Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 is a
featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the
Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to
Chicago or the
Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
05:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks! Also, I should mention that the author of the opinion,
Lisa Madigan, is now the former Attorney General as she no longer serves in that office. I'm not sure how this would be worded in the hook or the image caption.
Edge3 (
talk)
14:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Yoninah: Thanks for reviewing it, and for making the extra edits to make it even better! As you suggested, I've added more citations to the Background section. Could you please take a look any let me know if you have more feedback?
Edge3 (
talk)
04:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
earwigs shows some overall, and while it looks like most of it is due to quotes or case names, the matches are rather high so if you could rephrase the parts that aren't quotes/names if possible, that would be great Looks okay now, most of the matches are from quotes or case names
On hold until the issues noted are addressed Passed!
Notes
Lede: In this matter, the Attorney General found - does "this" refer to the prior appellate court decision matter or the murder of Laquan McDonald matter? Its not clear
Lede: The ruling was hailed by - does "The ruling" refer to the prior ruling discussed at the start of the paragraph, or the Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 ruling? Not clear
Background: Off-duty police officers reportedly used their personal devices to communicate on accounts not owned by CPD. - this is a bit confusing. Accounts can be owned? Specifying that its using accounts not owned by CPD suggests that personal devices can also be used for CPD accounts, and then there is also the non-personal devices. Perhaps "used their personal accounts" to communicate"? Also, what does this have to do with anything? I assume its because they were communicating about the incident? A bit later it clarifies that CNN asked for "all emails ... from Police Department email accounts and personal email accounts where business was discussed" so perhaps clarify in the initial sentence that the off-duty officers were discussing business, so its clear how that connects (otherwise it could be that they are just texting friends and otherwise using their personal devices normally, which is what you would expect)
Opinion: To determine whether an email pertains to public business, the inquiry must focus on the content of the email, not the method by which it is transmitted. - what inquiry? Suggest "an inquiry"
Reactions: Davis further suggested - what was Davis' first suggestion? I don't see it, so I'm confused by the "further"
The remaining This development in the lede is still unclear to me. Perhaps split the paragraph, so its clear its no longer discussing City of Champaign v. Madigan? --
DannyS712 (
talk)
02:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)reply
for enforcing FOIA, are required under FOIA, etc. - should probably be "the FOIA"
Public bodies in Illinois, including CPD, etc. should also probably be "the CPD". Maybe? Not as sure on that one as I read it in my head
(Replying to both points above.) Most sources, including
the opinion itself, doesn't include "the" before "FOIA". I also see that in the opinion, "the" appears before "CPD" in very few cases, but certainly not in the majority of cases. Looking at
WP:THE, it's not entirely clear which style is preferred, but that guideline tends to point towards whatever is commonly used in reliable sources.
Edge3 (
talk)
02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm trying to separate the explanatory footnotes from the sources. (See
WP:REFGROUP and
WP:EXPLNOTE.) The notes (a, b, c) are not
WP:RS that I'm using as citations to comply with
WP:V. Rather, those notes are meant to provide additional context or information. Two of them are court cases; the only thing I'm doing is providing the full case citation, with a link to the judicial opinion. The third note is a link to a state statute, since we don't have a Wikipedia article on that statute. Does that make sense? Let me know if you disagree with my usage of explanatory footnotes.
Edge3 (
talk)
02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Hmm. To me they all look like they would be references, but I guess I'm not very familiar with using explanatory footnotes in articles. --
DannyS712 (
talk)
02:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)reply
After CPD denied CNN's request - "the" CPD? Organization are often preceded by articles, make sure this is consistent throughout too
I struggle with this one. In Chicago-based publications, the "CPD" acronym usually is not preceded by the article "the", much in the same way that we don't say "the CNN". See, for example, an
inspector general's report on CPD's use of force practices, and also the state Supreme Court's opinion in
Green v. Chicago Police Department, which is a FOIA case. On the other hand, some sources use "the CPD". There's
this academic paper analyzing complaints against "the CPD", and our very own article on
Chicago Police Department uses "the" in the same way.
the Attorney General found that the police officers were acting on behalf of the police department, turning their messages into public records - "turning their messages into" makes it seem instantaneous; "making them public records" is better IMO
Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts - according to whom? How did Yager know about this?
This was according to the Kidd 2016 source, quoting Ben Schuster, a Chicago-based attorney. [P]olice officers who were off duty reportedly were sending and receiving messages via personal accounts on personal devices, [Schuster] said. Since Schuster was just a third-party commentator, I wouldn't quote him directly in the article.
Edge3 (
talk)
03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
However, CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request - CNN's request? I thought Yager made the request and she was a producer for CNN. Did she make the request on the behalf of CNN (in which case this phrase is fine) or did she personally submit it with her name?
Yager made the request as part of her work for CNN. Note that the attorney who represented her, Drew Shenkman, was doing so in his capacity as counsel for CNN.
Edge3 (
talk)
03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
By 2018, journalists and citizen activists filed at least 10 - "filed" or "had filed"? If the decision was made after 2018, the former would be fine, but because the opinion was released in 2016, "had filed" is correct (I think- my technical grammar knowledge is minimal, I'm just going off of what sounds right)
Since the opinion was released in 2016, and we're talking about something that would happen over the next two years, I think it's more correct to say "would file". I've made this change.
Edge3 (
talk)
03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The image of Rahm seems irrelevant, since he only gets one sentence. If you want an image, something related to FOIA or City of Champaign would make more sense
Lisa Madigan is mentioned nowhere in the article's body
I added her as the named author of the opinion, along with a footnote explaining that the opinion was signed on her behalf by the counsel to the Attorney General. As for the rest of the article, I avoided naming Madigan directly to emphasize that the opinion was issued by an office, with input from several attorneys, rather than just Madigan acting on her own.
Edge3 (
talk)
04:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
To determine whether an email pertains to public business, one must focus on the content of the email, not the method by which it is transmitted - according to whom?
However, while the ruling applies to government employees, it does not apply to elected officials - ditto, make sure these kinds of statements are attributed to the Attorney General, otherwise it seems like Wikipedia's opinion rather than theirs
That wasn't the opinion of the Attorney General, but rather the Information Management Journal. I've moved that statement to the "Reactions" section and attributed accordingly.
Edge3 (
talk)
17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The ruling was a binding opinion, a rare power that is exercised by the Attorney General in only less than half of one percent of complaints submitted to the Public Access Counselor - two things: one, what's a binding opinion actually do, and two, the math of "less than half of one percent" hurts my brain; "very few" will do
I clarified this a bit. Binding opinions are legally binding on the public body, and anyone who disagrees with the opinion must appeal in court within 30 days. Most of the complaints to the Attorney General's office are resolved through non-binding advisory opinions, which don't impose any legal obligations on the public body to comply. You can see more info at
Illinois Public Access Counselor.
Edge3 (
talk)
16:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Dean of the Henry W. Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia - how would he fit this on a nameplate? That's one hell of a title- cut it down, maybe just "journalism professor at"
He really wasn't a professor, because the dean job tends to be more administrative. In any case, I've shortened the name of the college to simply "Grady College", which aligns with the title on his
faculty bio.
Edge3 (
talk)
03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
All good now. One last thing, not too major- you said that you wanted to emphasize that this opinion was issued by the office, and Madigan was just the office's leader. If that's the case, why is she the first image people see when they click this article? That makes it seem like her involvement is much bigger than you intend.
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) (
not me) (
also not me) (
still no)
00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mike Christie: I didn't have an opportunity to fully respond to you before the FAC was closed. See also my comments
on that thread.
I've
added a brief clarification that states that the expired bills didn't become law. I'm reluctant to add more because I would otherwise be going into an explanation of Illinois legislative procedures, which is probably outside the scope of this article. The important takeaway for the reader is that the proposals did not become law.