Talk:Jamie Raskin

2013 Maryland Assault Weapons Ban Hearings "controversy"

The second paragraph of this section, which was reported to WP:BLP/N, represents unreasonable undue weight under our policy of biographies of living persons (BLP). Of the three sources given, only the Baltimore Sun can be considered reliable, and does not mention this "controversy". Issues with BLPs transcend political considerations, and as such the paragraph should not be added again to the article unless a reliable, valid source can be found, and the wording reflects an appropriate neutral point of view. I will revert the addition one more time - if the information is added again I will request the article be protected from editing, which will result in no information being added or removed anymore. I ask the users who insist that this information be included in the bio to produce sources other than message boards, and if a source does not exist, to refrain from inserting it altogether. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Raskin's role in impeachment is leadworthy

and this edit should be restored IMO

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamie_Raskin&diff=1005866909&oldid=1005866699

soibangla (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead should "summarize the most important points" of the article, while the impeachment proceedings seem to be a relatively minor aspect of his life. While it is in the news right now a lot, is it going to be a major aspect of how he is described by reliable sources in the future compared to some of his other activities? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously none of us have a crystal ball to know for sure, but Adam Schiff's similar role in Trump's first impeachment isn't part of his article lede. Carter (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert|talk, I would argue yes, as elsewhere in the article it says that days after his son died, and hours after the Capitol storming, where he was present, he sat down to write an article of impeachment, and amid all that, days later Pelosi named him lead manager. I'd argue that's a major series of events in his life. soibangla (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that just in terms of notability, it can be mentioned in the lead. Comparing to Schiff, Raskin's congressional tenure is shorter, and he's not a chairman of a committee, the way Schiff is, which is mentioned in Schiff's intro. So I think a sentence about his tenure in congress is fine, and right now that would mention this impeachment proceedings.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Raskin is chair of the United States House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Congressional Freethought Caucus. I think mentioning one or both of those would be more relevant than his role in the impeachment proceedings since the article repeatedly discusses his work on civil rights and progressive causes. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

mentioning his role as head impeachment manager should be in the lead and I personally think there should be a whole section base around his role in the impeachment trial SRD625 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OVERSECTION

I do not think we need to be separating out single paragraphs into multiple sections as per X4n6's edit. If more content was added to the sections, then I think it would make sense. I also do not think that "Teaching and private practice" is a good title for his early career, as it seemed to be mostly him as a law professor as American University. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Several concerns. I don't think it's a good idea to be warring. I tried to tell you that, yet you persisted. Also, you need to understand that you are misusing OVERSECTIION. It is an MOS, not a policy. Meaning it's just a guideline, not a policy. It's never a good idea to treat guidelines as policy. Finally, since you work on BLPs, I'm sure you're well aware that it's standard format to list Early life and education as a single heading, followed by early career or some variation. You didn't seem to like "private practice" to distinguish from all of his public service. You interjected his teaching. Fine. But then you also didn't seem to like "Teaching and private practice." I suppose you would also dislike giving them separate titles. There, I would agree. So offer an acceptable heading that addresses his teaching and private practice and we can discuss it. But throwing the 4 cats of early life, education, teaching and private practice all under one generic heading of "early life" just doesn't cut it. X4n6 (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As someone who frequently edits BLPs, I am not aware of the standard format you mention especially for short BLPs (for example, here are the two most recent biographies that appeared in my watchlist: Eddie Izzard and James Barry (surgeon)). If you have some sources about Raskin's early life, I would definitely be willing to help add content so that additional sections would be more appropriate. Please also note that I clearly called WP:OVERSECTION a guideline in my edit summary, and WP:GUIDES explains that our community guidelines are "sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines". The guideline for sections says, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". The fact that you are edit warring over your personal belief about what a "standard format" should be while ignoring community guidelines in the MOS is strange to me. While I think "Early life" is adequate, I would not object to changing "Early life" to something else such as "Early life and career". I think "Early life, education, and career" is a little wordy, but if you feel strongly that "Early life" is not adequate, I would prefer a slightly longer heading than two one-paragraph sections. What do you think? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You frequently edit BLPs, but aren't aware that "Early life and education" is a common heading? Then here are just a few examples: Larry Page, Narendra Modi, George H. W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Sundar Pichai, Albert Einstein, Sergey Brin, Sigmund Freud, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, Jaggi Vasudev, et al. Just as there are more than sufficient examples of the heading "Early life, education and career": Jim Jordan, Dixon Hearne, Mitch Joel, Donna Howard, Ido Leffler, Nancy Johnson, Tom C. Korologos, Kurt Bills, Chase Rice, Vienna Teng, Nancy Jacobs, John Heinz, Paul Hollywood, Joaquin Castro, Debbie Stabenow, Darrell Steinberg, Lisa Murkowski, Barney Frank, Hamdi Ulukaya, Alcee Hastings, John Bolton. But you objected to it because, as you told me on your talk page "considering you are brand new to the article, it would be nice if you could contribute to the article's talk page before putting in additional section headers contrary to the guideline at WP:OVERSECTION." Obviously a response that didn't age well. There are ample examples of "Early life" as well, but they are generally confined to examples where the "early life" section is so expansive that it merits its own section. But then "Education", etc. frequently become subheadings under it. Where the article doesn't lend itself to a long section on "Early life" alone others are added to heading. As all the examples above show. My objection to "Early life" as a stand alone here is because other categories are included under it. And as seen above, the 3 section heading is common with politicians. So complaining of OVERSECTION would be more the exception than the rule. In fact, it might be useful for you to start citing it correctly as MOS:OVERSECTION. Perhaps that will help remind you that it is just a guideline. And despite your somewhat tortured attempt to make a guideline as inviolate as a policy, it remains simply a guideline - for which: "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." As all the examples above clearly show, those common sense exceptions to this particular guideline have been applied frequently. So citing an obscure guideline, coupled with your talk page response makes clear the real objection here it little more than textbook WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which is a policy. Please review it. Then, unless you have objections that don't violate that policy, or can show why: "Early life, education and career" is still wrong here, despite its common use elsewhere; I'll revert to it. Or even "Early life and education" in one section followed by "Teaching and private practice" in the next. But my preference is the former. Unless you have something better? If not, you can even revert it. X4n6 (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to wait to hear from others because I do not agree with making an exception to the MOS guideline that short paragraphs generally do not need their own section. I also do not think it is beneficial to go around to articles to format them to a personal preference contrary to the MOS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

As I've amply demonstrated, your MOS vigilance is misinformed. You still don't seem to understand the difference between a guideline and a policy. I invite you to prove me wrong. Also, your latest BIB complaint has nothing to do with my edit. I've really tried to AGF and work collaboratively, but the fastest way to find yourself at ANI is to continue reverting my edits for OWN disguised as flimsy MOS excuses. X4n6 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)