Revision as of 12:14, 10 February 2021 editNotwally (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,259 edits →WP:OVERSECTION: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:26, 10 February 2021 edit undoX4n6 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,069 edits →WP:OVERSECTION: replyNext edit → | ||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
I do not think we need to be separating out single paragraphs into multiple sections as per {{u|X4n6}}'s . 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. – ] (]) 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC) | I do not think we need to be separating out single paragraphs into multiple sections as per {{u|X4n6}}'s . 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. – ] (]) 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 . 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. ] (]) 12:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:26, 10 February 2021
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Raskin's role in impeachment is leadworthy
and this edit should be restored IMO
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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)
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)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Maryland articles
- Mid-importance Maryland articles
- WikiProject Maryland articles
- Start-Class U.S. Congress articles
- Unknown-importance U.S. Congress articles
- Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles