Talk:United States Chess Federation

Chess Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess 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.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Importance

I have to disagree with the low importance rating, arguably Top was an exaggeration. The importance rating should be an indicator of how important an article is within a project. It is definitely not Low importance (Subject is mainly of specialist interest) in the chess project since it is the main governing chess organization within the United States. Furthermore there are well over 100 different wiki chess articles linking to it, making it an important article to get right. I am therefore changing this back to High. Voorlandt 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand clearly how the fact that it is the main governing chess organization within the United States makes it to High-importance. I mean, I can always say that the "Zimbabwe Chess Federation" is the most important governing chess organisation within Zimbabwe, but that does not make it especially Top-importance, does it ? If this argument must be exposed sensibly, it must include an explanation of why USA is a country that matters when it comes to chess. I am not saying it is not the case, but that should be explained.

I am more sensitive to the argument of internal links, but this could include a part of systematic bias. SyG (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan lawsuit

Since the Sloan lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, my opinion is that it is not notable enough for mention in this article. It can get whatever discussion it deserves at Sam Sloan. Also, this article desperately needs some references. 24.177.121.141 (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, but note that the other item under "Controversies," the Fischer business, is very old news indeed, and no one except Sloan cares about it any more. If you rally need "controversies," there are a number of more recent ones available. However, I fail to see much point, and finding someone neutral to write it would be almost impossible. Eddore (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]