Jump to content

Talk:Lori Lightfoot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Clearly Notable

There's currently a template on the article calling Lightfoot's notability into question. Prior to Mayor Emanuel's withdrawal, Lightfoot was polling above 10% in a Chicago mayoral election where no candidate was polling above ~20%. And as of July, Lightfoot had raised more funds than anyone else. Billbrock (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Also see this Chicago Sun-Times article (obviously name recognition is an issue for her). 16:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Billbrock (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove notability template. Billbrock (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Being a lazy Chicagoan, you nevertheless found sources. Why don't you force yourself a bit more , - reread the notability notice once again, especially the part "Please help to establish notability by citing..." Unfortunately Wikipedcia administrators were probably lazy as well, since they did not write it clearly: "Please help to establish notability by expanding the article citing ". Because citing the sources in the talk page is good for a good talk, but not for the article, in which the text of the tag is nearly half of the page :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

Please capitalize the section 2019 mayoral candidate to 2019 Mayoral Candidate 12.178.189.58 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's manual of style, it's actually correct as written. Section headers are written in sentence case, with only the first word (and proper names) capitalized - not in title case, where nearly all words are capitalized. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Do we have any way of getting a better photo of her? Anecdotally, a lot of sources seem to be using the same photo we have. She'll be appearing in public a lot over the next month or so...Dotdh15 (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lori Lightfoot with supporter (cropped).jpg

Is this image really appropriate for the page? It's very low quality and the supporter has more of a presence than Lightfoot. Spengouli (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

Perhaps using an image from her victory or at a debate is better. This image is old and I believe she does not wear glasses anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.133.85.73 (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

Change “After enacting this racist behavior against The Daily Caller reporter Thomas Catenacci she was sued by the magazine.”

to

“After enacting this policy against The Daily Caller reporter Thomas Catenacci, she was sued by the magazine.” 172.103.208.29 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, but added more context from the source. POLITANVM talk 23:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

Lori Lightfoots is a large supporter of Marxists ideologies. 204.237.88.38 (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 14:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

Lightfoot married her wife in 2014. Via this article https://www.the-sun.com/news/2732064/who-is-lori-lightfoots-wife-amy-eshleman/. Hope this helps! Ted7434 (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the location Chicago not in a hyperlink anywhere in the article? Other locations are in a hyperlink in the article, why isn't Chicago? It looks like bad. Can this be fixed? 2600:8801:1301:1900:E939:342C:402:1E3D (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:OVERLINK. Some geographic locations, like Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. are considered so obvious that guidance says not to link them. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add criticism section

Lightfoot article Needs a criticism section. 2603:9001:6C0D:3600:51C2:AA66:4868:E21F (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No article should have one per WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in Crime paragraph

In the paragraph on Crime it says: As of June 17, Chicago leads the nation in mass shootings, average approximately one per week. In response to the third mass shooting in four days, Lightfoot said: "We are part of a club of cities to which no one wants to belong: cities with mass shootings."

average should be averaging 2001:4BB8:2A7:2939:8580:66F3:8472:975E (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Reprimand for Professional Misconduct by US 7th Circuit Court

Undid revision 1106903517 by Muboshgu (talk)

I provided the reasons for my edits, reproduced below:

Edited section on 7th Circuit’s reprimand of her for professional misconduct to accurately reflect facts and content of source material.

NPOV living person

Moboshgu reverted citing “NPOV failed.” I took a quick look at NPOV and didn’t see any basis. Please provide detail.

In changing the Honors, Awards, etc section title to “Honors and Dishonors,” I feel NPOV was provided. Just listing honors, including minor honors and a very serious dishonor- her official reprimand for professional misconduct by the chief Judge of the 7th Circuit, Judge Posner (widely recognized as perhaps the most prominent jurist in US history not to have sat on the Supreme Court), would clearly fail NPOV requirement, in my view.

Additionally, the first edit was as I said- editing text to accurately reflect facts and content of source material. Accuracy (based on the cited source material) is obviously required. The earlier text claimed that Lightfoot was given a “warning.” This is a substantial mischaracterization of a key fact. It was actually a formal reprimand by Chief Judge Posner writing for the 7th Circuit (the tier of court right below SCOTUS).

The earlier text misstated how the Court found Lightfoot intentionally and seriously mislead another 7th Circuit Judge, to the point that it blew up the whole case. The earlier text stated that she mislead the court about the whereabouts of the plaintiff, when what she was actually misleading the court into believing that her office was enforcing the Court’s order. Because she ran interference by intentionally misleading the Court, the plaintiff was able to be illegally extradited by Norway, thus ending the case. Provided other important context. JustinReilly (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support Muboshgu's removal. "Honors and Dishonors" is a non-starter, and a wiki-voice statement that she mislead the judge is not supported by the sources, at least not the currently cited ones. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the judge "highly esteemed" is POV and the word "esteemed" came directly from the Chicago Tribune. That's what caught my attention for NPOV. We can add something about her getting formally reprimanded, but we can do it neutrally. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers: that she mislead the Judge is very clearly supported by the cited 7th Circuit decision by Posner:

“The motion filed by attorney Lightfoot, a motion that she prepared (albeit with advice from Safford) and signed, presents a more troublesome issue.   The trouble lies in the fact that the motion was misleading. It is one thing for a lawyer to advocate an unreasonable position to a court;  usually the court can prevent any serious harm to anyone just by rejecting the position. It is another thing for a lawyer to defeat an opposing party's claims by misleading the court, whether by a misrepresentation or by a pregnant omission. That is misconduct… and is what happened here. To the extent, unilluminated by the record, that Safford was (as Lightfoot argues) complicit in Lightfoot's violation of the duty of candor, the fact that Safford is Lightfoot's superior would not get Lightfoot off the hook. Reliance on a superior's orders is a defense to a charge of misconduct only when reasonable… and it is not reasonable to believe that one is authorized to mislead a court…

“The motion thus created a thoroughly false impression of the government's position, an impression that could not but cause Judge Rovner to believe that unless she vacated the stay Lindstrom would remain in the United States until the merits of his appeal could be considered…

“For a government lawyer to file with a court a misleading statement the effect of which is to moot a petition for habeas corpus is professional misconduct. Lightfoot's motion was bound to lull Judge Rovner into thinking that the stay had had the intended effect of preventing Lindstrom's appeal from becoming moot.”

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1014145.html

JustinReilly (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Uncontested facts:” “The request to vacate our decision, which we of course deny, suggests to us that the U.S. Attorney still does not appreciate the gravity of the situation demonstrated by the uncontested facts, which reveal that the Justice Department's failure to equip its attorneys with the necessary expertise to opine on difficult issues relating to extradition precipitated the filing of a misleading motion by the Department that caused this court to lose jurisdiction over an appeal by a person who claims that he had been ordered extradited in violation of law.” JustinReilly (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a short expansion of the extradition controversy content. I think the first step is deciding which secondary sources we're going to rely on, and then crafting our summary based on what they give weight to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

adding citation to Fiscal issues

adding citation Please change:

Fiscal issues

On May 28, 2019, Lightfoot outlined plans to remedy the city's fines and fees programs, increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2021.[clarification needed][needs update]

to

Fiscal issues

On May 28, 2019, Lightfoot outlined plans to remedy the city's fines and fees programs, increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2021.[1] Ampersandexplainer (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ampersandexplainer. Thanks for the citation. The user who inserted the "citation needed" tag also asked the question, "Is this a law that applies to all employees, or a policy that applies to city employees, or something else?" Do you know what the answer is? I'd also note that the sentence, "On May 28, 2019, Lightfoot outlined plans to remedy the city's fines and fees programs, increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2021." is ungrammatical. It doesn't explain what if anything was wrong with the city's fines and fees program and definitely doesn't explain what connection there is between any problem with that program, and raising the minimum wage. Novellasyes (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the $15 an hour definitely needs a caveat, as it only applies to companies that have over so many employees. Also found another source the original author likely used https://interactive.wttw.com/firsthand/living-in-poverty/chicago-ambitious-anti-poverty-plan its more talking about future plans and lacks details. I'm more thinking this entire section needs to be rewritten to discuss what was accomplished instead of what they wanted to do. Whats your thoughts? Ampersandexplainer (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, it needs to be re-written. Novellasyes (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I have refactored the sentence to say On November 23, 2021, a plan by Lightfoot to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2021 was approved by the Chicago City Council. This increase did not include restaurant servers and tipped workers and included the given citation. I will leave any section refactoring to more involved/interested parties . Courtesy pings: Novellasyes Ampersandexplainer. —Sirdog (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Chicago City Council raises minimum wage to $15 by 2021, but restaurant servers still will get lower tipped wage". Chicago Tribune. November 26, 2019. Retrieved 7 October 2022.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

Lori went to the high school prom with Mike Kennedy. Kwallsk1 (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also maybe WP:TRIVIAL Cannolis (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo with Jill Biden isn't the best

I like the photographs in this BLP a lot, with one exception: the cropped photo of her with Jill Biden. The image quality is poor, and the central focus of the image is Jill Biden. I like that we see Lightfoot's hand extended in a friendly way toward Jill but because it is merely a side shot of Lightfoot, and Jill is wearing that bright red dress, I don't think it adds anything meaningful to a BLP of Lori Lightfoot. I recommend removing that photo from the article. I won't do so right now, as the election results have increased traffic to the article. Also, I would like to get input from other editors, and welcome any suggestions for replacement photos. FeralOink (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2023

kumir, soubhik. "Lori Lightfoot: The Trailblazing Mayor of Chicago". pressvortex. soubhikkumir. Retrieved 1 March 2023. 

ResearchRang (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://pressvortex.blogspot.com/2023/03/lori-lightfoot-trailblazing-mayor-of.html

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

Suggested Addition: First Openly Lesbian Black Woman To Be A 1 Term Chicago Mayor   I think we should be adding this first to her list of firsts. Seems significant. Like it shows how misogynistic all the voters are that they wouldn’t re-elect her like almost every other Chicago mayor in recent history. PaupaZit (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they didn't think she was a good mayor? You seem to have an agenda. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this suggestion before because I thought it was trolling (particularly the "First Openly Lesbian Black Woman To Be A 1 Term Chicago Mayor"...). I don't know the motivation, so I'll summarize what I did wrote I was asked on my Talk Page: Lightfoot's loss is attributable to many factors, mostly the large field of candidates splitting the Lakefront Liberals in addition to the issues of crime. Any claims of misogyny causing her loss need to be backed up by reliable sources. Paris1127 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no wrong in this post and I hope you all can trust that. PaupaZit (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table of polls

The sample size column uses undefined abbreviations - LV and RV. Please add. Thank you Bgbama (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023

Add [mayoral runoff results] to Electoral History section Hisbigshow (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Lightfoot was not a candidate in the 2023 mayoral runoff. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2024

Please add the category Category:21st-century American LGBT people. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Paris1127 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lori_Lightfoot&oldid=1256728318"