Talk:George Streeter

Bias

Article is written in a biased manner, making assertions that are debatable. There is more to the Streeter story than presented here. http://www.capstreeter.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.61.31 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange. Now it is biased entirely in the other direction, with absurd amounts of loaded language and more debatable assertions. Even though the article now seems to tell a more accurate sequence of events, it is nonetheless rather blatantly violating WP:NPOV. I'll fix it eventually if no one else does. Vorziblix (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is insanely biased. Even if these assertions are true, this reads like Rhetoric. The OPENING sentence "From 1886 to 1921 Streeter spun lies, forged legal documents and used violence to wrest 186 acres (0.75 km2) of Lake Michigan shoreline away from its rightful owners. Failing in his efforts to defraud the wealthy landowners, he then turned to robbing the poor by selling them land that he did not own," is comically slanted. --StickerMug (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This article desperately needs a rewrite to conform to NPOV standards. It may well be the case that Salzman's revisionist research article portrays history most accurately, but for encyclopedic purposes our article should not put this particular viewpoint at the forefront. This is one of the most egregiously biased article summary sections I've seen in years. --Dhartung | Talk 17:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Reorganize

As a biographic entry, breaking up this page into "Myth" and "Reality" does not make sense. It seems to further the previous editor's interest in getting their point across. Elements of both his legend as well as factual life can be incorporated into to the same timeline of his life. For reference on how a criminal bio should be treated on wiki, look at another infamous Chicagoan — John Dillinger. I'd be happy to make revisions. Let me know if anyone has additional thoughts. StickerMug (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Streeter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827191316/http://www.capstreeter.com/boat.php to http://www.capstreeter.com/boat.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227115712/http://www.thelocaltourist.com/cities/chicago/cap-streeter to http://www.thelocaltourist.com/cities/chicago/cap-streeter

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting article neutrality

This article may get some more attention of late, as this story was recently featured in a popular history podcast. While I am by no means an expert on this story, the framing of this article biases the point of view of the shoreline landowners and makes unsubstantiated claims to this effect. While it is certainly true that Streeter used fraudulent means to defend his claim, this does not mean that his other legal arguments were without merit, and the actions of the landowners and their agents were often equally underhand. Claims that Streeter was attempting "theft" of the land are unsubstantiated, and I have removed the one in the lead - furthermore, the framing of "myth" vs "reality" I think does not necessarily meet the burden to show that the events presented as the "reality" were strictly true, especially when some of the sources are newspaper articles from the time, while this was a matter of significant public dispute. I'd argue that this article needs re-writing and re-sourcing with more comprehensive and even-handed coverage. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to newspaper articles from the day as questionable. 2600:1008:B073:1972:99A1:3613:EC8E:2D03 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)