Talk:Chesa Boudin/Archive 1

[Untitled]
why is this page still here, again? clearly created by the "author and scholar" himself. the references alone (not to mention his lack of notoriety) a dead giveaway. Funandgun (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)FunandGun


 * I have to agree with the above comment. This entry reads like a press release. And I think to call this young man a "scholar" is to really stretch the meaning of that word. Come on, Wiki people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.63.172 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion delcined twice
This has now been declined for speedy deletion by me and another admin. While I cannot guarantee it would survive an AFD, it not eligible for speedy deletion-- it asserts notability, it does not meet G11 criteria, it has sources. Dloh  cierekim  01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While it was deleted in 2007 under AFD, it is substantially improved with content and references.  Dloh  cierekim  01:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain what "an AFD" is nor am I familiar with the history of this page. I am also unfamiliar with "speedy deletion" and the process (see Dlohcierekim comment above).  I do agree with the overall (lack of) quality of the Chesa Boudin page and agree that it appears to have been originated by Mr. Boudin or one of his associates.  Yet, I am endeavouring to clean up this mess.  I have started by adding a reference for the information regarding Mr. Gilbert's sentencing.  Please advise on how it looks and I will continue to clean up this tripe.  Truth wins and facts are correct.  Cheers! User:DBLAlabama 04:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[Trying to get this cleaned up!]
OK. I've put about 2 hours of effort into this page. In my opinion, it would be better if the current page is binned and a new one is published. I'm trying to work from top to bottom and yet two issues arise for each one I fix. A large one is there is nothing on the Wikipedia page to support his long-lost uncle is "author of a two-volume history of the Supreme Court's influence on American government". The 2-volume work is about his "uncle's" opinions, etc. about the JUDICIAL BRANCH'S overreaching, not just SCOTUS. I'll work on this more but would appreciate "creative direction". (FYI...I've been reviewing and editing documents of various types (legal, instructional, directive, editorial, etc.) for over 20 years. As this is my first foray into the world of Wikipedia, I don't want to screw the pooch.)  Cheers! User:DBLAlabama 05:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chesa Boudin. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511221455/http://www.nationbooks.org/book/43/Letters%20from%20Young%20Activists to http://www.nationbooks.org/book/43/Letters%20from%20Young%20Activists
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/18/american_radical_the_life_and_times

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chesa Boudin. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111013310/http://internationalroundtablebondingthroughbars.pwias.ubc.ca/delegates to http://internationalroundtablebondingthroughbars.pwias.ubc.ca/delegates
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419113219/http://www.rotary.org/en/MediaAndNews/TheRotarian/Pages/Rotarystory1005.aspx to http://www.rotary.org/en/MediaAndNews/TheRotarian/Pages/Rotarystory1005.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Edits
Hi all -- After spending a lot of time very carefully reading through the COI guidelines and related material, I believe that because I work at the same office as the subject it would be best for me to suggest edits rather than edit this article myself. My proposed edits, though, are not offered at the direction of or in coordination with the subject. I take very seriously the commitment to NPOV and the project more broadly (particularly as expressed in this excellent article) and I seek only to improve this page in accordance with Wikipedia's standards.

That said, I would like to help get this article cleaned up. I've broken my proposed edits up into sections. In each section I (1) summarize the changes, (2) offer the rationale for the changes, and (3) post the proposed changes which, if agreed upon, can be adopted. I have also added citations throughout, and substituted some citations that were used in the original (either because the citation in the original led to a broken link, or because I found a better source).

Thanks for taking the time to read through this. I look forward to any discussion.

His Parents (section: early life and family history)
Summary/Rationale: Most of these edits are for clarity. I cleaned up the prose, broke up a paragraph, and offered a clearer explanation of his parents' convictions. The original said they were convicted of "the felony murders of two police officers and a security guard." The average reader doesn't know what that means (and it isn't how a lawyer would say it either), so I edited to briefly explain the felony murder rule and how it is that they could have been convicted of murder having been getaway drivers. I also added "Daniel Ellsberg" to the list of clients represented by his grandfather Leonard.

Proposed change: Boudin was born in New York City to Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, former members of the radical leftist organization the Weather Underground.

When Boudin was 14 months old, his parents were arrested for their role as getaway car drivers in the 1981 armed robbery of a Brink's armored car in Rockland County, New York. Because two police officers and a security guard were killed in the robbery, Boudin’s parents were convicted of murder under the felony murder rule, which allows under some circumstances for a person to be convicted of murder even though they were not directly responsible for a person’s death. Boudin’s mother was sentenced to 20 years to life and released in 2003. His father was sentenced to 75 years to life and remains incarcerated.

As a result of his biological parents’ incarceration, Boudin was raised by adoptive parents Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who, like his parents, are former members of the Weather Underground.

Boudin descends from a long left-wing lineage. His great-great-uncle, Louis B. Boudin, was a Marxist theoretician and author of a two-volume history of the Supreme Court's influence on American government. His grandfather, Leonard Boudin, was a civil rights attorney who represented several high-profile and sometimes clients including Daniel Ellsberg, Fidel Castro, and Paul Robeson. Boudin’s other notable family members include Michael Boudin, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and I.F. Stone, an independent journalist.

Work in Venezuela (section: career)
Summary/Rationale: The main issue here seems to be the "Support for Hugo Chavez" section, which appears to be biased. Does this warrant its own section? It doesn't seem like the time serving as a translator constitutes enough of a piece of his career to be on its own. I propose either removing this entirely or folding a version of it into the "writer" section (after removing the biased passages).

As for the bias, I see two main problems, both relating to a misleading use of quotations:

(1) The article states: "There [in Venezuela], Boudin began a "period of infatuation with Chavez's redistributionist agenda.”[17]" But in the source material, immediately following the quoted passage, the source author says that as to the "period of infatuation" "Boudin reconsiders a few years later, finding the caudillo coming up short as a democrat and populist)." I don't think any of this warrants inclusion, but if the first part of the quote does, surely the second part of the quote does too.

(2) The next sentence — "Boudin has since written numerous articles praising Chávez[18] as "wildly popular and widely loved,"[19] and endorsing Chávez as president for life.[20]" — is inaccurate and misleading as well. First, it is framed to suggest that because Chavez was widely popular and loved, he was popular with Boudin as well. The quote suggests that Boudin endorses the view he quotes, but that does not follow. More importantly, the very articles the editor cites include Boudin's criticisms of Chavez. It is not balanced to present his characterization of Chavez's popularity in this way without also presenting his criticisms of Chavez. But because none of it seems significant, I propose removing it. And the last phrase, asserting that Boudin endorsed Chavez for life, is disproved by the article the editor cites for support. That article, if read in its entirety, demonstrates that Boudin was not endorsing Chavez for life, and pointed out that he still must be elected. The last two paragraphs of the article offer reasons why he might not be. Even the article's title uses a question mark, suggesting that it isn't an endorsement but a description.

Again, this section appears to have been written by someone who, for whatever reason, was seeking to impugn Boudin's character by association with someone generally regarded in the U.S. to have been problematic (at best). I think it's inclusion violates NPOV and the spirit of Wikipedia, and that accordingly it should be stripped of bias and folded into the "writing" section.

Proposed Change: [move to beginning of "writing" section]: Before law school, Boudin traveled to Venezuela and served as a translator for the administration of then-president Hugo Chávez  Boudin has since written numerous articles about Chávez. In 2007, Boudin described himself as "critically supportive" of Chavez noting that "the Chávez administration may be fairly criticized on a range of fronts–from widespread corruption to undiplomatic rhetoric, from high crime rates to food shortages."

Law (section: career)
Summary/Rationale: First, I cleaned up prose throughout. I edited the first paragraph to make it more clear when he served in each role, and also added a position that was missing (clerk to J. Breyer on the U.S. District Court for Northern California).

Second, I spun the next paragraph off into its own subsection titled "bail reform". This seems warranted given the extent of Boudin's involvement in bail reform in California (as evidenced by the numerous citations throughout the current version of this page). To that subsection, I added info about what is described in cited sources as a "landmark" case challenging San Francisco's money bail system in California state courts (a Google search for "humphrey boudin" or "boudin bail" will produced numerous articles about this case).

Finally, I added an additional board position (with citation) and more info to the board position that was already there. And I added some additional citations to support the assertion in the current page that he writes widely on criminal justice reform, particularly bail.

Proposed change:

Law
After law school, from 2011-2012, Boudin served as a law clerk to the Honorable M. Margaret McKeown on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[1] He was a 2012–2013 Liman Fellow at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, and in 2013-2014 he served as a clerk to the Honorable Charles Breyer on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In 2015, Boudin began working full-time at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office as a deputy public defender. He serves on the board of Civil Rights Corps, a national non-profit that challenges systemic injustice in the American legal system, and on the board of RE:STORE JUSTICE, a non-profit based in California that uses restorative justice principles to reform the criminal justice system. .

Bail reform
Boudin has been a leader of bail reform efforts in California, having served on an ACLU advisory committee to help draft statewide bail reform legislation and initiated a 2015 federal class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of San Francisco's use of money bail to determine pretrial custody status. The lawsuit led the City of San Francisco to concede that the practice of jailing indigent defendants based on inability to pay money bail is unconstitutional. Boudin also litigated the constitutionality of money bail in California state courts, resulting in a ruling by the California Court of Appeal declaring that the bail system as practiced in San Francisco violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. That case is pending review by the California Supreme Court.

Writing (section: writing)
Summary/Rationale: This I have mostly left as is, except for reordering (and moving the bit about speaking and publishing on criminal justice reform issues down here). But here too I think there is bias infecting the original. The original quotes especially unfavorable parts of reviews and omits any positive ones. I propose simply deleting the quotes—it doesn't seem that a few lines of a couple reviews of one of the many things he has written warrants such space in the page. However, if the consensus is that these quotes should stay, then I propose adding additional quotes from other reviews (the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that "Anyone embarking for Latin America would do well to prepare with Boudin's memoir..

Proposed change:

Writer
Boudin speaks and publishes frequently on criminal justice issues,   particularly bail reform.

Prior to his career in the law, Boudin translated Understanding the Bolivarian Revolution: Hugo Chavez Speaks with Marta Harnecker into English (Monthly Review Press, 2005), co-edited Letters From Young Activists: Today's Young Rebels Speak Out, (Nation Books, 2005), co-wrote The Venezuelan Revolution: 100 Questions – 100 Answers (Thunder's Mouth Press, 2006), and wrote Gringo: A Coming of Age in Latin America (Scribner's, 2009).

Boudin has authored numerous scholarly articles published in various law journals, such as the Yale Law Journal and the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology on subjects including the rights of children with incarcerated parents, prison visitation policies, disclosure in elections under the First Amendment, immigrant labor organizing, and others.

Cheers -- Catguy55 (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)User:Catguy55

Reply 13-JAN-2019
Your edit request could not be reviewed because the provided references are not formatted correctly. The citation style predominantly used by the Chesa Boudin article appears to be a mixture of Citation Style 1 (CS1) combined with plain references. The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble either version of reference style currently used by the article. In the extended section below titled Citation style, I have illustrated two examples: one showing how the edit request was submitted, and another showing how requests with Citation Style 1 should be formatted:

Bare URL Reference Style Formatting: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.

Displays as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[3]

References

1. 2.  3.

In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is one of the styles used by the Chesa Boudin article. Using this style, the WikiFormatted text would resemble the following:

Citation Style 1 Formatting: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin. Displays as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[3]

References

^ Sjöblad, Tristan. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 1. ^ Duvalier, Gabrielle. , Scientific American, 51(78):46. ^ Uemura, Shū. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 2. 

In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, larger edit requests such yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly rewrite your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example shown in the collapsed section above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards,  Spintendo   10:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply 14-JAN-2019
thanks for reviewing this so quickly and for the helpful resources. I'll correct the citations. Should I do this in a new section, or edit the section I've already posted? Thanks again, Catguy55 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)User:catguy55

Proposed Edits — revised with citations corrected
I’ve resubmitted this request after correcting the citations according to Spintendo’s feedback (thanks again, Spintendo). I’d also suggest removing the maintenance templates given that, if these edits are accepted, the maintenance issues will have all been resolved (on my reading, anyway--I think the sourcing issues will be taken care of and the contributor issues seem to have been resolved already through edits that have taken place since the templates were put in place in 2013). I've also incorporated edits made since I initially proposed these edits (I think I caught them all).

My original post, including revisions, follows:

Hi all -- After spending a lot of time very carefully reading through the COI guidelines and related material, I believe that because I work at the same office as the subject it would be best for me to suggest edits rather than edit this article myself. My proposed edits, though, are not offered at the direction of or in coordination with the subject. I take very seriously the commitment to NPOV and the project more broadly (particularly as expressed in this excellent article) and I seek only to improve this page in accordance with Wikipedia's standards.

That said, I would like to help get this article cleaned up. I've broken my proposed edits up into sections. In each section I (1) summarize the changes, (2) offer the rationale for the changes, and (3) post the proposed changes which, if agreed upon, can be adopted. I have also added citations throughout, and substituted some citations that were used in the original (either because the citation in the original led to a broken link, or because I found a better source).

Thanks for taking the time to read through this. I look forward to any discussion.

DA election (intro)
Summary/Rationale: I propose editing the intro paragraph to reflect that as of January 15, 2019, Boudin is a candidate in the 2019 election for San Francisco District Attorney.

Proposed Change: Chesa Boudin (born August 21, 1980) is an American lawyer, writer, and lecturer specializing in the U.S. criminal justice system and Latin American policy. He is a candidate in the 2019 election for San Francisco District Attorney.

His Parents (section: early life and family history)
Summary/Rationale: Most of these edits are for clarity. I cleaned up the prose, broke up a paragraph, and offered a clearer explanation of his parents' convictions. The original said they were convicted of "the felony murders of two police officers and a security guard." The average reader doesn't know what that means (and it isn't how a lawyer would say it either), so I edited to briefly explain the felony murder rule and how it is that they could have been convicted of murder having been getaway drivers. I also added "Daniel Ellsberg" to the list of clients represented by his grandfather Leonard.

Proposed change: Boudin was born in New York City to Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, former members of the radical leftist organization the Weather Underground.

When Boudin was 14 months old, his parents were arrested for their role as getaway car drivers in the 1981 armed robbery of a Brink's armored car in Rockland County, New York. Because two police officers and a security guard were killed in the robbery, Boudin’s parents were convicted of murder under the felony murder rule, which allows under some circumstances for a person to be convicted of murder even though they were not directly responsible for a person’s death. Boudin’s mother was sentenced to 20 years to life and released in 2003. His father was sentenced to 75 years to life and remains incarcerated.

As a result of his biological parents’ incarceration, Boudin was raised by adoptive parents Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who, like his parents, are former members of the Weather Underground.

Boudin descends from a long left-wing lineage. His great-great-uncle, Louis B. Boudin, was a Marxist theoretician and author of a two-volume history of the Supreme Court's influence on American government. His grandfather, Leonard Boudin, was a civil rights attorney who represented several high-profile and sometimes controversial clients including Daniel Ellsberg, Fidel Castro, and Paul Robeson. Boudin’s other notable family members include Michael Boudin, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and I.F. Stone, an independent journalist.

Work in Venezuela (section: career)
Summary/Rationale: The main issue here seems to be the "Support for Hugo Chavez" section, added in December 2018. First, does this warrant its own section? It doesn't seem like the time serving as a translator constitutes enough of a piece of his career to be on its own. I propose either removing this entirely or folding a version of it into the "writer" section. The second issue is that the section appears to be biased, so if it is kept and moved, I propose editing to adhere to NPOV.

As for the bias, I see two main problems, both relating to a misleading use of quotations:

(1) The article states: "There [in Venezuela], Boudin began a "period of infatuation with Chavez's redistributionist agenda.”[17]" But in the source material, immediately following the passage quoted in the article, the source author writes that, as to the "period of infatuation", "Boudin reconsiders a few years later, finding the caudillo coming up short as a democrat and populist)." I don't think any of this warrants inclusion, but if the first part of the quote does, surely the second part of the quote does too.  Omitting it is misleading.

(2) The next sentence — "Boudin has since written numerous articles praising Chávez[18] as "wildly popular and widely loved,"[19] and endorsing Chávez as president for life.[20]" — is inaccurate and misleading as well. First, it is framed to suggest that because Chavez was widely popular and loved, he was popular with Boudin as well. The quote suggests that Boudin endorses the view he quotes, but that does not follow from his mere quotation of that view. More importantly, the very articles the editor cites include Boudin's criticisms of Chavez. It is not balanced to present Boudin’s characterization of Chavez's popularity as Boudin’s personal endorsement without at least also presenting his criticisms of Chavez. But because none of it seems significant, I propose removing it all.

And the last phrase, asserting that Boudin endorsed Chavez for life, is disproved by the article the editor cites for support. That article, if read in its entirety, demonstrates that Boudin was not endorsing Chavez for life, and pointed out that he still must be elected. The last two paragraphs of the article offer reasons why he might not be. Even the article's title uses a question mark, suggesting that it isn't an endorsement but a description.

I think this section undermines not just NPOV but also the spirit of Wikipedia, and that accordingly it should be stripped of bias as suggested below and folded into the "writing" section.

Proposed Change: [move to beginning of "writing" section]: Before law school, Boudin traveled to Venezuela and served as a translator for the administration of then-president Hugo Chávez Boudin has since written numerous articles about Chávez. In 2007, Boudin described himself as "critically supportive" of Chavez noting that "the Chávez administration may be fairly criticized on a range of fronts–from widespread corruption to undiplomatic rhetoric, from high crime rates to food shortages."

Law (section: career)
Summary/Rationale: First, I cleaned up the copy throughout. I edited the first paragraph to make it more clear when he served in each role, and also added a position that was missing (clerk to J. Breyer on the U.S. District Court for Northern California).

Second, I spun the next paragraph off into its own subsection titled "bail reform". This seems warranted given the extent of Boudin's involvement in bail reform in California (as evidenced by the numerous citations throughout the current version of this page). To that subsection, I added info about what is described in cited sources as a "landmark" case challenging San Francisco's money bail system in California state courts (a Google search for "humphrey boudin" or "boudin bail" will produced numerous articles about this case).

Finally, I added an additional board position (with citation) and more info to the board position that was already there. And I added some additional citations to support the assertion in the current page that he writes widely on criminal justice reform, particularly bail.

Proposed change:

Law
After law school, from 2011-2012, Boudin served as a law clerk to the Honorable M. Margaret McKeown on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He was a 2012–2013 Liman Fellow at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, and in 2013-2014 he served as a clerk to the Honorable Charles Breyer on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In 2015, Boudin began working full-time at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office as a deputy public defender. He serves on the board of Civil Rights Corps, a national non-profit that challenges systemic injustice in the American legal system, and on the board of RE:STORE JUSTICE, a non-profit based in California that uses restorative justice principles to reform the criminal justice system. In January 2019 Boudin announced his candidacy for San Francisco District Attorney.

Bail reform
Boudin has been a leader of bail reform efforts in California, having served on an ACLU advisory committee to help draft statewide bail reform legislation and initiated a 2015 federal class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of San Francisco's use of money bail to determine pretrial custody status. The lawsuit led the City of San Francisco to concede that the practice of jailing indigent defendants based on inability to pay money bail is unconstitutional. Boudin also litigated the constitutionality of money bail in California state courts, resulting in a ruling by the California Court of Appeal declaring that the bail system as practiced in San Francisco violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. That case is pending review by the California Supreme Court.

Writer (section: writer)
Summary/Rationale: This I have mostly left as is, except for reordering (and moving the bit about speaking and publishing on criminal justice reform issues down here). But here too I think there is bias infecting the original. The original quotes especially unfavorable parts of reviews and omits any positive ones. I propose simply deleting the quotes—it doesn't seem that a few lines from a couple reviews of one of the many things he has written warrants such significant space in the article. However, if the consensus is that these quotes should stay, then I propose adding additional quotes from other reviews (the San Francisco Chronicle, for example, wrote that "Anyone embarking for Latin America would do well to prepare with Boudin's memoir..

Proposed change:

Writer
Boudin speaks and publishes frequently on criminal justice issues, particularly bail reform.

Prior to his career in the law, Boudin translated Understanding the Bolivarian Revolution: Hugo Chavez Speaks with Marta Harnecker into English (Monthly Review Press, 2005), co-edited Letters From Young Activists: Today's Young Rebels Speak Out, (Nation Books, 2005), co-wrote The Venezuelan Revolution: 100 Questions – 100 Answers (Thunder's Mouth Press, 2006), and wrote Gringo: A Coming of Age in Latin America (Scribner's, 2009).

Boudin has authored numerous scholarly articles published in various law journals, such as the Yale Law Journal and the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology on subjects including the rights of children with incarcerated parents, prison visitation policies, disclosure in elections under the First Amendment, immigrant labor organizing, election observing, and others.

Best, Catguy55 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)User:Catguy55

Reply 16-JAN-2019
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.  Spintendo   01:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply 11-APRIL-2019
, thanks for going through the proposed edits. In response to your note 8, which reads "This part of the edit request proposal was declined because the descriptions of the subjects' charitable actions/moral endeavors are not the purpose of the article. See WP:NOBLECAUSE."

The proposed edit doesn't describe a noble cause or charitable work. The bail reform work is part of the subject's work as a lawyer and public defender, and much of it was work done from the public defender's office (a review of the sources cited in the proposed edit should make that clear). Accordingly, it's highly relevant to the subject's career and I think should be published under that heading with the subheading bail reform.

Here again is the proposed edit:

Bail reform
Boudin has been a leader of bail reform efforts in California, having served on an ACLU advisory committee to help draft statewide bail reform legislation and initiated a 2015 federal class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of San Francisco's use of money bail to determine pretrial custody status. The lawsuit led the City of San Francisco to concede that the practice of jailing indigent defendants based on inability to pay money bail is unconstitutional. Boudin also litigated the constitutionality of money bail in California state courts, resulting in a ruling by the California Court of Appeal declaring that the bail system as practiced in San Francisco violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. That case is pending review by the California Supreme Court.

Please let me know your thoughts, and again, thanks. Catguy55 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Catguy55

, I would support inclusion of your suggested section, this seems like a fair description of Boudin's professional activities. The text does not appear to make any moral claim about whether his efforts toward abolishing cash bail were a good idea (which is a topic better confined to articles about Bail in the United States or bail reform). Given that there hasn't been a reply in a couple weeks, I would favor going ahead and rolling in that section. --Rmharman (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk about this
https://presscalifornia.com/2020/01/19/guilfoyle-san-franciscos-new-da-is-dangerous/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.66.206 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to contribute some content, neutrally describing the fact that Boudin's defeated opponent from the DA race considers him "dangerous", feel free -- that would be reasonable. Headlining your comments "the truth about this fool" is not constructive.  It violates multiple Wikipedia policies.  See: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:HERE.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmharman (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV and sources
. I do not think the inclusion of Vicha Ratanapakdee in the article is appropriate as Boudin's involvement within the matter is a stretch at best. One out of context remark about a tragedy that the subject was not primarily involved in seems WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. — BriefEdits (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It merits inclusion given the attention that RS have dedicated to it. There has been extensive coverage of it (including national news) especially given that this is a local DA. If you google 'Vicha Ratanapakdee' right now, the first thing that comes up is Chesa Boudoin. I don't mean to sound harsh, but whether or not you agree with the criticism doesn't mean it is WP:UNDUE. It certainly has gathered more attention that many of the facts mentioned in the 'Tenure' part of the page, many of whom rely on a single source, and sometimes that source is Boudin's office itself. If you are concerned about WP:NPOV, then you can add more context or Boudin's response. Eccekevin (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article does have a lot of information cited with primary sources; I just haven't gotten around to expanding them. In regards to the comments, I feel like it's in a gray area wherein it's covered but also not relevant to the subject. I'm wary of including information every time somebody gets mentioned in news coverage as the subject is a political figure in a major city, which will equate to name dropping purely by association. I'd opt to not include the quote because the gravity of the coverage is around Vicha Ratanapakdee and not Boudin, similar to how we should be careful of a criticism section per WP:CRIT. — BriefEdits (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Vicha Ratanapakdee is the most attention Boudin has received since his election. So it would be absolutely wrong to not include it. If you search Boudin online, the Vicha Ratanapakdee case is the first thing that pops up. I understand that you personally feel that it's not a fair criticism, but our job as editors is to follow reliable sources, not to only mention what we personally believe is fair or unfair. Additionally, most of the coverage on newspaper and other reliable sources (local and national) right now is criticism of Boudin (particularly of his handling of repeat offenders). Again, not out job to judge if it's fair, it's just our job to compile what the sources say. Eccekevin (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you will, consider the critical reception parts of film articles. If you look at their Rotten Tomato pages, you can see that there are many reviews by critics, but that does not insinuate that they are all worthy of inclusion within the film's page. The question is therefore not of coverage but of substance. Or if you look at any popular figure giving condolences to a grieving family; there is plenty of coverage but they may not merit inclusion because of the relevancy of the condolence to the subject. In regards to this article, I believe that there should be information on the recall effort and dissatisfaction against Boudin. However, in this instance, I do not feel like this level of material reaches the standard of inclusion. If, hypothetically, he gets recalled or he resigns, are we going to include every instance of complaint against the subject? Like, if Boudin had said something different and the family host a press conference saying that they reject his statements despite his inconsequential involvement, is that notable? (also I hope you don't mind but I removed a colon from your previous statement for formatting clarity) — BriefEdits (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the number of local, regional, and national news and media outlets that have covered the issue.        If this isn't notable, nothing else on this page with the exception of his election is. You personally feel it's not a criticism of "substance". That's perfectly fine, you are entitles to your opinion, but as a Wikipedia editor, you have to follow what RSs say. Right now, they clearly are covering this matter as substantial, since they are covering more than anything else on this page. Eccekevin (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I feel like you're trying to WP:CITEBOMB this conversation without engaging with my arguments as some of the links you are presenting are literally just the same articles on different pages or are duplicate links. I'm not arguing about coverage but if your argument is that coverage is enough to warrant inclusion, then you'd have to at least comment on the examples I've given. — BriefEdits (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not WP:CITEBOMB, I am just showing how extensive the coverage is. Again, if this isn't notable, what else on the page is. Of all the things he has done i office, this has gathered the most media attention. Your argument is that you disagree with the criticism, so you don't see the "substance". I don't really know what to answer, since it's an argument based on your personal feelings about the issue. Given this amount of coverage (which again, has exceeded anything else he has done in office) I simply cannot see how it fails to be notable.
 * Look, the page currently has material like with only one citation, from his own office, not even an independent source. If there's non-notable content on this page, I think you should start with stuff like this. Eccekevin (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like we're at an impasse, so if it's alright with you, I'd like to request a WP:THIRDOPINION. — BriefEdits (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to do a RfC or something, but I do not see how anyone could look at this extensive coverage and think it's not worth mentioning. You think the criticism that the family has of the DA is unfair, and that's fine. But our job is to report what reliable sources are saying, and they are saying the family is upset with the DA over his comments. Eccekevin (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the idea that this murder of "low relevance" to the DA and this page is an opinion of BriefEdits and it is definitely something that has not been agreed upon. I think that it is highly relevant, and the current media attention on DA's handling of the case makes it so. This very morning he was questioned by the local media on his handling of the story, and this case has been one of the most publicized of his career.  Eccekevin (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the input. Unfortunately, I feel like most of the articles cited are, according to WP:RELEVANCE, "Relevance level: Medium" as the main subject pertains to Vicha Ratanapakdee and therefore would require a deciding vote on its inclusion. (I know WP:NOTDEM but for the sake of the argument, I'm sure both of us would like to resolve this issue with a third opinion). I would also like to qualify 's most recent comment by saying that while Vicha Ratanapakdee was brought up twice in one of the articles, it is more inline with the string of murder/manslaughter in the city that has occurred within the last few months. I also stand by my previous comment when I said that I do not think that the coverage of public individuals commenting on tragedies as intrinsically notable, because I am concerned about the section turning into a "he-said, she-said". — BriefEdits (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see there is a disagreement on whether the event is relevant and I think offering my position on this aspect may help.
 * If I read the sources right, the event started with this source, where the subject had made a commentary on the murder of Vicha Ratanapakdee. That commentary was considered controversial by the family and many news outlets reported on it as evidented by rest of the sources.  From the latest comment by Eccekevin, there seems to be ongoing coverage about the commentary and subsequent events caused by it.
 * It looks like the disagreement over relevancy may come from how the event should be treated. While the commentary itself may not be relevant to be included, perhaps the response to the commentary is relevant enough to be included?  Personally, I think if the commentary causes more events to happen that are reported by sources, then it should be significant.  Might want to wait a few more days as it looks like the event is still ongoing.  ~  Aseleste charge-paritytime 07:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And it's not just the incident itself on the New York Times which makes this story relevant (although I'd agree that in itself it could be considered relevant enough. But it's also 1) the family's reaction and coverage of it 2) the commentary about the backlash and criticism 3) the later questioning by reporters of his handling of the whole case and 4) the role of this story in the current recall effort against the DA 5) the fact this story has been the most press coverage Boudin has received since his election. All these aspects together, and how they have been covered, make it highly relevant, and this story is the top hit when you search Boudin online. Eccekevin (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess this will be my final comment on the matter unless there is a massive change in the event. I still find that the argument between the victim's family and the subject to be conflated with the notability of Vicha Ratanapakdee and the larger outcry against the subject, which encompasses shortcomings by his office and the recall effort. And by focusing on this matter, I'm worried about POV creep as it is giving it WP:UNDUE weight in what is a contentious criticism section. Obviously, this has been a long debate so if I at one point came off as disrespectful, I do apologize. Regards. — BriefEdits (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section and cutting of information
I agree with many of the changes you have made and the good work you've done on the article, but I generally am against cutting information. I prefer expanding and contextualizing if NPOV is the concern, not removing. Secondly, the section is not really about his public image, it's specifically about criticism. All the material, including the material you have added, is criticism.Eccekevin (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I hope you don't mind me creating a new section to facilitate the conversation. And I agree that the change to /*Public image*/ is a bit weird at the moment. The page has gotten really long so I use pages like William Barr and Eric Holder for reference to see how the page could better be organized. For posterity sake, I do feel like it's more useful for the section to be converted to /*Public image*/ per like other "Public image" sections/articles of politicians, such as Public image of Ronald Reagan or Public image of Barack Obama, which would eventually become more well rounded. As it stands, it's more accurate to entitle the section /*Criticism*/ but it's difficult to maintain NPOV. — BriefEdits (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. There could be a praise or appraisal section to make it more balanced.Eccekevin (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Publications#Articles
At 08:32, 28 February 2020, User:Alexrmorgan "Added unlisted article he had published": "The impact of overbooking on a pre-trial risk assessment tool." Kristian Lum, Chesa Boudin, Megan Price (2020). But no publication is named, nor further information provided for finding this article. I don't want to remove a legitimate but incomplete contribution that has so far survived in the article for nearly two years. If anyone can find this article it would be helpful. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging the relevant party. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Literacy
"Boudin reports that he did not learn to read until age 9."

The source for this sentence is a Facebook page with a video of Sonia Sotomayor. This does not seem like a reliable source, and I am going to remove the sentence unless someone can provide a better source. Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2022
https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/press-release/new-economic-crimes-unit-to-protect-workers/

replace source 51 for the sentence "Boudin's office launched the Economic Crimes Against Workers Unit, which is led by Assistant District Attorney Scott Stillman, in April 2020." 2600:1700:43C0:3D30:285F:421:F90A:48D2 (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌. I'd prefer to use a secondary source than a press release for this info. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Recall
There was a recall election yesterday. We should add this into the article. Was this fine, upstanding ... um, "prosecutor" ... removed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

the election has been perceived
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/usa-demokraten-kalifornien-1.5599880

and here : https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-06/usa-kriminalitaet-verbrechen-strafrecht-chesa-boudin/komplettansicht

--178.202.73.42 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Log in, and sign with four tildes, to link your comments to your name and talk page, and avoid posting your IP address, which conveys your approximate location. -- motorfingers : Talk 05:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Boudin's wife is called "partner"
Is there a reason that the first sentence under "Personal Live" uses the word "partner" instead of "wife?" That is a bit confusing, as it implies that Boudin is living with someone other than his wife, which is apparently not the case. Her name is Valerie Block, which is omitted. Is there a reason for that?-- motorfingers : Talk 12:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed that. At first, I assumed he was gay, so they used the word "partner".  Then, I assumed it was some politically correct gender-neutral word, specifically avoiding "husband" or "wife".  Who knows?  This is 2022 ... and this is California.  I'm sure it's some PC reason.       Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally when I see something simple and obvious like that, I just fix it and tag it as a minor edit, but with Boudin't recent recall, and because I don't follow political topics on Wikipedia, I'm reluctant to touch anything here without hearing from others about sensitivities. Anyone know of "some PC reason" or other reason not to correct "partner" to "wife?" -- motorfingers : Talk  12:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He refers to her as his "wife". Eccekevin (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Made the change just now: partner -> wife, Valerie Block -- motorfingers : Talk  23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling one's heterosexual spouse "partner" coyly and without clarification, as if one is in a homosexual relationship but isn't keen on broadcasting it (for the purposes of solidarity), is indeed a strange social phenomenon. I'm more concerned about conflation with one's business partner, as it can lead to some awkward professional assumptions. Unless one is adamant about the terminology to describe their relationship (like the cultural war issue everyone is familiar with: deadnaming/pronouns), I think wife/husband is more descriptive without potentially being offensive. Noble Metalloid (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's technically more accurate to say partner because it's written in the source and we don't know when they got married. But it's mostly semantics at this point. We can always say that he lived in the outer sunset in 2019. The next sentence confirms that he's married to his wife Valerie. — BriefEdits (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Change has been made: partner -> wife, Valerie Block
 * -- motorfingers : Talk 01:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Has Boudin left office?
The article doesn't show a date when he left office. The DA office's website says he's still the DA. https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/about-us/ 67.188.1.213 (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Appears to be July 8. https://www.ktvu.com/news/chesa-boudin-releases-statement-on-way-out-of-office-as-san-francisco-district-attorney PacificDepths (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Correction regarding Daly Police and Troy McAlister
The article stated: "Even though a police report was generated, it is not clear if Daly City police made any effort to locate or apprehend McAlister." That statement and the article in SFist to which it's sourced, have been contradicted by a number of other reports number of other reports, in which the Daly Police describe their attempts to locate McAlister—including in a press release published the same day as the SFist article. It's also also worth noting that the SFist article is incorrect in another particular: it claims "Daly City police filed a report on the car theft on the 29th, noting that they would be following up on January 3"—however, other sources correctly state that January 3rd was the deadline, not the start date , of the Daly PD's follow-up. For the above reasons, I have removed the offending sentence—I don't see much point in including the fact that the Daly City Police "conducted passing checks and surveillance at associated addresses in an attempt to locate Troy McAlister or the stolen vehicle." That said, it is true that Boudin tried to lay blame at the feet of the Daly PD—so perhaps it's worth including that, as well the response from Daly police? Thanks for any thoughts! ElleTheBelle 15:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)