Jump to content

Talk:Tiffany Henyard

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

I will improve

[edit]

I will improve this draft and then re-submit.

The mayor has now received even INTERNATIONAL coverage:

She has also received coverage in national publications:

As well as local publications in other major cities

Her controversies are receiving wide coverage, and have become a major item of local interest across Chicago-area news sources. Outside of the Chicago area, it appears she has become a lightning rod/item of major interest to right-wing publications. Many of the right wing outlets are not regarded as reliable sources for use as sources on Wikipedia, but the amount of attention she is receiving from these (mostly right-leaning) non-local publications DOES indicate that she has already attained broad notoriety.

More esteemed sources such as the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times are more ideal, as well as local news stations such as WGN, WBBN, WLS, etc. are the best sources to use in the article itself. SecretName101 (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 2021 coverage by The Daily Wire (a national right-wing news source) of one of her early mayoral controversies: https://www.dailywire.com/news/dem-mayor-hires-convicted-sex-offender-who-raped-teenage-girls-to-inspect-homes-residents-ill-be-terrified SecretName101 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this story that was sent by the national desk to numerous ABC News local affiliates. [1] SecretName101 (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Wire and Fox News are not reliable, per WP:RSP. So are a couple of the other sources, like the Daily Mail. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this. And none of those sites are being used to source info. They are being pointed to to demonstrate that she has become an item of interest far outside of just Dolton or Cook County SecretName101 (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated sources are not acceptable, especially on a BLP, except in remarkable circumstances. Using them as evidence for your own WP:OR is right out - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing an international article on the subject to demonstrate that international articles exist is not WP:OR.
It would be if I described it as "widespread international coverage" or "broad international coverage", etc. because that would not be verifiable by looking at those sources themselves.
However, the sources themselves do directly verify that international coverage (with no superlatives) exists, hence why you are misusing the term "original research" here. SecretName101 (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any notable positives, please add

[edit]

If you can find anything of note that is on the more positive (or even neutral) end, adding it would be appreciated.

Due to the fact that Henyard's notability is primarily derived from the public interest in the extensive (almost comically-extensive) array of allegations of corrupt activities, her article will have an unflattering bend. It's just the way things are: if someone's notability is from seedy activities (or allegations of seedy activities), then their article will naturally come across as unflattering.

That said, we should make an effort not to omit positive or neutral aspects of her biography that we know of and can find reliable sources for.

Obviously, we should not (in an overreaching effort to provide a less-unflattering article in the name of "balance") insert UN-NOTEWORTHY coverage (such as, "the mayor cut the ribbon on a new water fountain at the park on January 4, 2022").

I can think of a fairly good example of a politician that I previously worked on an article for who had a lot of un-flattering aspects to note of their career, but for whom a respectably balanced article was written noting some neutral and some perhaps flattering information of note. Incidentally, it's William Shaw (Illinois politician), who Henyard ran against in her 2021 mayoral primary. So that'd be good to look at. But his career was longer than Henyard's mayoralty has been, so there's probably less to work with for her. SecretName101 (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment

[edit]

No significant press coverage lol she’s all over and being probed by the FBI. Wikipedia is kind of a joke here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.213.62.206 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

[edit]

"may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Specifically, most details are from local news coverage, which may be of less encyclopedic significance"

I saw you left this tag @RunningTiger123

I think this is an incorrect presumption.

Broad coverage of this subject in publications serving the Chicago region (including the nation’s seventh-most circulated newspaper: The Chicago Tribune) should indicate that she and her scandals are a significant subject of interest. That and the fact that her article has received more than 4,000 views each of the past three days (it was published roughly three and a half days ago).

Local news coverage is the usual type of sources that most mayoral articles rely on, so an reliance on local/regional sources is not inherently problematic. In fact, the reality that Henyard is a routine topic of Chicagland-wide news is actually an indicator of the opposite:only if a story was of strong public interest would the mayor of a town of 20,000 be a routine nightly news topic on news sources that serve the entire 9.5 million residents of the Chicago metropolitan area.

It is well demonstrated that this is a subject of broad interest, just look at the daily views of this article. Yesterday this article received 4,783 views. The U.S. Speaker of the House (Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) received only 4,091. Clarence Thomas, the most heavily-scrutinized U.S. supreme court Justice at the moment, received only 2,356 views. That alone should illustrate that this subject is indeed an item of broad interest, and that coverage of her is not inherently excessive.

As I mentioned, commonly mayoral articles on Wilipedia are primarily based on local news sources. Out-of-state news sources rarely exist for mayors.

For example:

SecretName101 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's excessive, I'll argue, is the extent and array of misconduct on Henyard's alleged part.
Not the coverage provided in the article. SecretName101 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me elaborate, since I couldn't write much in the tag. I am not saying this topic is not notable and should be excluded; I'm saying that the way in which the topic is covered is inappropriate. Local news sources are perfectly fine to cite, but since there are more local sources, any stories covered in them are going to be considered less significant, and fewer details from those stories should be considered relevant. Therefore, it is WP:UNDUE to cover the scandal in such detail. In other words, a reader going through this article might assume based on the level of detail that it has received extensive national coverage, but it hasn't. (WP:BLPBALANCE might also be relevant, but I won't dive into that since I'm not an expert on BLPs.)
To address some of your other points:
  • I agree that the Chicago Tribune in particular is a source with national relevance, but the paper isn't covering it as a national story, it's covering it as a local story.
  • Page views are not the best way to determine relevance on Wikipedia and how much we should cover. For instance, memes about Dune: Part Two are pretty popular right now, but that does not mean a huge article for Dune: Part Two memes should exist.
  • You point to several other articles that similarly use extensive local coverage; I'll note that (a) some of those articles probably go into too much detail themselves (I particularly think articles for Buttigieg's and Sanders's mayoralties are excessive), and (b) there's a difference between using a lot of local sources and using exclusively local sources. For (b), consider that the only national coverage here seems to be reference 24, "Examples illustrating coverage by national and foreign news outlets", and that is only used to cite the statement that it has received national coverage, not the actual details of Henyard's actions. Compare this with other mayors you mentioned – Lightfoot, Wu, Breed, etc. – where national sources are incorporated throughout the articles.
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RunningTiger123
I think you overlook that Henyard's distinction/area of notability IS her scandals, though. Without any scandal, she’d not have an article. She'd be an unremarkable first-term township supervisor and small town mayor otherwise.
I’d argue that no singular scandal is discussed in all that extensive of depth. There are just SO many scandals with her. That's what makes her notable, in fact, the depth of scandal she is enveloped in. The reason people come to her article, and the only reason people outside of Thornton township are familiar with her existence is the scandals.
Aside from the sexual assault matter (which is the subject of a state investigation), all singular matters of controversy are no more than two-paragraphs at maximum.
Excuse the hyperbole: but we wouldn't have considered extensive coverage of relation to cults and murders unfair to the musician Charles Manson. SecretName101 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if you're going to invoke Charles Manson let's carry on with that comparison. Manson has received extensive coverage of his life in various sources, including national newspapers and magazines as well as full-length books and features, so it is reasonable to include a high level of detail. Henyard has received significantly less coverage, so her article should not go into the same level of detail. For instance, we don't need a breakdown of every single travel or self-promotional expenditure she made; instead, the article can note in one or two sentences that her office spent tens of thousands of dollars on hotels, restaurants, and personal billboards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a notice at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view regarding this discussion, as due/undue weight falls within that page's purview. For anyone joining the discussion, please feel free to correct what I've said above; I'm not a NPOV expert so I wanted to invite people who might have a better understanding of what would be appropriate. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RunningTiger123 I called it hyperbole because it was an exaggerated analogy. But thanks for asking others to give it a look. SecretName101 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess not much came of the post at WT:NPOV, so I suppose it's just best to leave the status quo (i.e., keep the tag, since a second editor added it back) unless/until an uninvolved editor comes along to remove it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RunningTiger123, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard has some more eyes on it, if you feel like it's worth giving this another try. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doctor Duh: I don't want to spam this discussion across a bunch of places (comes across a bit like forum shopping, at least to me), but if you think it should be shared there feel free. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoralty

[edit]

@Jjazz76 The term "mayoralty" is an acceptable and proper term for a mayoral tenure. Just as "presidency" and "governorship" are for presidential and gubernatorial tenures. What is your objection to the use of this term? SecretName101 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around on Wikipedia it certainly isn't universally used, and when it is, it seems almost exclusively for big city type of mayors. Even a large city in New York, like Yonkers, looking at the biographies of recent mayors, going back 4 or 5 or 6 names, none use the term mayoralty.
Maybe for the Richard Daley types that have a tenure of 20 years in a big city fine, but I don't the mayoralty is the right term for a one term so-far mayor in a relatively small locale.
Mayoralty to me has a smack of puffery, while 'term as mayor' calls it what it is. Jjazz76 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjazz76 It's literally the term Wikipedia uses in the title of its article about the office of mayor: Mayoralty in the United States. That article's scope covers all mayoralties, not just big city ones. SecretName101 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
90 percent of that article is about long-term serving mayors of big cities. Then you get articles like below, neither of which use the term mayoralty anywhere in the text.
List of mayors of the 50 largest cities in the United States
List of longest-serving mayors in the United States
I'd like to see what others think on the issue. Calling every term of a mayor a mayoralty isn't what an encyclopedia would do, and isn't what Wikipedia has done in its current practice. Jjazz76 (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine and there's plenty of precedents. If I were writing for, let's say "USA Today", I might choose another way to phrase it, but this is an encyclopedia and a scholarly tone is appropriate. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoral tenure and WP:BLPCRIME

[edit]

Pretty much this whole section is tip-toeing awfully close to violating WP:BLPCRIME which says, A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information. A lot of this material looks like it likely is quite notable; but notability alone cannot adjudicate inclusion in a biography of a living person. Please tell me why I shouldn't just blank the whole section. Has she been convicted of any of this? Because we should not be talking about a person accused of extortion as doing an extortion unless they've been convicted of extortion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on this. It really needs some cleaning. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to get ahead of the objection and mention that, as I raised on the thread at WP:BLP/N she does appear to constitute a public figure. I mean I've never heard of her, and I suspect that the level of notoriety here is likely as a result of the conservative outrage machine, but it is what it is. However I'll remind everybody that the guidance on crimes and public figures includes the following: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. - In other words, if something is sole-sourced to a small number of low-quality news outlets it probably should not be in the article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 What outlets are you calling low quality? Much of the sourcing is from the most prominent, respected, and long-established newspapers and television news departments in the Chicago metro area. SecretName101 (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything called "Fox" for starters. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe learn more about how local media works in the USA.
Fox News (the national cable news org) has no editorial connection to local news broadcasts/bureaus at Fox Broadcasting Company stations and affiliates.
WFLD is regarded as unbiased and reliable
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wfld-fox-32-chicago-bias/ SecretName101 (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is tiptoing right to the edge of WP:NPA and I would politely ask you to revise your phrasing here. My low opinion of US media, in general, is pretty well established if you peruse WP:RS/N - I find it overly sensationalist and that it often creates inappropriate situations like this awful article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 I have more than invited you to remove or at least point to objectionable content you think should be removed. You have done NEITHER every time you were urged to. SecretName101 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am busy and will do it in my own time. You have no authority to set arbitrary deadlines on a thorough source review. Especially over something as potentially frought as out of control detail surrounding an apparently controversial living person. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't even pointed to a singular example within the article. That doesn't require a "timeline" if you have spotted such obvious examples.
Especially when you have evidently have time to badger off-site editors and message the legal department. SecretName101 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures. It includes the test, For individuals who are not public figures... Marcus Markup (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comment immediately above yours. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished a first pass which was very conservative with regard to application of WP:BLP in light of her purported standard as a public figure. This raises the question of whether a municipal politician from a suburban village is de-facto public on account of being a public figure or if she is only a public figure because of her controversies. If the former then additional work is required to demonstrate other reasons beyond the many accusations against her why she is a public figure. If, on the other hand, she's only a public figure because of all the accusations leveled against her then it may be cause for AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would contrast the treatment of Henyard with that of Rob Walker (New York politician) and note that his notability is established for the crimes he was convicted of, not his municipal governance. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walker was granted presumed notability by being a member of the New York State Assembly. SecretName101 (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. And I might agree with you, if the only reason for her notoriety were accusations against her. But the purpose of separating the handling of public figures from everyone else in to protect the privacy of average citizens. Henyard, however, does not seem to value the privacy an average citizen would have. On the contrary, she buys full-sized billboards by the roadside with her images on them. And if your very goal was to get YouTube views and make the evening news, one good way would be to hire a rapper to go to recorded public meetings, telling her constituents to "Pay me what you owe me!" Marcus Markup (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm asking what our standard should be for what constitutes a public figure. If it's that she actively seeks publicity, ok, but so do all kinds of non-notable people. If it's that she's a mayor, again, OK, but there's a lot of mayors who don't seem to warrant notability. See, for example, Dan Kutcher. I don't really have a horse in a race. I'd never heard of her prior to today and, frankly, I don't think she seems like a very good municipal politician. But I don't like Wikipedia going and doing one-offs about the cause-celebre of the day for a bunch of American political talking points; and I worry that her article, as it stands, is kind of that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there's a lot of mayors who don't seem to warrant notability". Being a less-significant public figure does not negate the fact that they are still a public figure. SecretName101 (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is not a public figure because of her controversies. She is a public figure because of her office.
However, she garnered her level of noteworthiness as a public figure from controversy.
She would be a public figure without them. Just not a highly-notable one. SecretName101 (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being used as an unwittingly propaganda tool of the Republican party confers notability is the simple truth. Simonm223 (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a weird characterization. Her controversies have been nightly news for months on end for the entire Chicago region. That’s pretty clear illustration that they are notable.
The fact that conservatives also hype her does not somehow negate that.
Her alleged corruption is very much a matter note across one of the largest metro areas in the western hemisphere. SecretName101 (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: I'm not sure whether her delinquent tax payment is a problem to note. I know other politicians have had it noted on Wikipedia when they fail to pay personal bills and taxes to the government of similar amounts, such as Brandon Johnson. SecretName101 (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership style and public image descriptions

[edit]

@Simonm223 It's unclear to me why you think the leadership style and public image of a holder of executive office is a topic that is inappropriate to include when sourced to reputable outlets.

Additionally, you seem confused in your earlier edit summary that a single source is relied upon for that. Three different descriptions from reliable outlets are used. SecretName101 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undue tag

[edit]

@Simonm223 (sorry for the length of this): For the undue weight tag you added, I just want to remind you that maintenance tags are a call for tangible editing action rather than for the purposes of the reader.

I agree that there isn't much that isn't a controversy (or at least controversy-tainted/related). that is the main reason I didn't publish this in the main space myself, but rather subjected it to an article for creation (AFC) review, just to get a second opinion.

As I outlined in earlier sections of this article: the thing about Henyard is that her notability (at least to the level that distinguishes her/qualifies her enough to receive a Wikipedia article) is her contrives, the vast extent of them, and the attentions which they have brought her. So it naturally makes sense that the article's bulk would end up being about the controversy.

So I believe the tag will only make sense if:

a) There's missing coverage of things beyond controversies that be added with reliably sourcing

or

b) There are clear areas that are in need of trimming due to containing un-notable/out-of-scope information

If both are either not issues at the moment or are ultimately addressed, then the tag would need to be removed, because there'd be no tangible editing actions that could be done.

I regards to the first thing (which I labeled "a"), I believe there's nothing to be done at the moment. There is not really much anything else of note that has received reliable coverage that I have yet found to add. There was one or two government programs/actions I saw video of her taking credit for at public meetings and on her websites that would be good additions if her claims are indeed accurate, but I have found no reliable secondary coverage of those programs so far. If you do find stuff outside of controversies that is of note and reliably sourced, PLEASE add it yourself (or at least describe what it is and ideally provide sources here in the talk page so someone else can add it). That is a STRONG encouragement.

In regards to the second thing (which I labeled "b"), feel free to take action if you believe that to be a current issue. You can:

•Make changes (but be open to collaboration and consensus if others disagree that content you removed needs removal)

•Propose specific changes in the talk page to see if others agree they'd be improvements

•Identify specific areas for changes to be made, in hopes others might do that work for you

But if (or when) there is no room for actionable steps on either of those two things, the tag probably should be removed.

SecretName101 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to trim this back. The reason I left it as a tag is because I'm not very familiar with what's significant with her and what's more minor "controversy". Certainly there's far too much focus on her... storied... career. And you know I have misgivings about the wherefores of such articles as this one. But I do feel it requires more input than I can individually provide. Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 To familiarize you with her notability, it's mainly the extent of her allegations of misconduct/corruption and the fact that it's received significant media interest primarily from two sorts of outlets.
The first sort of outlets it receives media attention from is Chicago-area media. Henyard has been mentioned on the evening news broadcasts weekly, at some points daily by all channels. That's hardly precedented for a mayor of a moderate-sized village or a township supervisor, so it demonstrates that she has received significant notability and become an item of interest across the Chicago metro region.
The second sort of outlets she receives attention from are right wing-biased national news outlets in the U.S. (as well as some tabloids in Great Britain that have similar leanings). These are outlets that are widely-consumed, but which Wikipedia does not consider reliable sources (New York Post, The Daily Mail, Fox News, etc.) My personal suspicion on why national and international coverage of her seems limited to such outlets is that she is a good totem-poll for their characterizations of Democrats as corrupt or "crooked". As a blue-state mayor from a the Chicago area (a Democratic area these outlets often portray as dangerous and poorly managed), she is a good example to use to bolster their negative portrayal of Democratic mayors in general. These outlets have also (as a massive stretch) taken to tying her to Biden by regularly invoking the fact that she took a selfie with him one time at the White House when she attended a U.S. Conference on Mayors summit (which perhaps taint him with a perception of association to her; considering the negative reputation her controversies are giving her). Additionally, her actions simply generate feelings of outrage among their readership; and outrage generates interest/clicks, which equals web traffic and revenue (so it makes sense for their business model as well). Regardless of whether my theory on the reasons why those are the outlets that cover her nationally/internationally, the fact is that she has become a figure of note and item of interest among consumers of that media.
Stories on her are also occasionally picked up/wired to national websites like Yahoo or MSN.
Just yesterday this article received 5,726 page views (pretty staggering), and the article's page views have been consistently high since the article was published (illustrating that she has indeed garnered sizable note). SecretName101 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See if her notability extends only from her controversies then we're back to WP:BLPCRIME being the guiding principle. In order for the public person exception to apply the person has to be notable for reasons other than the accusations against them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is a public figure though. Just not of otherwise-high enough note to garner an article. Still a public figure. SecretName101 (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we have articles on people who are notable for accused actions they are not guilty of. For instance Richard Jewell. Dzhokhar Tsarnae also had an article in advance of his conviction. So I don't think a rule exists that if your notability is derived from accusations alone you cannot have an article without conviction. SecretName101 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jewell is not a WP:BLP though. Different standards apply to living people. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a red-link indicates he wasn't notable in the long run. Notwithstanding WP:OSE can you please provide an example of a living person who is notable exclusively for being accused, but not convicted, of malfeasance where said accusations are still before the courts? Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, I meant.
Igor Fruman had an article well-before pleading guilty, and his associate Lev Parnas also had an article well-before being convicted. George Papadopoulos had an article before he was even charged.
Also there was the Trial of Alex Murdaugh article which existed before the conviction. SecretName101 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to AfD Fruman and Parnas on WP:BLP1E grounds.
  • Papadopoulos is indepenently notable regardless of the charges against him although I'd question whether he should have had his crimes discussed prior to charges.
  • Trial of Alex Murdaugh is also something that should have been deleted per WP:BLPCRIME and it's unclear why it exists. Murdaugh does not appear to be a public person. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact I've created AfDs for Fruman and Parnas now. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223: What was Papadpolous' notability outside of his criminal actions? He was a campaign policy advisor who had earlier written published a handful of policy opinions (for which he received no individual acclaim).
    Even since then, he has only published a single book (to no clear acclaim or success) and ran a failed congressional campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Murdaugh's trial was literally the subject of front-page national news for many months and he was the subject of a prominent/highly-successful podcast. Sure he wasn't "public figure" of note. So? His crime was massively high-profile. Neither were Leopold and Loeb or their victim public figures. SecretName101 (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The true crime podcast industry does not confer notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that, as of today, the city's Board of Trustees is moving to hire Lori Lightfoot, the previous mayor of Chicago, to investigate Henyard's conduct for them. I think that further highlights the unusualness of Henyard's corruption allegations, that they are significant and eggregious enough that the recent mayor of the 3rd largest city in the United States would be interested in spending her time directly investigating the conduct of the mayor of a town of roughly 20,000. SecretName101 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update:
The tag has been removed by @Magnolia677, who left the following explanation/justification in her edit summary:

Per WP:BALANCE. If most of what is written in reliable sources is about her controversies, this will be reflected in her Wikipedia article.

SecretName101 (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 you seem to misunderstand BLP crime. This article (correctly) does not assert guilt, rightfully framing allegations as being allegations. and BLP:crime only states “editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.”
“Seriously consider” being the key word. There is no prohibition, and with Henyard’s alleged actions being so prominent, that’s why consideration of excluding them would result in a big fat “no, they should be included”. SecretName101 (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece: also makes this misunderstanding, it seems SecretName101 (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it handled, don't worry. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece what do you mean "got it handled?" SecretName101 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the Foundation to intervene during the U4C election. This is a job for the committee once elected. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a preliminary effort to trim back some of the excess verbiage and to correct some of the more glaring grammatical errors on this page. More work is certainly required but this is about the limit of my interest and focus for this subject for now. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Legal has been contacted for further review. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to intimidate us? Marcus Markup (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to intimidate anyone. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why, exactly, do we need to know you've opened a ticket? Marcus Markup (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece About what? By whom? Why? SecretName101 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policies you're reverting on, while correct on technicality, have severe systemic issues. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece The legal department is for issues related to things such as the legality of content.
If you have an issue with the rules and standards agreed to by editors within the project, that's not what you do. You'd instead go internal routes to build a consensus for change. SecretName101 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece: Is this a request for review by the legal team or a precursor to/initiation of legal proceedings? ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that much of the content here pushes some of the BLP bounds, but just ensuring I understand everything is in order. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're understating what concept I'm getting at. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know that I know the rules. I requested that legal review and take action because this article could invite outside legal threats to the Foundation. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does You know that I know the rules mean? Also, given that this is being discussed elsewhere and on the article talk page, what specifically led you to file this ticket and to post this notice? ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I told legal that the page overall is systemically racist. It gives undue weight to random allegations that would not be cited in the case of a white person's article. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece: “Racist”? Seriously? That’s a bold claim to make.
What is mentioned here that wouldn’t mentioned on her page if she were white? SecretName101 (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101 I'm not calling anyone a racist; the sources in totality that constitute the article are a systemic problem. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece You explicitly claimed the article mentions things it wouldn’t mention if she were white. I’m asking you to be specific in what those things are. You made that assertion, now please elaborate. SecretName101 (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations levied by angry constituents are here, but should not be cited as implied legal guilt. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece Where is anything “cited as implied legal guilt”? And how do you make the jump to racism? SecretName101 (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mass citing of local sources is a problem. I've asked the elections committee to meet on it. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t answer how you reached the assertion I am pressing you on. You asserted that there is content in the article that makes it racist, and which wouldn’t be in the article if she were white. And now you have further asserted that there are points in the article article where constituent complaints are cited as implied legal guilt. You have pointed to nothing in the article when pressed to do so. SecretName101 (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I’ve had enough of your disingenuous assertions!" -- Sleyece (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. So you have sass, but no examples.
gotcha. SecretName101 (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleyece: You do understand that the elections committee is about WikiMedia Foundation project elections, not political elections, right? They have absolutely no role in this conversation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia long enough that you should assume I'm here in good faith. You should expect that I'm conscious enough to know that threatening legal action leads to Meta ban of a user until that user ceases to be an adversarial party to the Foundation. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece: I agree with you that there is objectionable content per WP:BLP, perhaps due to systemic bias. However, opening a legal ticket and announcing it publicly without providing any elaboration as to your rationale for doing so is unusual. I asked you for clarification and did not impugn your character as an editor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My motivation is that I'm currently a candidate in the U4C election, and I've been acting as a proto-member of the U4C in the absence of it. The U4C does not exist, but must be treated as a co-equal committee from the moment the draft charter is approved. I am acting on the power of the Draft Charter. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee#Risker's_Opinion -- Sleyece (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1217488375&oldid=1217487194&title=User_talk:Sleyece SecretName101 (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meant:. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1217487194&oldid=1212356133&title=User_talk:Sleyece SecretName101 (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Der-Wir-Ing&diff=prev&oldid=26552615&title=User_talk%3ADer-Wir-Ing&diffonly=1 SecretName101 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sleyece I agree this page is a disaster but this method won't help deal with it.Simonm223 (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews continue to substantiate notability

[edit]

This article is linked to by only ten other articles, none of which see substantial traffic. Yet this article has managed to average more than 2,500 visits since its publication.

That means she is notable enough that thousands of readers are looking her up by name every day.

She continues to receive traffic that on certain days matches or exceeds traffic to articles such as:

On April 4, she even received thousands of more page views than was each received by Kamala Harris (the current vice president of the United States), The Walt Disney Company (one of the most famed and talked-about companies on earth), Oprah Winfrey (one of the most famous and influential women in the world), Jessica Chastain or Michelle Yeoh (two of the most famous actresses today), Paris Hilton (famed socialite), and Jordan Peele (famed director), Family Guy (super successful long running carton), Statue of Liberty (one of the most famous landmarks) [30]

That same day it also exceeded the views for Pornography, Boris Johnson (former U.K. prime minister), and Eiffel Tower (world landmark), and Jerry Seinfeld. [31]

And her article was only a few hundred from matching the readership of Chicago that same day [32]

Pretty big indication of Henyard's note. SecretName101 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews are not an indication of compliance with BLP notability requirements. Simonm223 (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 The fact that thousands of people each day navigate to this article by search term IS an indication that she has attained wide familiarity and interest (in other words: notability). SecretName101 (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Wikipedia cannot, in and of itself, confer notability on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an act of baiting WP:ARBCOM, which could make a Judicial claim on the issue of notability? -- Sleyece (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely an editor who knows every policy on English Wikipedia and frequently makes Admins eat their words because they know the policies better than most of them do would know that the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia doesn't rule on content. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not significantly refactor statements after they have been responded to. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is part of the indication that a person has reasonable notability. However, Risker, on Meta is making the claim that my Article should get AFD because the available citations are not sufficient to confer notability. I don't agree completely, but I've asked a third party to vote on our difference of opinion. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave off-wiki off-wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue that the U4C would take original jurisdiction over off wiki if it were seated, so no. Noted, but I can't in this case. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is troubling and I ask you to reconsider, please. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would you like me to reconsider? What are you troubled by? -- Sleyece (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a major subject of Chicago-region coverage across all major Chicago outlets signifies her prominence within the Chicago region,
she’s received far more coverage from media than many local officials in Chicago that would be conferred presumed notability tend to in their entire careers. SecretName101 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely that she passes notability check on multiple fronts. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft

[edit]
  • Celebrity name-dropping,
  • In-fighting over budgetary line items
  • Vague "allegations" absent court action
  • Unnecessary detail
  • Excessive citation to local media

All of this stuff is undue for an encyclopedia article. We are not a chronicle of the alleged misdeeds of a small-town mayor. We are an encyclopedia. This stuff is patently undue. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 Local/regional media is a go-to source for matters of local/regional governance. They will naturally provide the most frequent, direct, and detailed coverage. And national coverage of those matters will typically be based upon the work of local media. MSNBC doesn't have a Dolton, Illinois bureau, so if they wanted to report on it they'd dig into local media's work. For instance, The Hill's recent article is based off of CBS Chicago's reporting. YSecretName101 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird eliminations

[edit]

@Simonm223 How can you in honesty believe the hiring of the former mayor of Chicago to investigate Henyard, and the widely-covered spending of village credit cards on travel (two of the most-covered things related to Henyard) should be entirely cut from this article? SecretName101 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's cruft. It's irrelevant. It's patently WP:UNDUE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it irrelevant. These are two of the biggest developments and controversies related to Henyard. You are going beyond cleanup into whitewashing. Please reverse course and moderate how much you are cutting. SecretName101 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: your judgement is that the hiring of the recent mayor of the U.S.' 3rd largest city to investigate Henyard deserves zero mention, that's a rather blatant mis-judgement on your part SecretName101 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since it is now being picked up by national outlets such as The Hill [33] SecretName101 (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I persist that the presence of a person who will maybe investigate is an irrelevant detail. Tell me when she finds something of encyclopedic relevance. This is a publicity stunt. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 "This is a publicity stunt" is a biased opinion/personal judgement (an original research violation), rather than a source-supported neutral understanding. You are demonstrating grave bias here. SecretName101 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, a government action can be both a publicity stunt and still notable (actions such as censures and impeachment have from time to time been mere publicity stunts: we would still mention them). But again, your assertion that it is "a publicity stunt" is a biased personal judgement. You are editing with bias. SecretName101 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please reduce the number of times you tag me? This is getting tedious. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But to answer your response, bringing in a celebrity "investigator" is a non-notable publicity stunt. We are not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. As I mentioned when I removed that copy, it is WP:TOOSOON for inclusion. Whether anything would come of it is purely speculative and the copy that existed on the page was at the edge of a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 Again, that's your judgement. You are editing with bias. Wikipedia is not your soapbox, it's not supposed to reflect how Simonm223 views things. It's supposed to reflect what is supported and reported by reliable sources.
You are gatekeeping information in order to make the article reflect your personal judgement of what is important and what is a "publicity stunt". That's blatant bias. SecretName101 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied on your user talk page. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publicity stunts targeting subjects of BLPs should have to clear an exceptionally high bar to be included, however I don't believe what the trustees of Dolton are doing in this case is such a thing, and see no reason to not assume good faith from them in this case. Your categorization of her as a "celebrity" and scare quoting her proposed position as "investigator" is telling... prior to her service as mayor, she served in a number of oversight, regulatory, and investigatory positions. The people of Dolton do seem to be in quite a jam; given her prior engagements... the fact that she is African American with the respect of many in the community, a lawyer, and the former mayor of a city only twenty miles away make hiring her not seem unreasonable to me. Add to that the fact that is now national news being reported by mainstream sources, I agree with SecretName101: you're calling it "cruft" is indeed weird. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is that the article as a whole reads like a list of every single negative story or controversy about her that has received any coverage anywhere, which goes against WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We should focus on an overarching summary according to the best available sources, not on an individual blow-by-blow; giving every single news story and incident on a topic its own sentence or paragraph results in a lopsided story. This aspect doesn't seem particularly significant relative to the overall controversy at the moment, but more generally the whole thing needs to be condensed and summarized so we don't have it taking up such a disproportionate amount of the article. It's inappropriate to lend this much focus to WP:BREAKING news whose ultimate takeaway is just that an investigation is ongoing. --Aquillion (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If a controversy would be notable and included in a BLP the absence of other controversies, shouldn't it be included. It seems a bad call to say "well there's a lot of other controversies, therefore we shouldn't include this separate/related one that we'd otherwise include."
    If someone has a lot of controversies, editing to make it look like they have less controversies is not a neutral and balanced choice. SecretName101 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review of overkill removal of content

[edit]

@Morbidthoughts and @Simonm223 have made mass removals that in effect whitewash this subject pretty severely.

  • Removed the statement of the very fact that Henyard has been controversial [34]
  • Removal of many lawsuits against Henyard. [35] [36] Morbidthoughts questioned that these were “supported by single sources”. That’s not a valid reason for removal. Just because an allegation is not the subject of Wikipedia:Citation overkill does not mean that multiple sources had not covered it. Rather than to the digging to see which of these allegations received coverage in multiple sources, Morbidthoughts decided a mass deletion/washing of all these matters was the route to take.
  • Removal of the widely-covered personal spending controversies. Received coverage in a plethora of reliable sources. [37] and [38] [39] [40]
  • Removal of all mention what initiatives Henyard has launched in office
    • Window and roof assistance program [41]
    • ”Block by Block” program as mayor [42]
  • Simonm223 has incorrectly invoked SYNTH on content was specifically connected within a single reliable source. [43]
  • Simmonm223 decided that two sentences on well-cited self-promotional spending of government resources was “relevant, not encyclopedic, not due”. I question this judgment.
  • Removed a brief mention of Henyard’s support among the members of the county board. I think this was a bad-call
  • Removed the “why” for why Henyard was criticized after an officer-involved shooting, arguing that it “does nothing” to clarfity [44]
  • Removed any mention of the former Chicago mayor (Lori Lightfoot)'s appointment as an investigator [45]
  • Complete washing of well-covered controversy involving hiring of a sex offender [46]
  • Removal of key hiring decisions under the unclear rational of "so what" [47]
  • Removed any mention of a several-hundred thousand dollar unauthorized expenditure by opining it was a “petty municipal power struggle” [48]. Odd to say that something being a municipal matter would automatically make it irrelevant in an article on a ’mayor'
  • For some reason decided that a confirmed filing of a police report was "rampant speculation" [49]
  • Removed any explanation of the dynamics of her relationship with the board of trustees [50] This included the hiring of legislative counsel and lawsuits directly launched by the board. [51]
  • Removed criticism of public safety calling it “typical political stuff”. [52]
  • They also seem to think that widespread criticisms must be omitted if specific critics are not named. But also object to criticisms when they are attributed to specific individuals, labeling them editorial or irrelevant. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

At least some of these removals violate NPOV principles, for example:

  • “describe disputes, but not engage in them.”
  • "articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects"
  • "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone"

SecretName101 (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was I was tagged in this accidentally? -- Sleyece (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece Yes, hence why I corrected that. Tagged you by accident. SecretName101 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors have commented on the overbreadth of detail requiring reduction at WP:BLPN. I have validly removed allegations that were supported by only one source. This is demanded by WP:PUBLICFIGURE's "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The burden is on the person wishing to restore the material to ensure that it complies with policy per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot FIND does not mean if you have not CITED. What you removed was covered in a multitude of outlets. You clearly did not even search to see if you could find other sources. You are not acting as what you just quoted would suggest you should .SecretName101 (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to. The burden of proof is on the person wishing to restore the material. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no, that burden is not existent. citing a single reliable source is generally sufficient on this project.
the matter of finding multiple sources that cover it is simply something to look at if weighing inclusion/ notability. But it is not an instruction that you must CITE multiple sources.
You are showing poor tact in your mass deletions. If anything the burden is for you who is contending that information lacks coverage to first check whether your assertion is based in reality. SecretName101 (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morbidthoughts is correct – for a BLP, policy shifts the burden to the editors looking to add info back, and PUBLICFIGURE clearly states that multiple sources should be used to document allegations. I agree that in most articles that wouldn't be the case, but BLPs are different. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the existence of a lawsuit is not an “allegation”. As a lawyer, you know that a lawsuit either exists or it does not.
lawsuits contain allegations. But lawsuits are not allegations in an of themselves, they are proceedings.
so your deletion does not even make much sense with the rationale you cite. A lawsuit’s existence is not an allegation: it is a fact. SecretName101 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a joke and disgrace that your misjudgments have made such removals as any mention of Lightfoot’s investigation.
That’s a ridiculous omission SecretName101 (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all appropriate WP:DUE trims of a WP:BLP article out of control. Your tendency toward WP:OWN and violating WP:NPA doesn't change anything regarding these issues. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you think the Lightfoot investigation shouod not be mentioned under WP:DUE demonstrates your very poor judgement on implementing WP:DUE. SecretName101 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get back to me when the Lightwood investigation leads to something that doesn't require a crystal ball. It's WP:TOOSOON because WP:NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a crystal ball matter? It exists. Its existence is sufficiently noteworthy. There is nothing speculative about its existence. You clearly do not understand what is and isn’t a crystal ball matter SecretName101 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more so, the fact (as you previously admitted in another thread) you are judging matters such as the Lightfoot investigation based on your PERSONAL viewpoint (that it’s a “publicity stunt”) demonstrates that you don’t actually have enough interest in sticking to the the NEUTRAL part of NPOV. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON WP:NOTNEWS WP:CRYSTAL all apply. I don't believe there's anything more to say on this issue so, until you come up with something that isn't just a pointless insult that is my final word on the matter. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you keep personalizing criticisms that are about your editing and not yourself. Nothing I said was an insult to you. So stop accusing me of personal attacks where none exist. You are being inappropriate.
Achieving neutrality and avoiding whitewashing is highly important. The fact that you just disregarded conversations about that as "pointless" is rather cavalier and alarming. SecretName101 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you clearly do not understand the three principles you cited, as none bar mention of this investigation's authorization by the board.
Again, it is highly problematic that it is excluded from this article. SecretName101 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101, Simonm223, stop immediately. This has gone well past a discussion about content into a personal dispute. I advise both of you to walk away from the article and talk page- and each others' talk pages. tedder (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I have brought up is personal. It's all about the content of this article, and how it is being edited. SecretName101 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not civil and certainly past WP:AVOIDYOU. tedder (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says 'Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y', or 'The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research', is not a personal attack."
So...not a personal attack. It'd be rather obtuse and ineffective to beat-around-the-bush when discussing who the edits I'm putting issue are coming from, when there are two editors exclusively active in these mass-deletions, therefore "you" statements are called for. SecretName101 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

FBI confirms subpoenas https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/fbi-serves-subpoenas-at-dolton-village-hall/amp/ SecretName101 (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WGN review of city credit card statements shows more than $100,000 in travel spending https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/tiffany-henyards-admin-spent-100k-on-travel/amp/ SecretName101 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
court approved searches carried out by FBI https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/chicago/news/fbi-searches-village-hall-dolton-illinois/ SecretName101 (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024 disappearance

[edit]

Shouldn't we add the fact that Henyard disappeared in August 2024? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is present at this evening's (15 August 2024) Thornton Township meeting according to the Lansing Journal's Facebook page which includes photos of her Joeei101 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiffany_Henyard&oldid=1240558423"