Talk:Charles Rangel

False statement

I saw Rangel at the National Press Club on March 30. He made a false statement. I reported it here. Someone deleted it. I have put it back. How does this work so that people can't take out critical info? [14:43, April 1, 2006 Getitright]

I've taken the False Statement out again. While I don't doubt the veracity of the report, it's just a factoid, not something worthy of inclusion in this fairly limited biography. If this statment caused any major controvery or if it's indicative of some larger element of Rangel's biography, than it should be included as such. In isolation, it's meaningless. [19:36, April 23, 2006 68.167.196.237]

Does "Flase Statements by Rangel" sound biased to you? [19:36, April 23, 2006 68.167.196.237]

Even more so than the original statement. It violates the NPoV. Including a "false statements by X" section indicates political bias unless there is a specific reason that false statements by this individual should be noteworthy, such as a perjury allegation. Just being a Representative isn't really enough. -- Dajagr 01:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Draft

The lack of information pertaining to Rangel's view on the draft is so revealing of Wikipedia as a whole. For years, Wikipedians have been sniveling, "oh dear, Bush is bringing back the draft, Bush is bring back the draft," but because it's brought up by a Democrat, I'm sure scores of you will find it so very thoughful an idea. Aside from the blatant bias, the basis for his suggested change in policy is deserving of an "I'm a Stupid A******" tag at the top of the main article. Haizum 05:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

He is a hot topic. He seems to be an embarrassment for the Democrats because his reasoning is not following the usual etiquette that one should not use human beings. His idea is basically that to stop wars we need a national draft for men into military (or port security) service. This draft will upset the "imbalance" between hawks and doves in favor of less military action conducted during peacetime. It requires that all able men of the specified age, regardless of socio-economic class, will be equally considered. The upset will occur when, for example, enough children of people who are in positions of power are smacked to their senses that we don't want to put our loved ones in combat. It sounds not unlike the idea that if everyone has a nuke, no one is gonna use it.

There are some problems with this system, on a purely objective sense; it creates a problem to solve another problem. Anyone who has taken statistics knows that the more variables in a system, the less accurate predictions become. Rangel's theory could just as easily go in a different direction (and I mean possibly; I'm not trying to say what he says couldn't happen, just that it's not necessarily going to happen). Suppose the people in positions of power, after instituting the draft and then feeling the hurt of losing loved ones to combat, decide to simply alter the terms of the draft, rather than the terms of the military activities. Assuming the world is not insane, there is a reason why military campaigns occur, so whatever it is they're shooting or bombing, they will want to keep doing that as long as they can and want to. Adding a draft makes those campaigns easier to maintain. Who is to say that adding a draft will not make a more powerful and successful military? How does making something easier for a working system (in this case finding a larger "workforce") necessarily cause it to crumble?

It is very probable that the people outside of the military will find objections to any sort of draft, but the military is its own system with its own agenda. Even if the son of a governor, for example Joe, is drafted, all the military needs to do is make a judgement that said individual is most suited for [some safe military base on domestic soil]. Rangel's draft will not be able to affect the logistics of the military in this case. So now Rangel's theory that drafts will upset the people in positions of power has actually done the opposite; now Joe is a safe hero of the military and something for the governor to be proud of.

In the end, I think Rangel would have made an unsuccessful meteorologist, but that doesn't mean he necessarily would have been false. --Trakon 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the draft should be its own section, as this is what he is known for. The section on how liberal he is very POV by definition. I think it should be taken out, but if it is left in, it should be put in Political Career if anything. OneWorld22 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Maybe this article should be protected? it seems like there is a lot of vandalism regarding Rangel's support of the draft.(That F***** N*****). While I am 100% opposed to a draft, I think that protection might be temporarily necessary, especially since Rangel has brought up the issue recently in the news [1]. OneWorld22 08:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that will keep the truth suppressed until it blows over as a news story. Haizum 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is truth? OneWorld22 03:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article should be protected; but not until the article actually covers Rangel's stupid idea. Without my opinion of course. 71.116.102.140 05:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

statements about the troops

I added a section, under controversies, about the comments made by Rangel on Fox News on 26NOV06. I'm pretty sure it is an issue that deserves to be addressed here. While, in the interest of disclosure I am forced to admit that I find the comments disgusting and inappropriate, I have tried to cover it as dispassionately as possible. Lordjeff06 18:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And I have added this reference:

• Uncle Charlie Wants You! , The Wall Street Journal editorial, November 25, 2006 [02:51, January 2, 2007 Asteriks]

Taxation?

The guy leads the Ways and Means committee, yet I searched the article and did not fine the word "tax".  ??? This is the same guy that proposed the "Mother of all tax reforms / hikes"... correct? Morphh ^(talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jobs

It says in the intro

Mr. Rangel has never held a private-sector job, owned a business, or met a payroll. He has spent his entire adult life working for one or another government agency.

Later it says

After graduating law school, Rangel passed the state bar exam and worked in private practice for a year.

Which is true?

168.7.228.35 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rangel worked for the prominent black law firm Weaver, Evans & Wingate after graduating from law school. The section dealing with this period has now been greatly expanded, and readers can judge for themselves how much Rangel is a creature of government. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Article title

I'd have thought that Charlie Rangel is the name he's more commonly known by and should therefore be the title of the page. Anyone disagree? — Lincolnite (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Parent

His father was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico and his mom was born where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.173.77 (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, can you believe it

Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the tax- writing House Ways and Means Committee a cheat !! See : http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=an6bTCY4Ar7M&refer=us . Greetings from Germany. 79.210.68.73 (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of balance

Not for the first time, a Wikipedia article is being used as a medium to report current news. The result is that the section on the current financial controversy is already longer than the section which covers a career of almost forty years. Most noticeably, three extensive paragraphs deal with events of the last five days. This is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. The section needs to be radically trimmed: this isn't the place for editors to report the news.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It's possible that this could be the most relevant thing that he's ever done during his 40 year career. He's the head of the government agency that writes the tax laws, and he didn't pay his taxes. That is very significant, and deserves a sizable portion of the article. If it gets too big, it can be spun off into a seperate article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a POV, but a controversial one. If the story seems so important, I agree that creating a separate article might be the best solution.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It would be like finding out that Bill Gates used Linux instead of Windows. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree the information is important. But maybe it does need to be consolidated? Wallamoose (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be remarkable to find out that Bill Gates used Linux. Would it become the main focus of an encyclopaedia article about him? I would hope not.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Things like this have a tendency of swelling and then contracting as does news coverage of the topic. Give it a few weeks to flesh it out and die down. CENSEI (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

These are matters that have gone on for well over a decade that have only reached the press in the past few weeks. This is not about a single event that happened yesterday. If you add up the press coverage about Rangel in the past few decades, the proportion of the article about these financial reporting issues are probably in proportion to the press coverage he has received. The claim that there is an association between these financial reporting issues and his role in writing tax law is made by no less than The New York Times in this editorial (among many other such articles) and can hardly be called POV. If you can point to any failure to balance the description of these incidents, I will be more than happy to correct them. Some consolidation over time is inevitable, once the issues reach some sort of resolution. Alansohn (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn, I fully agree with you, but for one aspect : ...is made by no less than The New York Times in this editorial ... and can hardly be called POV. Are you refering to the General Betrayus paper here, and can you recall with how much $$$$ this non-POV paper subsidized that ad? 79.210.69.165 (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article from The New York Times, which is a news article and not an editorial, also talks about him not paying the taxes on his rental property. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI, you said, "Give it a few weeks to flesh it out and die down." It's now been 50 weeks, and it still hasn't died down. On the contrary, it's gotten even bigger, with a lot of new information about this being reported. Even more examples of Rangel not paying huge amounts of taxes that he owed from multiple different things have been reported. In addition, he has proposed toughening up the penalties on people who don't pay their taxes. This has not died down - it has grown. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the lack of balance in this article is due to there being almost no coverage of his long career in the House. There's a good description of his early life and pre-House career, then almost nothing, then an overly long section on mostly trivial "controversial remarks" that has been given way too much weight. In contrast, the section on the ethics investigations and tax issues and financial disclosures issues, while perhaps a bit excessive on detail in places and clumsily written in other places, is fully legitimate material. But the article pretty much ignores Rangel's House career, and since that's the thing he's most known for, one has to conclude that the article's in pretty bad shape. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to add any well sourced information about his long career in the House that you think would improve the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the person who wrote the early life/early career sections a while ago, but I stalled out after that. Long legislative careers are both difficult and sometimes somewhat dull to write about (and I've tried different approaches across the McCain, Biden, and Ted Kennedy articles among others). Maybe you should work on the House material yourself, once you get off your topic ban. WP:ENEMY is an excellent way to improve one's WP abilities. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a good deal of material about Rangel's time in the House to the article. Not complete and not GA quality, but much better than before. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved Aervanath (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Charles B. Rangel → Charlie Rangel - per WP:COMMONNAMES. Kelly ^hi! 21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would go for Charles Rangel. "Charlie" is too informal and "Charles" is used much more often in writing, if not in person. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Ditto. Charles Rangel is the only name I have ever heard him called. Evidently both Charlie and Charles are used, with Google showing 397,000 for the latter, 169,000 for Charlie, and 113,000 for Charles B. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, I agree Charlie Rangel is not it, not because it's too informal, but because there is no evidence that that this the most commonly used name. To the contrary, it's a tough call between Charles Rangel and Charles B. Rangel. It should be noted that his own website uses Charles B. Rangel. When searching on news.google.com I get

• Results 1 - 10 of about 730 for charles-rangel.
• Results 1 - 10 of about 73 for charles-b-rangel
• Results 1 - 10 of about 128 for charlie-rangel.

But, when searching only nytimes.com (particularly fair because he is from NY):

• Results 1 - 10 of about 1,670 from nytimes.com for "charlie rangel".
• Results 1 - 10 of about 17,500 from nytimes.com for "charles rangel"
• Results 1 - 10 of about 19,500 from nytimes.com for "charles b. rangel".

Tough call, indeed, but I think that given the usage on his own congressional page, combined with the NY Times usage, the evidence leans in favor of Charles B. Rangel, except that Charles Rangel gets 10 times more gnews-hits than does Charles Rangel on all news combined. In the end, I'd say I'm definitely opposed to Charlie Rangel and probably lean in favor of leaving it at Charles B. Rangel. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly okay with leaving it where it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why move it at all? It's correct as it stands, and the redirects work just fine. I see no point in moving it. •••Life of Riley (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A reference in the article contains a mistake.

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would fix it myself, but I am topic banned from political articles. The article states, "In August 2009, Rangel amended his 2007 financial disclosure form to report more than $500,000 in previously unreported assets and income. These included a federal credit union checking account, several investment accounts, stock in Yum Brands and Pepsico, and property in Glassboro, New Jersey. [72]" The reference is cited as "Editorial. “The Absent-Minded Chairman”, The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2009." However, it does not contain a link to the editorial. The link is this. Would someone else please add that link? Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC) A WSJ editorial isn't a WP:RS in any case, so somebody should find a different source. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

New tax information

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The New York Post just reported: "Rep. Charles Rangel failed to report as much as $1.3 million in outside income -- including up to $1 million for a Harlem building sale -- on financial-disclosure forms he filed between 2002 and 2006, according to newly amended records. The documents also show the embattled chairman of the Ways and Means Committee -- who is being probed by the House Ethics Committee -- failed to reveal a staggering $3 million in various business transactions over the same period." This information should be added to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC) The New York Post just reported: "Even as he fends off accusations about his own failure to pay taxes and fully disclose his financial dealings, Rep. Charles Rangel had quietly slipped into the health-care bill broad new provisions cracking down on taxpayers in proceedings with the IRS, The Post has learned." This information should be added to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The Washington Examiner reported: "And then there is H.R. 735, also known as the 'Rangel Rule Act of 2009.' The brainchild of Rep. John Carter, a Texas Republican who spent two decades as a judge before coming to the House in 2002, H.R. 735 would require the IRS to give everyone the same kid-glove treatment it gave Rangel." Grundle2600 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Rangel Rule Act of 2009 (HR 735)

This bill allows all taxpayers to have the same exemption from punishment over non-payment of taxes that was given to Rangel. This is notable, because Rangel is the head of the committee that writes tax law, and he was not punished for non-payment of taxes the way that most people would be. It has been covered by Politico, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, and National Review. thomas.loc.gov has the full text of the bill. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Rangel Rule Act is a legitimate addition to the article, but not the way that Grundle2600 did it. I have revised it accordingly, per my edit summary. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand how Wrangel can evade paying tax on his "vacation home" in the Dominican Republic and still claim that there was no personal gain from anything he did. Can some explain that? 69.86.206.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

Rum Bailout

The editor using AT&T Mobility IPs to add the topic of "Rum Bailout" is invited to discuss the addition here to gain consensus rather than to edit war ([2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, whatever Rum Bailout content does get put in the article, must only be summarized in the lead section; the details and cites belong in the appropriate section in the body of the article, which I've now done. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Should be removed.

"Once there, Rangel rose rapidly in the Democratic ranks, combining solidly liberal views with a pragmatic approach to getting things done." Should either be removed or rewritten...this isn't a fan page —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That text in the lead is a summary of what's presented in the article body, especially this paragraph:

Rangel rose rapidly in the House, due to his political skills, hard work, thorough knowledge of legislative matters, and genial manner.[31] In 1974, he became the first black ever named to the House Committee on Ways and Means,[2][36] a position he assumed in 1975 (and left the Judiciary Committee),[35] and by 1979 had become the chairman of its important Subcommittee on Health.[31] In 1976, he was named to the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control.[31] By 1979, Rangel was a member of the influential House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.[31] Rangel combined his solidly liberal views – interest group ratings in 1978 indicated he was the most liberal member of the New York State congressional delegation – with a pragmatic approach to getting things done.[31][36] Rangel built alliances with others in Congress (collaboring for example with Michigan Republican Guy Vander Jagt on welfare reform measures), with people in governmental agencies, and with the Carter administration.[36] In some cases Rangel was criticized for being too pragmatic, such as when he switched his position on natural gas deregulation; Rangel denied that he did so in exchange for the authorization of a new federal building in Harlem.[36] Rangel said of himself, "I guess I'm practical, but you have to live with yourself and make sure you are not so practical that you sell out a part of yourself."[36]

Everything in there is sourced, and those same sources apply to the summary text in the lead. And by the way this Wikipedia article is clearly not a fan page, since large portions of it are devoted to Rangel's recent ethics problems. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Cut him slack, he's black!

Title says it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.59.114 (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Says it all about you, actually. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasted Time why did you erase what I wrote in reply to this? Then you put in the history notes of this page that you were wiping everything I wrote because I'm a moron. Who do you think you are? You aren't special. You must be really lonely and insecure and editing here makes you feel like you are important. You have no right to talk about me like you did or erase my comments. Why didn't you erase this guys's comments? He sounds like more of a moron than me and a racist to boot. You didn't erase it because you made your reply 'Says it all about you, actually' and want everyone to see it and think you're cool. If you have such a need for attention and approval I feel real sorry for you bud.98.165.103.109 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I cut your comments because they were about obnoxious and uninformed comments about Rangel in general (for your information, Rangel's early successes happened in the era before affirmative action became commonplace), and not suggestions about how to improve this article. See WP:TALK re "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations." But you are right, I should have cut 38.104.59.114's post too, instead of trying to make a clever remark about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How do I file a complaint against editor Wasted Time?

I'm new here and I guess that Wasted Time dude thinks he's special or something. He erased everything I wrote then put in the notes 'wipe this moron's further comments' about me. But check this out. He didn't erase the other guy's paragraph above this which really should be considered racist. Wasted Time didn't erase that guy's stuff becasue Wasted Time made what he thinks is a cool reply and wants everyone to see it and think he's cool. Wasted Time will probably erase this to so can someone answer me quick. I want to go about it the official way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.103.109 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

he's an old guy, a know-it-all, been around for a long time and has connections. you can't win and will just get yourself banned. he's picked on people before.64.55.43.2 (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. WP:ANI. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I would mention to Mr. IP, not knowing the basis of his complaints and frankly not having time/interest to explore them, that as he will see at the AN/I page, raising an issue at that page can lead to a focus on the editor of both the complainant and the target of the complaint. Sanctions can be meted out to either, once the complaint has been lodged. Having said that, as WT indicates, if you feel you have a legitimate complaint, ANI is the way to go. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent controversies

Approximately 31% of this article now revolves around recent controversies.   — C M B J   22:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Holy s**t you're right. That section is monstrous. It needs to be cut by half, at least. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, 30.5% of the lead section's content is based on the same subject.   — C M B J   02:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Several things are at play here:

• The article is full sized, 58 kB 9851 words readable prose size
• Most of the article is close to GA level in terms of quality
• Rangel's 2008–2010 ethical issues are very, very important and deserve detailed coverage
• Most of that section was written by different authors than the rest of the article
• Some of that section is poorly written and could be redone more succinctly.

I'm responsible for the rest of the article, but I've largely left the existing parts of the ethical issues section alone, just adding to it for recent developments. This is mostly because I wanted to see how it all turned out before knowing where to focus the emphasis in the section, and a little because I wanted to forestall all those yoyos who constantly whine that WP has a liberal bias. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the potential ethics violations are important and they need to be covered. However, as it is they're getting essentially equal coverage compared to the rest of his lengthy congressional tenure. It needs to be synthesized in fewer words. I don't have a big problem with the intro. It could be shortened a little bit, but it's not a big problem. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you think the weighting is problematic now, take a look at this version from December before I started adding all the material on his Congressional career. Now that was a travesty ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Seems large. Still, it should be large given the results of the inquiry, and the effect on his career/legacy. The problem may largely lie in the absence from the article of other information, that should be added. This happens all the time, when events attract great RS coverage. This controversy is likely a significant percentage of his front-page articles; perhaps even a quarter to a third, despite his long career. This is also reflected in the very steep rise -- 50K in the past three days -- of readers of the article. They probably came to read about the controversy, more than about what college he attended.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have it down to 24 per cent. Will look to tighten further, but think the tag can now at least go.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly done a lot of work on the article, and I thank you for getting all the cites using the same date form and other grungy tasks like that. Because WP's diff tool gets easily fooled by paragraphing changes, blank line insertions and the like, it's hard for me to track all that you've done (not your fault). But I have several high-level structural concerns with how it stands now:

1. By subsectioning the ethics issues section, you've actually given that topic far more weight in the Table of Contents than it had before. As a short-term fix I have chopped the ToC display to not show those sections.
2. The subsectioning also results in some short, choppy sections. I think the development of material in that section still can be a lot more focused and concise. We'll know today what the penalty handed down to Rangel is, and as I've mentioned here before that will help guide us into how much weight to give this whole matter relative to the rest of the article.
3. In your effort to reduce the size of that section, you've broken up parts of the narrative. Some but not all of the material about Rangel's loss of political support in the House, that beginning with "On September 3, 2009, The Washington Post called on Rangel to resign his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee ...", is now sitting in the "Districts, terms, and committees" section, where it comes out of nowhere and (to me) makes no contextual sense at all. The material on his 2010 primary and general re-election campaigns is now in the "2000s" section, where it also lacks context. If it got moved anywhere, it should have been to the "Districts, terms, and committees" section, where the rest of his re-election history is discussed.
4. I believe that the "2008–10 ethics and tax controversies" needs to present a whole, coherent narrative of Rangel's life during this time, including how it affected his power in the House, how it affected his re-election, how it affected his reputation, how it affected the era of the Gang of Four, etc. In other words, I believe that it should just be the chronological section that deals with the 2008-2010 period, and not be restricted solely to the ethics charges, responses, and findings. So my question is, did you move this material out just in order to reduce the size of the section (in which case we can move it back in if we sufficiently shorten the section further), or do you believe that the article presents better with it moved out, regardless of length considerations?
5. What has been your rationale for turning some quotes into blockquotes? Length or significance? Because if it's significance, I don't think you've chosen the right ones. If there's a long quote that isn't that significant, a better approach is usually to shorten it or paraphrase.

Anyway, I'll continue reviewing all the changes as I get time. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed the ethics matters even more. Responses to WT's points/queries:

1. I have no problem with what WT has done to the TOC. As to subsectioning the disparate ethics issues, that is a great aid for the reader. The issues are in fact quite disparate. The reader can now either skim their titles for a quick sense as to their nature, and/or jump to precisely the issue that interests him/her.
2. See above, and discussion in thread below as to readability.
3. I've sought as a general matter to move out of the ethics section most material that relates not to what ethics violations he is charged with, and Congressional reaction thereto, but to newspaper reaction, fellow Democratic rumblings, his Chairmanship (though some mention is important), his running for reelection. Those all relate naturally to other sections, such as those relating to his Committee chair, his political career, etc. Its possible certainly that those moves can be further improved upon -- editors should of course feel free to find better homes for the text than I have managed to.
4. I respected the title of the section, which meant moving out the material as indicated above in the manner that I moved it. That also respected the desires of editors on this page. Clearly there is more than one way to present the material, but I chose to put his Committee discussion in that already existing section, etc. Your approach of a purely chrono approach for material in the past two years is also reasonable, but not in keeping with the structure of headers and treatments that had otherwise begun, or the concerns mentioned on this page. IMHO.
5. As a general rule (with possible few exceptions), I've sought here to follow the guidance of MOSQUOTE in the application of blockquotes. If you wish to shorten some of the blockquotes so that they are no longer of the length that impels those who follow the guideline to block it, I expect I for one would have no issue with the result as a general matter (though others might -- such as the editor who first put it in, thinking the more fulsome quote notable). If the quote is not significant/notable, the problem preceded the application of the guidelines -- if it did not deserve that much print space, it did not deserve it when it was unblocked (and not adhering to MOSQUOTE). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken several BLPs about long legislative careers to GA status (as I plan to this) and yes, there are always some organizational challenges that come in them. Most of the material can be covered chronologically but there are always certain aspects of a career that pertain across the decades. The "Districts, terms, and committees" section was designed to hold that and only that kind of material, such as the general description of his many easy re-election campaigns, trends in his district's demographics, and committees and caucuses that he has served on for a long time. It was never intended to hold a large amount of detailed material particular to one point in time, such as you have put in there.

Perhaps my mistake was to label a section "2008-2010 ethical and tax issues". If we change the label to just "2008-2010" or "2008-present", then will you be willing to restore a chronological treatment of this period?

I got involved in this article because Rangel is a classic American archetype of sorts whose life touches upon all sorts of eras and interesting aspects of American history, and I wanted to convey that life. 2008-2010 is the tragic (in the Shakespearean sense) culmination of this story, but readers won't get its full import if it's broken up into pieces. I'm sure the weighting problem can be solved by yours and my editing down of the ethical issues material, which was written by others as the events happened (never an optimal approach). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to bring that material back in, and others don't mind, I don't. I would then rename the prior section "2000-07", and this one "2008-present; Ethics Issues". You could also add descriptive titles to the other year pans. That is considered good form in GA articles that have spans of years.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll work towards this over the weekend. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've now done all this as discussed, although some smoothing remains. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus?

Both the first sentence of the lede of this article, as well as the CBC article itself, state that he is a "founding member" of the Congressional Black Caucus. But the CBC article indicates that it was founded in 1969. He was not in Congress until two years later. Perhaps someone can square this circle. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See this history of the CBC. There was a predecessor group, the Democratic Select Committee, which began in 1969. But it was reformed and renamed as the Congressional Black Caucus in early 1971, when Rangel was in the House, and Rangel thus is considered one of its founding members. (The Congressional Black Caucus article says the same thing.) I've added this as a cite for the statement, as the previous cite was no longer working. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WT. I guess I didn't (and still don't) quite understand that from the text of the CBC article, which states ... "The Caucus was founded in 1969[8] by a group of black members of the House of Representatives .... Founding members were ... Charles Rangel ..." Perhaps that should be improved? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've now reworked the "Origins" section in that article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Great work. It now makes perfect sense (even to me). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Year?

Someone added the year 1971 to the photo caption. I was wondering what the basis for that is. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This remains an issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, meant to respond earlier. The photo's source here has the caption "The 13 founding members of the newly formed CBC gathered for a picture." I read that to mean it was taken at the time of the founding, which was 1971. Note that it could not have been taken later than 1972, because one of the representatives pictured, George W. Collins, died in a plane crash that year. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War claim removed, needs better sourcing

The article has long had this claim, recently elevated to blockquote status:

Rangel was instrumental in securing American materiel support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War of 1973. According to fellow Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who worked on Rangel's first campaign in 1970: "Before the Six Day War in 1967, the United States was not an arms supplier to Israel. When the Yom Kippur War broke out, people said not to supply Israel. Charlie insisted that we have to. If not for those Phantom jets, the war might have turned out different." [source "Time For Celebration", The Jewish Week, February 23, 2007.]

This is very weakly sourced, given that Nadler is a fellow Congressman from the same party and delegation. I have just been looking to find a real source for this, and have not been able to. The New York Times archive and Google News both have nothing about Rangel and Israel before, during, or after the Yom Kippur War. A Google Books search didn't turn up anything either. My copy of the Kalb brothers bio Kissinger has an extended account of the Phantom and other war equipment resupply issue that developed during the war. It portrays Congress as clearly pushing for the resupply, while resistance came from the Pentagon and various other elements of the Nixon administration bureaucracy. Eventually the resupply was approved and implemented, with Kissinger doing some of the leaning on the bureaucracy. But the only member of Congress that is singled out by name in this push is Scoop Jackson. I suspect that pretty much every New York member of Congress was loudly advocating for the resupply, which doesn't make Rangel especially unique. So I've removed this claim from the article, and replaced it with a more general statement of Rangel being pro-Israel and specific instance re Soviet Jewry that is well sourced. If anyone can come up with a good source for Rangel being influential in the resupply push, we can put this back in. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. BTW, I likely did the "elevating". That was purely a copyrighting exercise, vis-a-vis existing text, and not meant to "elevate" the language at all. Simple to block quote material of appropriate length. I was curious about the entry myself, but had not had time to research it independently.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

More on structural changes

Epeefleche, could we have a discussion on structural approach in this article? You haven't responded to any of my points above, and now you're doing more subsectioning, all under the unhelpful edit summary "ce". I don't see any utility in splitting up "Early legal and political career", as the section wasn't long to begin with and it destroys the natural transition that Rangel had between one and the other. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Another concern is that you're making a lot of very short paragraphs. While some of the paragraphs may have been on the long side, having nothing but short makes for tedious prose. A mixture of long and short is ideal, in my view; it varies the pace. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I had not taken a look at your comments, frankly, but will when I have a moment. I've just responded to the immediately preceding one two threads. As to in particular the sub-sectioning of "Early career" into "legal" and "political", I see that IMHO as appropriate and helpful to the reader. The section is in fact a multi-para one. And his legal career is naturally distinct IMHO from his political career, lending itself to a natural divide. In fact, an appreciably larger natural divide than the (acceptable) divides the articles contain of "decade", for example, within his political career. I see the provision of the subsection (keeping them both under the heading "early career") as an aide to the reader. An alternative would be to move the "early political career" material into a later section that it is perhaps more related to, relating to his political career. Views of others are welcome, of course. There is no agenda here other than to improve the readability of the article for the general population of readers.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As to short paras (and short sentences, for that matter), I've actually done some reading on the subject. There is excellent non-subjective research out there as to how shorter (within reason) leads to better understanding by readers. Major media has over time gravitated in this direction, no doubt as a result. If I have a moment I'll look for and share some of these findings with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be interested in seeing that. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

I am leaning towards deleting the red from some of the redlinks, as they don't seem likely to lead to articles. Does anyone have a different view as to one or more of them, wishing the red to stay? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have filled many a redlink in my time, including congressional committees that no longer exist, political movements, federal laws, etc. I once got so mad at an editor that took out five redlinks in an article similar to this that I wrote up four of them in the next two weeks. Don't make me do that again, please! :-) :-) Seriously, all of these redlinks are worthy of articles, including the one I just added a few minutes ago. They are DYK prizes just waiting for someone to claim. Or, if you have a background in academia, think of the list of unsolved problems or questions that professors often give grad students looking for thesis or dissertation ideas. Redlinks are part of the way WP was built. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're curious, those four were World Conference on Human Rights, United States House Permanent Select Committee on Aging‎, Hematological Cancer Research Investment and Education Act, and Queens Borough Hall. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll leave them as is (unless there is consensus disagreement w/your suggestion they remain). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Arrests

I believe he was arrested a number of times -- primarily if not exclusively in civil disobedience type protests. The article might benefit from a treatment thereof.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There are currently several mentions of this. The lead says "[he] has been arrested several times as part of political demonstrations", and the text says "In December 1984, Rangel was arrested for participating in an anti-apartheid rally in front of the South African Consulate in New York" and "On March 15, 1999, the Congressman was arrested along with two other prominent African-American leaders (civil rights activist Al Sharpton and former Mayor David Dinkins), for protesting the fatal shooting of Amadou Diallo, ..." and "In July 2004, Rangel was the first of three sitting U.S. House members to be arrested on trespassing charges, for protesting human rights abuses in Sudan in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington". I've just looked through several pages of Google News Archives hits, and I don't see any arrests other than these three. I think all three were civil disobedience events, and I presume the charges were dropped in all of them (this New York Post story confirms that for the 1999 one). What aspect of added treatment are you looking for? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Family?

Recently I put a few things together and realized that Mr. Rangel was my first Congressman, as I was born in his district, although I lived in the district for only a short period of time. I've never been far. Anyway, I was just looking for information on his family and didn't see either his parents and siblings (if any) nor his spouse and children (if any). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.29.163 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Hispanic and Latino American people in the United States Congress?

User Wasted Time R removed that category because "Rangel is not normally seen this way, self-identified or otherwise." Even if Rangel has Puerto Rican ancestry? And the "American people of Puerto Rican descent" is within the Latin American descent category? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

First, the article was mistaken in asserting as known fact that Rangel's father was from Puerto Rico. The supporting cites for this were all from ancestry.com, which is not considered a WP:RS. I've removed these assertions and instead added an explanatory footnote as to what is known from RS's; see the current footnote #5. Accordingly, I've removed Category:American politicians of Puerto Rican descent.

Second, even if it could be established for sure that his father was from Puerto Rico, and Category:American politicians of Puerto Rican descent could be restored, I don't think Category:Hispanic and Latino American people in the United States Congress would apply. People can have heritage from A, B, and C, but only self-identify as A and only be identified politically as A. Rangel has never been identified, or self-identified, with Hispanics or Latinos in Congress. He has never been a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He is not in the Library of Congress's "Hispanic Americans in Congress" list. I haven't seen news sources that describe and discuss him as a Hispanic or Latino member of Congress or discuss his politics in that context. So I do not think that category belongs, regardless of where his father was from. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Meanwhile, I pulled up his memoir And I Haven't Had a Bad Day Since and find a completely different tale than what I previously assumed based on reading previous versions. He opens: "My family hails from miscegnated roots in Accomac, the seat of Accomack County, Virginia..." and states that his great-grandfather Frazer Wharton had a white father. Rangel never discusses having any Hispanic/Latino ancestry (even though Rangel is a Spanish surname).

Doing some further Googling, I come upon this New York Times article from September 2008: "Trouble With Spanish? Constituents Weigh In" that reports: "Mr. Rangel himself is part Hispanic; his father, Ralph Rangel Sr., was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico, though he left the family when Mr. Rangel was 6." And on his official House site Rangel devotes a whole webpage to the "fallen heroes of Puerto Rico." But I concur that there's little evidence of Puerto Rican heritage, especially since Rangel doesn't even discuss it openly in his own memoir. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that NYT story, but I've got a bad feeling about it. This is the WP Charles B. Rangel article at that time, and it already contains the statement "His father Ralph Rangel, Sr. (January 6, 1900–?) was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico.[3][4]" I bet that NYT reporter just took this information off WP and never fact-checked it. Newspaper reporters aren't supposed to do this, of course, but I've talked to at least one who said it is sometimes done as a shortcut. As for Rangel's memoir, I've read that too, and he says as little about his father as possible. I think that's both out of lack of direct knowledge of him and total distaste for him. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Congressman Rangel finally confirmed his Puerto Rican heritage in this interview: Even When His Latino Roots Might Help Politically, Rangel Keeps Them Buried He states that he hated his Puerto Rican father so he never identified with that part of his heritage. MrBlondNYC (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I changed the article text when that story came out, but I neglected to uncomment the category, which you have now done. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles B. Rangel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Designate (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is well written. I just have a few style hangups, but feel free to disagree.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I don't know if we should use the phrase "troubled childhood" unless a source uses that phrase.

   "serving since 1971 and the third-longest currently serving member of the House of Representatives" is awkward. Maybe merge the last part with a different sentence?

   The phrase "a pragmatic approach to getting things done" (both times) is not very encyclopedic.

   You might want to link the words "black", "white", and "Hispanic" somewhere.

   The word "presently" doesn't mean "currently".

   "freshman congressman"—I'd use "freshman representative" or "congressional freshman" just to avoid the rhyme.

   "Governor Nelson Rockefeller"—you might as well say which state.

   "did take over control"—"did take control"?

   The Political positions section ought to be organized and/or rewritten in paragraph format. For example, the Vote Smart ratings start with the Pro-Choice rating and end with the Pro-Life rating; these should go together, right? And does it matter that the Arab American Institute graded him in the 50s–60s? As a reader I don't know what that actually means.

   Can the Political positions section and Political image section be combined under one heading?

   "Somewhat troubled childhood" seems an accurate summary of what the early life section describes.

   Fixed wording as you suggested.

   Changed to "with a pragmatic approach towards finding political and legislative compromises."

   "African American" is linked the first time it's used. The other two seem unnecessary to me per linking common English words, but I can do it if you feel strongly about it.

   On second thought, I added a few links to ethnicity articles.

   The use here of "presently" seems to match definition 2 in this dictionary entry.

   Done.

   This is actually the second reference to Rockefeller, so I shortened and unlinked it. The first reference does give the state.

   Done.

   Reorganization done, and Arab American Institute rating removed.

   That looks much better. —Designate (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

   GA/FA-level articles on American politicians usually have two sections, one "Political positions" that summarizes their views on various issues, and one "Public image" or "Cultural and political image" or "Political image" that fills in what the person's image is as seen by the public and by biographers and writers. So the two are really distinct sections.

   OK, as long as the distinction's clear. —Designate (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   What's the story with Ref. 14 (this)? Is it written by a student or what? It looks like a school assignment. On that note, there's an aside "(and those who did would suffer terrible fates),[14]" which seems like needless editorializing. The reference doesn't apply to Rangel so this borders on WP:SYNTH.

   Ref. 163 (Wall Street Journal) is a dead link.

   Only a few references have access dates; you should probably be consistent about it.

   There are a few scattered statements with no footnotes but it's cited well enough to meet GA.

   Regarding ref 14, yes, it was student-written but it was a finalist for a competition prize so I thought it would squeak by as an RS. Upon further thought, I've replaced it as the source for the delayed desegregation and taken out the POW aside.

   Regarding the WSJ link, I've replaced it with a cite to a different publisher of the same AP story.

   Regarding access dates, WP guidelines and standard practice on this are always shifting somewhat; I've been involved in some of the discussions that are at WT:CITE's top-of-page "Retrieval dates: redundant for sources with official publication dates" links. But I generally like the minimalist approach, so I've commented out the access dates here for everything that already has a publication date (one of the recommended approaches).

   That's good. I don't care for access dates in general. —Designate (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very good coverage. The Korean War section is a little lengthy, but I don't have any specific critique of it. The Political image section, however, is definitely too long. The sections on the Bush/Cheney remarks, the East Harlem remark, the Sarah Palin remark just seem extraneous. These could fit into one or two short paragraphs and still get the overall point across. It would help to summarize some of the more detailed sections on his ethics investigations. For example, you have "The Ethics Committee agreed the following month to investigate the matter. On February 26, 2010, the Ethics Committee issued its report." This kind of thing can be trimmed.

   Regarding the "Political image" section controversial remarks, I agree that most of them don't need to be spelled out in full detail in the regular article text, so I've moved the bulk of them into a new "Notes" section that will hold explanatory footnotes. I left in the Bull Connor remark and Cheney exchanges, since that's the most well known of these. Next I'll see if I can do some of the same kind of thing for the ethics investigations.

   That's a big improvement. —Designate (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This is difficult to ascertain. Much of the article reads like a Controversies section, but it's unavoidable given his history. I'm going to pass this, and if other editors disagree they can take it to GAR.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No obvious problems.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Check over the image description pages. The source for Rangel's signature is a dead link. The district map page on Commons needs some kind of a cleanup.

   Regarding the signature image, on the Commons page I've added an alternate link for the source and I've added appropriate categories.

   Regarding the District 15 image, I've improved the categories, but I'm not sure I can clean the page – isn't all that history necessary to document its move from WP to Commons and the GFDL/CC status of it?

   That's fine, I guess. It just seemed like a lot of documentation for a public domain image. —Designate (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll put this on hold. —Designate (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and thoughtful comments. I've begun the process of making changes to the article in response. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pass — Some sections still need tightening, but you've addressed the major problems so I'm going to go ahead and pass this. Thanks for your quick response. —Designate (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much again for the review! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Korean War Record

It looks to me like all of the information specific to Rangel's actions that led to him being awarded the Bronze Star come from his autobiography, "And I Haven't Had a Bad Day Since." Does an autobiography meet WP:RS? I'm not in any way implying he didn't merit his Bronze Star and Purple Heart but details like he led forty men to safety while seriously wounded sounds like embellishment. Regardless, I would be interested in seeing some views on using his autobiography for source material such as this.TL36 (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

[Sorry for the delay in responding, I missed this on my watchlist when you first posted, because it got written to the GA review instead of here. I've moved it.] I completely agree about autobiographies; I've done a bunch of political BLPs here and I always try to use autobiographies as little as possible. In this case, I've used his autobio to fill in some of the personal details of his time in Korea, while correlating everything he and other sources have said about him to the general history of his unit during the Battle of Kunu-Ri. The core fact you're concerned about, leading 40 men to safety while wounded, actually comes from this New York Times story, not from the autobio. And the article (and sources) do not say he was "seriously" wounded, just wounded enough to require hospitalization afterward; clearly he was mobile during the night in question. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Splitting

With >134k the article needs a split (WP:SIZESPLIT). --Polmandc (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. At 59 kB (9900 words) "readable prose size", it's within the WP:LENGTH guideline of 60 kB / 10,000 words for reasonable length, and that's just a guideline, there are many articles longer than that. For instance, see User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics for a hundred current Featured Articles longer than this. And this article is not going to get much longer; the subject is clearly near the end of his career, which may come in June if he loses the primary. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox officeholder

Template:Infobox_officeholder

Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.

I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And just so everyone is clear, here is where a change in consensus was established to allow this: Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. I made the same mistake in changing back the infobox without realising what had been agreed earlier. Redverton (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This does not apply to succession boxes at the bottom, which have a different purpose. They refer directly to articles like New York's 13th congressional district with a listing of all those who held this numbered seat, independent of redistricting. Redistricting is obviously mentioned there. Kraxler (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Good luck trying to get through to them. I have already pointed out many problems and inconsistencies with this here: Talk:Michael Grimm (politician)/Archive 1#Infobox discussion. TL565 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care less for what is written in the infobox but, as I said above, succession boxes follow a different pattern. Kraxler (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders." seems quite clear. As the goal of Wikipedia is to inform the reader if the information is so useless (such as implying Grimm and Rangel appeared on the same ballot) then seeking to present what makes sense is what counts. Note that the numbering is not used by the US government or by Congress. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Terms

According to the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the term begins and end at noon on January 3. Period. Do we take the US Constitution for granted or do we start a discussion about it? Kraxler (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And that Amendment says not a single solitary word about people "succeeding" others in office. Again -- I suggest you ask a teacher how they would grade a term paper which included "Charles Rangel succeeded Michael Grimm in Congress." Your actual point here being? Collect (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I already told you at Talk:Michael Grimm (politician) that the statement "Charles Rangel succeeded Michael Grimm in Congress is ludicrous, and that the succession box does not make any such statement. How many times do I have to repeat something? It becomes a trifle tedious. Besides, you're in the wrong section again. I fixed the wrong dates in the infobox, just that, dates in the infobox. So, let me jump to something completely unrelated too. Have you ever heard about Idée fixe (psychology)? Interesting article. Wikipedia has millions of them. Succession boxes are meant to direct the readers to somewhat related, but possibly rather unrelated, pages which might also interest the reader. They are not meant to impart any info on the subject. Well, I'm repeating myself... Kraxler (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Making personal attacks at me -- the "Idée fixe " comment is unworthy of any admin, much less worthy of someone who hope to become an ArbCom member. I found a case where Wikipedia strongly implies something that is actually false and is not found as a claim in any secondary reliable source. I happen to have the strange opinion that encyclopedia articles which make false claims are wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are, actually. The problem is, that the succession box doesn't make any false claims, as my well sourced statement at Talk:Michael Grimm (politician) proves. This is becoming a two-man show. I suggest you read WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. After several days without significant input at all these discussions in several places (which you maintain although I suggested to unify the discussion in one place) you should realize that there won't be any consensus for change. And, I can't believe that you accuse me of making personal attacks. Did you only mention another Wikipedia article at the RfC, or did you call your opposers pigs ? Come on, you should calm down a bit. Kraxler (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The disruption, alas, appears to be quite on your side. And threats that you will prevent WP:CONSENSUS from working is actually a violation of the pillars of Wikipedia. An editor finds a problem and then starts a proper RfC on it for a reasobnable solution. No one here should remotely be discussing personalities at all. Collect (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Pigs Is Pigs has no reference to anyone on Wikipedia - what is shows the absolute adherence to rules can fail the reasonable test. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Congressional Progressive Caucus member

The Wikipedia page for the Congressional Progressive Caucus lists Mr. Rangel as a member, but the Caucus Memberships section of this page leaves it out. I don't want to start an edit war, but if there is no real reason for omitting it, would someone authoritative verify his membership and add it to the Caucus Memberships section? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Now added, using this caucus members list as the source. Thanks for spotting the omission. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Congress tenures in the infobox

Anybody who sees the new format, may opine. This was done according to the instructions in the closure of Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. There was consensus for this new format, but the closer was concerned that the relatively small participation might not be enough to make a change on a large number of pages. Instead, on some pages the new format should be introduced, and discusiion should continue. Kraxler (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The closer gave no such "instructions" from what I can tell, nor that this particular BLP should be the experimental venue. Nonetheless, the query is given below. Collect (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I quote from the closing rationale: " I advise against wholesale implementation of any decision and instead advocate a limited trial with examples proposed by opposers to see just how workable it is or is not in practice, with real-world examples'". I gathered from this rationale that a limited trrial with real examples should be done, like the one here. That the examples should be proposed by the opposers seems to be a self-contradiction or a typo, really meaning supporters. Since the opposers are opposed, they just need to not propose any example to kill the whole thing. On the other side, Collect, you as an opposer, what example would you propose? Kraxler (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Better, but confusing. I definitely like this much more compact form better than what was there before. However the new text seems a bit confusing: "from New York's 13th, previously numbered the 18th, and then the 19th, 16th and 15th, congressional district". Is this saying the order from most recent to most past is 13, 18, 19, 16, 15? Or 13, 15, 16, 19, 18? Or 13, 18, 15, 16, 19? I think it's supposed to be the first, but I thought differently when I originally saw it and it's not really clear. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In this version, it states the current district number first, and then states the previous numbers in chronological order from the earliest to the most recent before the current one. I chose this option because I thaught that the current one is the most important one, and the "previously" would make it clear that the first number is the current one. The previous numbers then were added chronologically-forward, which is standard for History. (The chronological sequence is, from earliest to most recent: 18, 19, 16, 15, 13) However, this option is meant as a starting point, since the closer of the RfC required a test to be run. Other options would be:

• no district numbers at all - Congress does not use them , all NY members are "members from New York" (in fact, although the congressmen are elected districtwide, all congressmen from New York (or any other state) represent collectively the whole state), the downside here would be that most people are well aware of the current district number, it's widely publicized and used many times in the media to identify the member.
• only the current district number - that would be ok IMO, but would cause the impression that the member's district had always the same number, but it might be less confusing, and the succession boxes at the bottom give the previous numbers for cross-reference
• a different sequence of all different district numbers, chonologically-forward with the current last, or chonologically-backward with the current first...

Please comment. Kraxler (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the first two options and I think they'd be a hard sell to other editors. On the third option, you want to give the current district first, so I think clear language giving them chonologically-backward from there would be best. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• • You find it confusing -- what will readers make of it? If a change is less clear that what it changed, I regard it as a long step backward. What might make more sense is the intermediate position - leaving out all the material about a predecessor or successor entirely when one is not needed See edit [9] now. Collect (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What readers will make of it, we'll know only when they comment. Give them a chance, Collect. Kraxler (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Better, but confusing. Yes, I agree with WTR that the wording of the district numbers is tortuous. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Below I make the order and years of the districts clear. If there is nothing gained by adding "redistricted" what say we try leaving that part out? Collect (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

query

Does this edit [10] improve this BLP? " Member of the
U.S. House of Representatives
from New York's 13th, previously numbered the 18th, and then the 19th, 16th and 15th, congressional district"

From the prior list which actually gave the years for which each district number was applicable? Collect (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The years related to the districts are shown in the succession boxes at the bottom. It's not necessary to duplicate everything everywhere. The infobox should show a short overview of the most important things. See WP:Infobox. Kraxler (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

What a surprise -- I take it you feel the soup of district numbers with no indications whatsoever of which numbers were used when is of immense value to readers? I think we should let others weigh in on how useful this new system is, don't you? Meanwhile, students who use the wonderful "succession boxes" you refer to will tell their schoolteachers that Wikipedia says Charles Rangel was succeeded as congressman by Ed Koch, Mario Biaggi, Jose Serrano, and Jose Serrano, and he replaced Adam Clayton Powell Jt., Bella Abzug, Chuck Schumer , S. William Green, and Michael Grimm, for whose seat a special election is being held shortly, but where Rangel is not on the ballot, but where Rangel will not be succeeded by Grimm's successor? What will the teacher say - it is in Wikipedia so it must be true! Collect (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your top choice for ArbCom said "I won't dispute the factual accuracy of such a statement", about Grimm succeeding Rangel in District 15, you remember? NewYorkBrad actual said exactly the same thing, in May last year. Do you need a link? We had that already many times, and at different venues. Do you intend to shy off any bona fide commenters with these re-iterations? I just added a neutral statement here asking people to comment. You start right away with the battle-axe again. Wikipedia is not a community of 2. The additions to my initial neutral statement, and this whole section should be deleted. The "query" starts with a biased claim and then continues with disparaging remarks, impeding any helpful discussion of the issue. Kraxler (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I had hoped for actual views from actual readers and editors here. I iterate the Microsoft anecdote with the punchline "It had to be the Microsoft building - they gave me an answer which was factually accurate and totally useless". Collect (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

We're not here to tell anecdotes. Kraxler (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In which case your prior post was nugatory. Collect (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to look up "nugatory" in the dictionary, I presume you meant that in your anecdote somebody ate nougat. Kraxler (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

shrunken infobox

Consider:

Charles B. Rangel
Official photograph of Charles Rangel dressed in suit and tie against a blue background
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York's 13th congressional district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2013
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York's 15th congressional district
In office January 3, 1993 – January 3, 2013
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York's 16th congressional district
In office January 3, 1983 – January 3, 1993
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York's 19th congressional district
In office January 3, 1973 – January 3, 1983
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York's 18th congressional district
In office January 3, 1971 – January 3, 1973
Preceded by	Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
Chairman of the United States House Committee on Ways and Means
In office January 4, 2007 – March 3, 2010
Preceded by	Bill Thomas
Succeeded by	Sander M. Levin
Member of the New York Assembly from the 72nd District
In office January 1, 1967 – December 31, 1970
Preceded by	Bill Green
Succeeded by	George Miller
Personal details
Born	Charles Bernard Rangel (1930-06-11) June 11, 1930 New York City, New York, U.S.
Political party	Democratic
Spouse	Alma Rangel
Residence	Manhattan, New York
Alma mater	New York University (B.S.) St. John's University School of Law (LL.B.)
Occupation	Attorney
Awards	Bronze Star (with valor device) Purple Heart
Signature
Website	rangel.house.gov
Military service
Allegiance	United States of America
Branch/service	United States Army
Years of service	1948–1952
Rank	Staff sergeant
Unit	503rd Artillery Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division
Battles/wars	Korean War Battle of Kunu-ri (WIA)

Charles B. Rangel
Official photograph of Charles Rangel dressed in suit and tie against a blue background
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York's 13th congressional district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2013
15th congressional district 1993 - 2013
16th congressional district 1983 - 1993
19th congressional district 1973 - 1983
18th congressional district 1971 - 1973
Preceded by	Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
Chairman of the United States House Committee on Ways and Means
In office January 4, 2007 – March 3, 2010
Preceded by	Bill Thomas
Succeeded by	Sander M. Levin
Member of the New York Assembly from the 72nd District
In office January 1, 1967 – December 31, 1970
Preceded by	Bill Green
Succeeded by	George Miller
Personal details
Born	Charles Bernard Rangel (1930-06-11) June 11, 1930 New York City, New York, U.S.
Political party	Democratic
Spouse	Alma Rangel
Residence	Manhattan, New York
Alma mater	New York University (B.S.) St. John's University School of Law (LL.B.)
Occupation	Attorney
Awards	Bronze Star (with valor device) Purple Heart
Signature
Website	rangel.house.gov
Military service
Allegiance	United States of America
Branch/service	United States Army
Years of service	1948–1952
Rank	Staff sergeant
Unit	503rd Artillery Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division
Battles/wars	Korean War Battle of Kunu-ri (WIA)

Does either work? Collect (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First one way too long. Second one not bad. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Endorse the second one - I think that solves the problem. Thanks. See also my comment at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#example of a shorter infobox. Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Then consider it a fait accompli. Collect (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles Rangel. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://wcbstv.com/local/charles.rangel.uncle.2.817769.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Rangel. 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/20090225132901/http://www.alpha-phi-alpha.com/Resources/ImageFile/File/image/WPC06-WEB.pdf to http://www.alpha-phi-alpha.com/Resources/ImageFile/File/image/WPC06-WEB.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charles Rangel. 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://archive.is/20070928065840/http://www.hometoharlem.com/HARlem/hthcult.nsf/notables/a6a39044c4749b7a852565cf001dbcaa to http://www.hometoharlem.com/HARlem/hthcult.nsf/notables/a6a39044c4749b7a852565cf001dbcaa
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081102040237/http://www.gpoaccess.gov//serialset/cdocuments/hd108-224/pdf/rangel.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-224/pdf/rangel.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329171834/http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ny15_rangel/opedclintonharlem.html to http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ny15_rangel/opedclintonharlem.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320065411/http://www.hofstra.edu/Alumni/NewsEvents/newsevents_hondegrees.html to http://www.hofstra.edu/Alumni/NewsEvents/newsevents_hondegrees.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Charles Rangel. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/integrating.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813105713/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1995/07/27/1995-07-27_rangel_still_chilled_by_kore.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1995/07/27/1995-07-27_rangel_still_chilled_by_kore.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007081015/http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./395/486 to http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./395/486/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202034620/http://baic.house.gov/historical-data/congressional-black-caucus-chairs.html to http://baic.house.gov/historical-data/congressional-black-caucus-chairs.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1996/08/01/1996-08-01_call_him_welfare_bill____pre.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302201610/http://www.rangelprogram.org/index.cfm?session.areaid=2&contentid=701&typeid=CBRIAP92223 to http://www.rangelprogram.org/index.cfm?session.areaid=2&contentid=701&typeid=CBRIAP92223
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118192848/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/580663.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/580663.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712221547/http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2009/06/05/nabors-chairman-gets-testy-flaherty-about-rangel-center-donation-calls-ny-times-%E2%80%98 to http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2009/06/05/nabors-chairman-gets-testy-flaherty-about-rangel-center-donation-calls-ny-times-%E2%80%98
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319074938/http://mobile.politico.com/iphone/story/0314/104746.html to http://mobile.politico.com/iphone/story/0314/104746.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2009/House%20Ratings.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101221112402/http://suffolk.edu/23406.html to http://www.suffolk.edu/23406.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113030805/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-224/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-224/index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)