Charles Rangel has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Rangel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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) |
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)
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).
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)
"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:
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)
Title says it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.59.114 ( talk) 18:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
Approximately 31% of this article now revolves around recent controversies. — C M B J 22:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Several things are at play here:
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)
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:
Anyway, I'll continue reviewing all the changes as I get time. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:07, 18 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)
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)
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)
The article has long had this claim, recently elevated to blockquote status:
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Designate ( talk) 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This is well written. I just have a few style hangups, but feel free to disagree.
"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?
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.
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)
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)
With >134k the article needs a split ( WP:SIZESPLIT). -- Polmandc ( talk) 05:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I trust this is clear. Collect ( talk) 13:50, 24 June 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 | |
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 [1] | |
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 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 |
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 |
Does either work?
Collect (
talk)
17:19, 27 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
resign-ruling
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 24 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 24 (
help)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/integrating.cfm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1996/08/01/1996-08-01_call_him_welfare_bill____pre.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2009/House%20Ratings.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Charles Rangel has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Rangel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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) |
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)
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).
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)
"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:
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)
Title says it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.59.114 ( talk) 18:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
Approximately 31% of this article now revolves around recent controversies. — C M B J 22:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Several things are at play here:
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)
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:
Anyway, I'll continue reviewing all the changes as I get time. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:07, 18 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)
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)
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)
The article has long had this claim, recently elevated to blockquote status:
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Designate ( talk) 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This is well written. I just have a few style hangups, but feel free to disagree.
"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?
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.
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)
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)
With >134k the article needs a split ( WP:SIZESPLIT). -- Polmandc ( talk) 05:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I trust this is clear. Collect ( talk) 13:50, 24 June 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 | |
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 [1] | |
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 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 |
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 |
Does either work?
Collect (
talk)
17:19, 27 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
resign-ruling
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 24 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 24 (
help)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/integrating.cfm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1996/08/01/1996-08-01_call_him_welfare_bill____pre.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2009/House%20Ratings.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)