Talk:Mark Barnes

Removed redundant categories Category:American lawyers and Category:AIDS activism

FYI, someone reverted a cat fix I performed earlier. Just to clear this up, I have removed two redundant categories from the article:

- Category:American lawyers was redundant with Category:New York lawyers. Note that New York lawyers refers to all lawyers whose article mentions they have actively practiced in the state of New York, while American lawyers refers to all lawyers who have actively practiced in the United States. Therefore all New York lawyers are likewise also American lawyers, so including the article in both categories is redundant. Lawyers who practice on behalf of the federal government fall under Category:American federal lawyers. Currently the only articles that should appear directly under Category:American lawyers are those which do not specify in which specific states the lawyer has actively practiced.

- Category:AIDS activists is a subset of Category:AIDS activism. Obviously all notable AIDS activists likewise are notable AIDS activism articles, so including the article in both categories is unnecessary.

Hope that clears it up. If there are any further questions, though, please feel free to discuss them here before reinserting the removed categories. Thanks. Dugwiki 19:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert them back and I would appreciate it if you would not revert back until you discuss it with me, as author of this article. I also discussed it with you on your Talk page, but you obviously have not checked your messages. So before you revert back, go check read that, respond, and we can discuss it, with the categories in. If you sway me, we can stop wrestling. --DavidShankBone 19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I do check my messages. I was away from my computer for about 40 minutes, during which time you reverted the categories again assuming I wasn't going to respond. Not that it has much to do with the article, but have a little patience. :)

For reference, I'll repost your comment on my talk page here, since the discussion belongs on the article page, not on my talk page...

Under your reasoning, then we should eliminate the redundant categories altogether. Barnes is not solely a New York Lawyer. He teaches at Yale Medical School. He held high-profile Washington D.C. jobs. He has gone on secondment for Harvard (see bio). Therefore, he is a New York lawyer AND an American Lawyer in any way you look at it. I disagree as to how youd define the Category:American lawyers and it is your own definition. Point me to a policy on it, though, and I'll concede if you are right. But as a person who has actually used these categories to find people, and as someone in the legal field, I'm letting you know I find it more useful as a User of Wikipedia for this information to have the people listed under both. --DavidShankBone 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said that ALL redundant categories should be eliminated. However, MOST redundant categories SHOULD be eliminated, as described in Wikipedia:Categorization ("Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory....") In particular, when the subcategories subdivide literall all or almost all of the possible articles in the parent category, then it is recommended to not list the article in both categories simultaneously.

In this case, with American lawyers, all American lawyer articles with complete information DO fit under one or more subcategories. They either are lawyers who have practiced in specific states, falling under the state specific category, and/or they are lawyers who have practiced at the federal level, falling under Category:American federal lawyers. Only verified information from the article should be used for classifications. So a lawyer would not be listed under "Iowa lawyers" for example unless the article specifically mentions that he actively practiced in Iowa.

Finally, in the case of this Mark Barnes article, he belongs under the following categories (among others) -

1. Category:New York lawyers - since the article specifically talks about his practice in New York
2. [[:Category:American legal academics - since he has lectured and taught about law in the US. Note that this is a seperate category from American lawyers.
3. Category:AIDS activists - since the article talks about him being active in those causes
4. Category:People from Alabama - since he was born in Alabama (I missed this one earlier, I'll add it in shortly)

However, the article does not ever say he is a practicing attorney anywhere outside of New York. As currently written, the only work he has done as a practicing lawyer on behalf of a client is from New York. Therefore the article does not belong under any other state lawyer categories.

Now, there's nothing wrong with an article being in multiple state lawyer categories, provided the article makes notable mention of their work in those states. But activism and consulting are not the same thing, and right now the only place mentioned in the article is New York. If Mark Barnes has also verifiably been a practicing attorney in Washington, D.C., then expand the article to include that information and add him to Category:Washington, D.C. lawyers.

Finally, I should mention that currently American Lawyers is undergoing subcategorization in general, and the Mark Barnes article just happened to be one of the articles I reviewed in the process. Removing Category:American lawyers in this case is consistent with the other lawyer articles listed by state. The only articles left under American lawyers either don't specify a particular state or that he was a federal lawyer, or they haven't been reviewed for state and federal classification.

Hope that clears it up. I won't immediately remove the article from Category:American lawyers, to give you a chance to reply, but note that leaving it in does appear to be inconsistent. Dugwiki 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but then he should also be under Category:American federal lawyers because he worked for the Clinton White House. The article isn't complete, but it gets that across. I am confused by the difference between Category:American federal lawyers and Category:American lawyers. Also, is there a Category:International lawyers since he does much work in Africa? The Category:AIDS activism can obviously go, then. Regarding the patience issue, advice taken. But if I may offer advice: If a person reverts back, that's an invitation to not re-revert, but to discuss since someone feels you are wrong. Otherwise, wrestling takes place. That's what I do. In this case, you were right and I was wrong, but re-reverting is bad form, especially when you could have checked the history to see it was the originator of the article, instead of writing "FYI, someone reverted a cat fix I performed earlier" and then re-reverting. Perhaps we both need a little more patience? Thanks for enlightening, anyhow, and I'll await your answers about the American/Am Fed categories and which is more appropriate. --DavidShankBone 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad it sounds like we're reaching agreement. :) Anyway, lots of interesting things to reply to above... let's see....

1. Category:American federal lawyers covers lawyers who are employed as legal representatives by the US federal government. So federal prosecutors, United States solictor generals and US Atty Generals all would qualify. Category:American lawyers, on the other hand, includes all attorneys who practice law on behalf of clients in the United States. If you're an actively practicing attorney in the US, you're in that category.
2. Mark Barnes' article currently says he "worked on the National Health Care Reform Task Force in the Clinton White House," but doesn't specify what kind of work he did. If he was acting as an attorney on behalf of the Clinton White House, for example, then he can be included in Category:American federal lawyers. On the other hand, if he's just acting as a consultant, then instead of a lawyer category I'd suggest maybe Category:Consultants. If he was acting as a lobbyist, then use Category:American lobbyists. So my suggestion here would be to expand the sentence about the Clinton White House to specify what his professional role actually was, then add one of those categories if appropriate.
3. That's an interesting idea to create Category:International lawyers to group attorneys that practice in multiple countries. In fact, I like that idea so much, I just now set it up! :) It's under Category:Lawyers and uses the description "Any lawyer who actively has practiced law simultaneously in more than one country." Now at the moment, the Mark Barnes article wouldn't qualify, because it doesn't mention yet him practicing international law. But if that info is added he can be put in the category. Meanwhile, lawyers who practice law in multiple countries can presumably be listed in each country's list.

Guess that's about it. Sorry if it came across as blunt before on the revert. Later! Dugwiki 22:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Since we both agree now about removing the "activism" category, I went ahead and took it out. I also put the article, for now, under Category:American federal lawyers on the assumption that you're expanding the article with that info. Of course, if he was doing consulting or lobbying or something like that, just replace "federal lawyers" with the appropriate profession. Dugwiki 22:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Boone

It certainly is common in biographies to mention famous kin, and that's why I just moved it to the "Personal" section instead of removing it. I don't think it belongs in the lead, because the lead should summarize what's notable about Barnes. Probably dozens of currently people are descended from Boone, but most of them aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles, so his ancestry isn't really part of his notability. I would suggest a reading of WP:LEAD to work out what the best lead of this article might cover. — coelacan talk — 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But that he is a direct descendant of such a looming historical figure is a lead section notable inclusion. See John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Chelsea Clinton, or William Howard Taft IV. Such ancestry magnifies their own accomplishments from the get-go, and frames a person in a reader's mind. --DavidShankBone 05:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)