Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment/Archive 4

August 2009

 * The following discussion is a concluded demotion debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus (3 for, 2 against). Because of the no consensus a new demotion policy has been established to place contentious top-importance articles back on the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld
It may be time to revisit this Top-importance candidate. There was debate about whether he was one of the top 15 or 20 when he was in the news for Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Now, that he has been out of the news, it is possible he may be outside the top 50.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Demote Not known as a Chicago guy. No more notable than Charles G. Dawes, who currently has a low-importance rating. Zagalejo^^^ 01:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is no consensus on whether to keep him or remove him, we could demote him to the ballot and see where he ranks among current contenders.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

*Demote - He fails "We must emphasize role as a Chicagoan". He was a suburbanite and that is why the lack of association with Chicago. The article never mentions Chicago. Passes all the other criteria. Pknkly (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although he may be the only suburbanite on the list, the project accepts responsibility for all of Cook County, Illinois and even monitors GA, FA an FL articles for Chicagoland. The role as Chicagoan should broadly include role in Cook County where he was born and raised and where he served in Congress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is the definition we are to use, the WikiProject Chicago/Priority Scale covering the defenition should be immediatly changed to the new one. I don't feel comfortable changing my evaluation until the definition is changed. Is there a process for changing it or do we just do it following wp:bold? As an aside that plays into this discussion, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago to discuss documentation of the scope for the project. There are disconnects between what is documented for the scope and what we are doing. Pknkly (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed the priority scale to clarify Chicagoan means person associated with Chicagoland.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It makes sense. I changed to "Retain" with new statement and struck my original support statement. Pknkly (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain - Passes all criteria including "We must emphasize role as a Chicagoan or person associated with Chicagoland." Pknkly (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Demote - Important, but not quite 'Top-importance'. Tom Harrison Talk 11:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Demote, connection to Chicago tenuous. Speciate (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Retain I think for someone who grew up here, served as a business leader in the area, a congressman in the area and then had a global impact we should include him among our top.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What I am likely to do since there is not really consensus, is put him on the ballot. Since we have 38 uncontested Top-importance articles plus Rumsfeld, if he places among the top 12 on the ballot he will retain his top ranking. Otherwise, he will fall to high. Everyone will be able to list twelve from the 30+ articles on the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have decided to make this standard protocol for demoting articles from top. Place them back on the ballot and see where they fall.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is a concluded demotion debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

June 2007

 * The following discussion is a concluded demotion debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus (2 for, 2 against). I would suggest if parties remain displeased with the Donald Rumsfeld priority rating one year from now, they renominate him for demotion. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld
I think we should knock Donald Rumsfeld down to High to make room. Speciate 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * His association with Chicago is peripheral. Yes, he was from Wilmette, and he was CEO of Searle in Skokie for a couple of years, but he has had little impact on Chicago or people's perceptions of Chicago. His fall from power was irrelevant to Chicago. In a perfect world he would be Mid. Speciate 17:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are neglecting the most important reason why he is associated with the project with a strong priority/importance assessment. The following comes directly from his WP article: he was elected to the United States House of Representatives for Illinois' 13th congressional district in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected by large majorities in 1964, 1966, and 1968.
 * I do not know the geography of the 13th district in the 60's but since he is associated with the northern suburbs by categorical reference (Category:New Trier High School alumni, Category:People from Evanston, Illinois, and Category:People from Winnetka, Illinois), I assume he probably served these regions then. Essentially, he would be a former high who went on to greater roles and succeeded (measured by duration of tenure and repeated engagements). I think his national roles are an extension of his local roles in this context.  Your opinion is welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see why this particular Congressman and cabinet member gets to be Top. He is simply not important enough nor influenced Chicago in particular to be Top. By way of counter-example, Abe Lincoln would be Top for Illinois.

Harold Washington and both Mayor Daleys should be Top before Rumsfeld gets to be Top for Chicago. Speciate 18:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think Abe Lincoln is a mess, which is why it is a WP:FFA. His talk page, which is not a part of such consideration is representative of this.  WP Kentucky lists him as top for some reason although I don't think he ever served them.  WP Illinois and WP Presidents don't list priorities for him.  I think he would be top for Illinois.  I am not familiar with his influence when he had a Chicago role in the 60's, but infer it from his electoral success and subsequent roles.  I have to rethink whether a cabinet member should be top because he is not bringing money back to Illinois like a Congressman. However, the only other voice in the voting we have seems to concur that Rumsfeld is a good choice. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Rumsfeld's association with Chicago is periphery at best, everything anyone would look him up for he did elsewhere. As for Abe, he was born in Kentucky and lived there for seven years as a child, maybe they have their own criteria too. IvoShandor 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My nickel's worth - Donald Rumsfeld is of top importance at this time to non-Chicagoans because of his duties with regards Iraq his article and is a must have for this encyclopedia. If another project picked him up as Top importance then we would not have too but for now his link to Chicago and thus our pursuit of the information on his article page is very important.  5 years from now - well probably not but for now yes.
 * Another nickel's worth - this may have been discussed before - but why are we so concerned that only 0.2% of articles are of top importance. I am a part of three other projects that do not put these restrictions in play.  So if its not absolutely set in concrete why can't it be raised to say half of one percent - which would allow for 44-45 articles at Top in the current 8939 on Chicago?-- VS  talk 07:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is a concluded demotion debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.