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)
 * 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, o Ѻ ∞ 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)
 * Good catch, I missed that subcommittee he chairs, so my suggestion would be a sentence in the second paragraph such as "In congress, Raskin chairs the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Congressional Freethought Caucus, and is the lead impeachment manager for the second impeachment of President Donald Trump." Would that work?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 16:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is consensus here either way, but I would not have any objection to your proposed sentence. While I don't think the impeachment proceedings are necessary, I think your proposed sentence provides useful information without unduly emphasizing the impeachment role. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I just added it, hope that strikes a balance.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OVERSECTION
I do not think we need to be separating out single paragraphs into multiple sections as per '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)
 * Please stop reverting the page to suit your preference contrary to MOS guidelines such as here. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems a bit of a silly edit war, I'd suggest that no one revert changes while this discussion is active. But from my own BLP experience, I agree Wallyfromdilbert has it right, Publications goes at the bottom, and "Early life" is the right section title, and there's no need for further subsectioning.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 16:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. The issue really has nothing to do with the headings "Early life" or "Early life and education" or "Early life, education and career." As I noted in my response above with dozens of examples, all are in common use on this project. I also already explained why "Early life" is inadequate here. And I do accept the order error. But what is really at issue here is one user claiming ownership of the article and reverting the work of others - even causing "silly edit wars" over trivial and arbitrary edits - to prevent all edits that user dislikes. That user was also recently blocked for this same behavior just a few months ago. X4n6 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Right now the article includes the paragraph about his pre-political legal career under "Early life". That makes no sense at all. His early life and education should be in a section titled either "Early life" or "Early life and education" (the latter is my preference but I know some people disagree). The next paragraph should be titled "Early career". Despite the objections here about "oversectioning", there is no rule against one-paragraph sections if they cover material that is not covered by another section. And there is no reason to combine completely unrelated material under a complex section heading just for the sake of - what exactly? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Many thanks, MelanieN! Precisely what I've been saying all along. I also prefer "Early life and education." And "Early career" would easily combine the two decade teaching career and the work in private practice, prior to the political career. Also many thanks for finally putting to rest the overwrought MOS objections. X4n6 (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it's unrelated to include his pre-public service life in one section. I previously suggested the heading "Early life and career" if someone had strong objections to "Early life" (although I agree with Patrickneil that "Early life" is an appropriate section header). Why do you consider that material "completely unrelated" and not able to be including under a section header such as "Early life and career"? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take this one - one more time - and I'll keep it brief. can certainly weigh in if she'd like. "Early life" doesn't adequately address what your own edit says was his teaching career, which lasted "for over 25 years". He also had years in private practice. Early life by itself generally suggests the period from birth to adolescence. Anything later doesn't belong there. X4n6 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Early life and career" is also muddy here, as it would suggest that his political career should be a subset under "career." I don't think anyone likes that option. And "Early life and early career" is a bit much. So separating the sections of his early life and education; followed by his early career, to include his teaching and private practice; seems the best option here. It wouldn't work for every BLP. But I think it may be the best solution on this one. X4n6 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history, I see that the section was titled "Early life" back in January, when it included only a single sentence about his early career. So we could reasonably have said at that time that "Early career" didn't deserve a separate section. But since then there has been more material added about his early career, and there's more than enough now to justify a proper section. I don't understand why anyone objects to this obvious improvement. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't consider separating short paragraphs into separate sections contrary to the MOS to be an "obvious improvement". Why do you consider that material "completely unrelated" and not able to be including under a section header such as "Early life and career"? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the first place, your proposed section title is all wrong. Is it about his early life and his (entire) career? Or do you want to call it "early life and early career"? More to the point: checking the MOS recommendations at OVERSECTION, the first thing I read is "Articles longer than a stub are generally divided into sections." Are you claiming this article is a stub? I also see "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." We are not talking about a single sentence and it's not a short paragraph; it's five sentences. IMO you are carrying the "OVERSECTIONING" guideline to absurd lengths. This is not an example of oversectioning. It's an example of how sections "clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents." -- MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the article already has 13 sections or subsections, including 10 in the main body. Not sure why you are bringing up article stubs. I definitely think that 4 sentences and 5 sentences are "short paragraphs". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because, as I quoted above from MOS, "Articles longer than a stub are generally divided into sections". Like any article is that not a stub, this one is already divided into sections. Why are you so determined to prevent one more section from being added if it will improve clarity and organize content, which MOS recommends? Your opinion that four or five sentences are short paragraphs is your opinion only. Probably most paragraphs in most articles on this wiki are four or five sections sentences. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think putting short paragraphs into separate sections will improve clarity. I think it would make it harder to read the article. I am also not aware of most sections on Wikipedia being only 4-5 sentences long. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome to my world, MelanieN. Honestly, I don't believe there is any argument that will convince this user that his MOS objections aren't valid. Nor does he acknowledge that MOS itself is simply a guideline, not a policy. I genuinely don't believe the individual knows/understands the difference. Earlier I tried pointing out that even MOS says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Nor did the exhaustive examples I provided above where the same headings have been used in several other prominent and similar articles. Especially among politicians, many of whom spent years in professional pursuits before beginning their political careers. But nothing resonated. X4n6 (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What we need here is more people weighing in on this subject. IMO if the three of us would quit the repetitive arguing that scares people away, we might get some more opinions. I for one have made the points I want to make, and I will wait for more input from others. I would encourage X4n6 and Wally do the same. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree additional input would be helpful. I said that to X4n6 above shortly before they decided to file an ANI report yesterday. It may also help for us all to be careful about claiming what is "obvious" or "standard" based on our own opinions, and instead provide our reasoning for others to understand as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree additional input is helpful, I posted about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, and if there isn't much response maybe someone else would want to post at the more general Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I really don't have a strong opinion here, I am used to "Early life" sections housing biographical information about the individual that doesn't go in their career sections, but "Early life and career" or similar is also fine. Sections don't always have the exact title to match their all of their content. I'll just say again, please don't edit war, if an editor reverts your changes on the article, don't respond by reverting theirs, just come here and we'll keep working to find consensus.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 00:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , again, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm well past all I needed to say here. But if you'd like to RfC it, I'll check in to see the results. X4n6 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It has been more than a week now with no further input on this subject. So for now I am going to leave the two paragraphs in a single section but change the section title to "Early life and career", which seemed to be acceptable to most people here. My opinion that the sections should be separated has not changed, but at this point it does not have consensus. At least we can make the section title more accurate. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Jamin vs. Jamie
Jamin is the congressman's given name, although he goes as Jamie. The given name should be listed in the lede and infobox per MOS:HYPOCORISM. See   Carter (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Info box still does not show birth name as 'Jamin' 92.10.168.129 (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Why no witnesses – Never heard of The Buck Stops Here?
How wrong this was could be immediately seen when Trump's lawyer quite gloatingly dismissed the deposition of Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler as a mere statement without any value. How could the House managers and the Senate be so lazy? Even if there wouldn't have been 67 votes for conviction – this important revelation about Trump's behavior had to be brought to open display before the Senate and his lawyers would have had to contest it in order to dismiss it. And other issues would have come into daylight, too.

Now many facts are still buried in the dark because the impeachment managers and the Senate passed the buck to the courts: It had to be stopped here, in the Senate.

The Senate just honored police officer Eugene Goodman: Imagine for a minute Mr. Goodman would have thought for his own comfort first and Trump's mob had succeeded in getting to the chamber with the senators in it. But for Mr. Goodman the mob had to be stopped here at him and with courage, skill and luck he won and saved the Republic!

And what did the Senate and the impeachment managers do? They let Mr. Goodman and Mrs. Herrera Beutler and all the law-abiding people in the U.S. and in the West down. What was the reason for this quitting, who influenced them? This must come to light! --Sunsarestars (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Failure
'This Is Why We Fail': Democrats Accused of Caving on Trump Impeachment Trial Witnesses --Sunsarestars (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That's great. What text do you propose be added to the article? Zaathras (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * First things first. I do not want such a special box in the comment section of the name article of a decent person like Mr. Raskin. I commented on the bad outcome of the trial on three pages, because that isn't an individual fault but a collective one. Either a normal comment section or no comment section. And I had every right to delete it since there where no other posts but mine. When it's presented in such a way it does - in my opinion - a disservice to the content I stand for. (BTW I'm no English native speaker, so don't look for idioms. Go for the content.) --Sunsarestars (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Same goes for Talk:Mitch McConnell. --Sunsarestars (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Talk:Second impeachment of Donald Trump is different for two reasons: First another editor commented to the section before it was highlighted. And I don't delete other users' comments. And deleting my comment that was the reason for the other one to comment is also not good. And 2nd: It's not the comment section of a name article so I've much fewer problems with highlighting it here. But I still don't understand the rationale: When it's not worth talking about it how can it be worth being highlighted?? --Sunsarestars (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Handkerchief
Does anyone know why Raskin wears wears the rags on his head? 2603:8081:1B01:2FB6:884:9A14:82C1:9913 (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * His chemotherapy treatment caused his hair to come out.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To expand a little, Raskin is a Springsteen fan, and borrowed the look from Steve Van Zandt, who in turn gave Raskin some of his bandannas, which are made by Van Zandt's sister.    Acroterion   (talk)   12:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Political Science Research Methods POLS 2399
— Assignment last updated by Lf20042024 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)