of marriage, maiden name. 4 children, first names would be nice to have here. Nancy is first mentioned in the 1977-1978 Illinois Blue book
*Parents, names and occupations at a minimum. Apparently he shares a name with his father as noted by the one article I found that says he is a Jr.
*Religion, for infobox line currently blank.
Anybody have a source for these items? --Dual Freq (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown biographical details

message: I've unprotected so that others can edit. Propol and Pointoflight, please allow other editors to decide whether to include that material. I don't want to keep protecting the page because of it, when all that achieves is that no improvement is possible. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Would someone care to make an attempt at expanding the controversy section? I think at a minimum there are three major issues that should be noted. First, Philip was accused of accepting donations in exchange for helping people obtain state employment. Second, while testifying in the George Ryan trial, Philip was accused of committing perjury by a federal prosecutor. Third, Philip was accused of improperly accepting benefits, such as a party at Navy Pier, which were at taxpayer expense. There are multiple reliable sources (e.g. Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, etc.) I believe the article would be incomplete without mentioning these controversial topics. Propol (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the date of his indictment and trial. I can't find a source that says he was indicted by local or federal prosecutors for any of the above items. Such a thorough and aggressive corruption investigation would have yielded an indictment had any crime worthy of prosecution been committed. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dual Freq, your comments above are opinion. An accusation of wrongdoing doesn't need to yield an indictment or conviction to be notable and appropriate for inclusion. Also, there is no reason to believe that charges can't be brought at a later date. There are multiple reliable sources documenting the controversial issues that I have mentioned. If you like, I will provide the specific citations. Their inclusion will fully comply with policy, such as WP:BLP. I'm in favor of expanding this article in a balanced manner. I would like to expand the Legislative career section as well. Philip's support of DuPage Airport is significant, as are many other issues. However, I remain confident that criticisms are a proper and necessary element of the article too. I would really appreciate your assistance. Propol (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Pointofflight, if there are any more posts from you in that tone, I'm going to block you. Propol has very kindly agreed to stop restoring the disputed section and has asked here instead for other input. You have to respond in kind by understanding that some criticism is inevitable of a political figure, and that talk pages can't contain this kind of invective. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: I added apicture of Pate to this and the URL of it, but will it be fine here? - Crazyconan (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so - there's no information whatsoever provided for the picture in the source, which makes it impossible to figure out its copyright status. —Rob (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think I might have added a URL to the comments for the picture (not discussion), so just check there and confirm if its legal here. - Crazyconan (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on James Philip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090804013329/http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004 to http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:NewsBank:CTRB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0EB426EB77D80FA3&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090804013329/http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004 to http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:NewsBank:CTRB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0FFECF0D6F8115CE&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=AA98CDC331574F0ABEAFF732B33DC0B2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How can the statement "removed previous money-wasting reformers from their posts" be anything but a biased, non-factual statement? Whatever had been cited to for that statement no longer exists. This clause, if not the entire sentence should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkelber (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago School Reform - Bias