Talk:2009 Illinois's 5th congressional district special election

A fact from 2009 Illinois's 5th congressional district special election appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 831 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the designation of Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff will necessitate at least one 2009 United States House of Representatives special election in Illinois?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/December.

Wikipedia

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Chicago

	Chicago portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

U.S. Congress High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Illinois Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Illinois portal 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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet.
If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having run and lost, dropped out, etc.

That last graf

The election did not receive a great deal of coverage, due to the district's heavy Democratic lean. The Republican Party did not put a top-tier candidate, acknowledging that they were not even focusing on the race. This is highlighted in the fact that the Republican nominee was the founder of an anti-imigration group, running in a district that is one-quarter hispanic. The real fight was for the Democratic nomination, which would almost assure being elected to Congress. In fact, over 12,000 more votes were cast in the Democratic Primary than there were in the general election.

I removed this recently added paragraph for a few reasons:

The election did receive a lot of media coverage in the Chicago area (see story and blog archives from the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times) and was discussed on the cable news channels as new information became available.
It's hard to imagine that the Republicans weren't at all interested in possibly upsetting the Democrats and putting an end to their current losing streak in House races.
The candidates that ran in the Republican primary were all local business people that had strong party connections. In fact, Rosanna Pulido was considered a possible dark-horse candidate because of her Hispanic background.
In hindsight, it's always easier for the losing side to try and save face by claiming that they weren't really interested in the race to begin with, or that they weren't running a top-tier candidate to seriously contest the race. Plus, I doubt Pulido wouldn't consider herself a top-tier candidate.
Finally, the Democratic Party candidates did receive way more votes than any of the Republican Party and Green Party candidates in the primary election. But as someone pointed out in an earlier revision, that's hardly noteworthy considering the district's huge Democratic leaning.

I hope that helps. Thanks. ^allabout_me ♦ BRIAN ♦ ^talk2_me 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether the paragraph stays or goes, but most of the reasons listed for removing it are nonsense. The primary got some press coverage in Chicagoland, but virtually none elsewhere. The general received little attention anywhere. Compare it with, for instance, the New York race going on at essentially the same time (it finished a week earlier). Also, no one outside the Pulido campaign thought she had a chance. The "dark horse" remark is totally unjustified. It is difficult to know whether Ms. Pulido believed herself a top-tier candidate, but her opinion on the matter is frankly irrelevant. It is reality that matters, and she was a no name with no money, no organization, no outside support, no name recognition, and no realistic chance of winning. By no reasonable metric was she a top-tier candidate. -Rrius (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You edited my entry when I rewrote the article and struck out a couple sentences for the same reason I just listed (reason #5). I actually agreed with you and let it stand at that. When it was re-added in that last paragraph, I removed it again and wrote why (including your reasoning and added my own). I'm not going to get into a revision war with User:Bluedemocrat about it, but since it's been re-added again, why don't you apply your own edits to the paragraph.

I still disagree with everything the last graf states for the reasons given above. I live outside Chicagoland and watch/read the news and it was covered (even the fact that there are links to a Politico story about it proves it did get national media). It was disseminated on the AP wires, covered on NBC Nightly News, etc. The New York race definitely received more attention because of its close results, but that doesn't mean you can equate that to mean the IL05 got little/none since it's more appropriate to describe the NY20 race as receiving an excessive amount of coverage.

I agree the dark horse comment was highly subjective on my part, but it was my way of showing that sentences referring to her tier status within the Republican Party was subjective on the author's part. I agree that the Democrat was never in any real danger of losing the general election but that doesn't translate into a subjective comment about her candidacy within the Republican Party primary. She won it fair and square which qualifies her as the top Republican candidate by default, no? I agree she wasn't some name-brand Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert, Sarah Palin-type candidate, but she was the winner of the primary.

^allabout_me ♦ BRIAN ♦ ^talk2_me 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general election did receive little attention outside of Chicagoland especially compared to New York. The New York race was closely watched from the beginning as a referendum on the new Administration. It is simply bizarre to suggest that the IL-5 special general election received much attention. There were mentions that Emanuel's successor was about to be picked or had just been picked, but there was no meaningful coverage of the race. Meaningful coverage would address the issues at stake in the election rather than noting that the result was a foregone conclusion. -Rrius (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who put in the last paragraph. And my paragraph makes many valid points. YES the Republicans never even considered the race a priority, they were on record long before the race took place saying they never cared (which i sited in the paragraph). The primary received LOTS of attention in the political websites (like Politico) as well as the blogs, because it was percieved as the only interesting part of the race. (I should know, i followed the primary closely). The General election was essentially pointless, which is why LESS showed up than in the primary, which is worth noting. NO ONE covered the actual general election, only the primary was covered, specifically the Democratic primary.

And just for future reference, of course a party would abandon a race. If you don't think you can win, why spend the money on ads and such? Its the same reason Obama never ran ads in Utah and McCain never ran ads in Rhode Island. You pick your battles. The Republicans would have been insane to even think about this race as a possible win.

These articles exist to serve a narrative to people reading about them. The details of my last paragraph serve that purpose. And all my points where very much valid. Bluedemocrat (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that we disagree. I made my points above. I'll leave it to another person to review the graf and figure out if either of us made the case.

I completely agree that these articles serve as narratives for the events they cover. That's why I chose to rewrite the entire article to reflect that. I agreed with edits User:Rrius made because I had made a couple mistakes in being overly subjective with a couple points in an earlier version. That's why I removed your paragraph and added my reasons in the talk section. I standby my reasons and believe that the last paragraph is completely unnecessary due to its subjective commentary mixed in with unfounded claims.

I apologize if you took offense to the edit. I believe we all have the same goal to provide an insightful, non-biased, factual review of the recent IL05 special election.

Thanks. ^allabout_me ♦ BRIAN ♦ ^talk2_me 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far enough, we will let a third party decide. However, i simply point out that every claim i made is referenced by legitimate news sites. Politico is very reliable. Therefor i do not consider my postings to be opinionated. But we will allow a third party to decide. Bluedemocrat (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a European, I didn't follow the election and won't comment on the amount of publicity, relative to other districts. As for the rest, I think the source substantiates the text, and that's crucial.

It's not about the Republicans being uninterested in a chance to take a Democratic stronghold; their reasoning was, according to the source, that there was probably no such chance, so they had other priorities. That makes sense if you look at previous election results.

Besides, I think the paragraph gives background and fills out an otherwise arid article and makes it a bit more interesting. --Jonund (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your review of the article and the issues that I raised with it. And for the record, your international residence isn't why I disagee with your assessment... in fact, it's that ability to solicit and compose articles easily understood by people in York (Pennsylvania, Australia, Ontario, and Sierre Leone). I also apologize if I seem to be repeating myself by restating facts already in evidence.

Anyways. The paragraph still remains poorly sourced (specifically, only one source cited for very subjective observations; and the source article from Politico appears to be a commentary reviewing the GOP's upcoming elections). Again, a subjective opinionated process story being used to source a subjective opinionated paragraph in an article intended to be unbiased, factual and informative.

Finally, I disagree in part with your characterization of the paragraph in question providing any "background" or making an "arid article" more interesting. Heh. One of the definitions of "arid" is "matter-of-fact" (relating or adhering to facts, literal, straightforward or unemotional; having or indicating an awareness of things as they really are). I believe this is a very accurate description of the article. I disagee though that the graf provides any useful background information as I've stated before.

Thanks again for your time. ^allabout_me ♦ BRIAN ♦ ^talk2_me 15:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Ok, sense we now have a third opinion to settle the issue, I feel (and hope) that this issue is now resolved, and I will remove the tags asking for a third opinion. Bluedemocrat (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your indulging me in my desire to find a fair and reasonable review of this article and its contents. I am sorry but I am still not confortable with the assessment provided by Jonund and would like to try again. I want you to know that this is about me improving my understanding and application of the manual of style and editorial processes.

Thank you so much for your patience and look forward to working on future articles together. :-)

^allabout_me ♦ BRIAN ♦ ^talk2_me 15:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the story looks like a typical news story, not a column, and it gives an objective impression. Politico is a mainstream news source with competent leadership. If a source that normally is regarded as reliable is questioned, the reasons for that judgment should be given. Normally, one source is enough.

The graf gives me a better understanding of the political dynamics in Illinois's 5th congressional district. The description of the article as arid is, I think, not a cause of real disagreements between us. Maybe I should have used an other word. In the sense you render the word, the article remains properly arid with the graf included. But it adds information beyond the most basic facts, and, at least in my view, becomes more interesting. --Jonund (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090307161525/http://cbs2chicago.com:80/politics/emanuel.congress.seat.2.900869.html to http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/emanuel.congress.seat.2.900869.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009. 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:

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) 10:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009. 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:

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) 01:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]