Talk:Mike Pence classified documents incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article! Hopefully you will write more articles! Have a good day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 January 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pence classified documents incident → Pence classified documents incident – There is no need to specify which Biden, there is only one such incident. Often scandals and events only utilize last names when involving political figures of such a high profile, such as the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Obama tan suit controversy, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, particularly when there is no other figure with that last name sharing the same stature (which is the case for Pence, who is by far the most notable individual with their surname) SecretName101 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Pence is currently WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to penny, so it seems like we shouldn't be using that on its own in an article title referring to a person. Also, Greg Pence is an active politician, too, which is probably why we use the fullnames in Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, because on their own they could plausibly refer to other family members if you don't know the event. --Quiz shows 20:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is mistaking this article for having to to do with fiscal Currency. And a singular Pence has had a classified documents scandal. Until Greg Pence (who little known to most people compared to Mike Pence) does, disambiguating which Pence is unnecessary. SecretName101 (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is per this reason that there is no need to disambiguate articles such as Bush White House email controversy. There were two Bush White Houses, but only one had an email controversy, warranting no need for disambiguation. SecretName101 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as creator: for context, when I created this, I based the title, on Joe Biden classified documents incident. What Quiz shows pointed out-that Pence redirects to penny and that there are other Pences in politics-is completely on point. Meanwhile, Clinton-Lewinsky scandal refers to a very specific event in which Hillary or Chelsea Clinton were not involved; Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations was necessary because people might think it was one of the other Clintons. Heavy Water (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also requested a name change to that article.
    This article also refers to a specific event, so the comparison to Clinton-Lewinsky scandal is far more apt than your counter-comparison SecretName101 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Too vague in my opinion. The full name "Mike Pence" is more of a recognizable common name for this individual. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Article should be merged to Mike Pence instead. --Wow (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC); modified 11:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wow Your desire to merge the article is a matter apart from what the article should be titled if not merged. SecretName101 (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; far too vague. I didn't know Mike Pence had a "classified documents incident" until seconds ago, and wouldn't have guessed it was about Mike Pence if the title was as proposed. I don't see this as disambiguation, but rather as an issue of both recognizability and precision (WP:CRITERIA). DFlhb (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draftified "Reactions" section[edit]

I am draftifying this until someone can develop it to be a more neutral. Currently it's entirely republican commentary.

Jacobs stated that Pence was unaware of the existence of the classified documents at his residence.[1]

House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer (R-KY) said that Pence agreed to fully cooperate with congressional oversight. Comer claimed that Pence's transparency has differed from the Biden administration's efforts, which he suggested involved an intentional effort to withhold information from Congress and the public.[2] Mike Turner (R-OH), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, has stated that he plans to request an intelligence review and damage assessment on records found in Pence's home, as he had asked for the documents found at Biden's home.[2]

Soon after news broke, former President Donald Trump defended Pence, stating that Pence is innocent and wouldn't do anything "knowingly dishonest in his life." Pence had served as vice president under Trump.[3] The void century (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Perez, Jamie Gangel,Jeremy Herb,Evan (2023-01-24). "First on CNN: Classified documents found at Pence's Indiana home | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-01-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b "Documents marked classified found at Pence's Indiana home, lawyer says". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2023-01-25.
  3. ^ Holmes, Kaitlan Collins,MJ Lee,Zachary Cohen,Phil Mattingly,Kristen (2023-01-25). "Trump and Biden teams both jump on Pence disclosure as a classified documents defense | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-01-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Merge or delete this article[edit]

This article is not needed. This can be summarized and merged into Mike Pence. If we keep this, the will be the only side article about Mike Pence we have at all. This is no where near as high profile as Trump or Biden's document incidents. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 23:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, merge it into the Pence bio page. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wow (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now* Notability isn't decided by comparing an article to other articles. It's decided by whether there are reliable sources talking about the topic. There are certainly enough sources talking about Pence's documents. And yes, there aren't any other side articles about Pence, probably because he hasn't done anything else notable enough to garner this much national media attention. The void century (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are half-correct. I will note, that reliable sources talking about a topic does not inherently warrant giving it an article. SecretName101 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF, no, take this article to WP:AFD if you want to delete or merge it, don't start a little side convo on the talk page. Red Slash 20:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers As I wrote on your user talk page, it was really incorrect of you to have, without building consensus or making a formal proposal, turned this article into a redirect earlier today.
  • In the hours before your move to redirect was reverted, you made no subsequent edit to Mike Pence's primary article that even remotely provided sufficient coverage of the content contained you removed by eliminating this page.
  • Your talk page proposal to merge had already seen two users object to the idea. It was therefore clearly evidenced that this would be a controversial change, and therefore warranted discussion to build a consensus.
  • The page was being regularly edited by a number of editors, none of whose opinions you sought out before making this change.
  • You were urged to open an AFD discussion if you wanted to do this. You did not.
Judging from earlier threads on your talk page, there appears to be a pattern of you undertaking bold changes even after objections have been raised to them and no consensus has been built in your favor. Please halt this pattern of behavior.
I will add that I also object to merging or deleting this. SecretName101 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting that this is not the only article on Pence-related subjects other than his main article, despite Checkers' assertion. Category:Mike Pence exists to sort articles related to him. His family's late pet rabbit even has an article (Rest In Peace Marlon Bundo). SecretName101 (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SecretName101, I’m the one who initially added the documents scandal to Pences main page, and I was hoping that a merge would be a good jumpstart to expand it more because it did, and still does, need to be expanded significantly. As to the AfD thing, AfD is not for merge proposals. So, no I want be starting an AfD. Your talk page proposal to merge had already seen two users object to the idea Um, not quite. The merge was a BOLD edit that hadn’t been discussed or objected too when I redirected the page. Everything that has happened here is accordiance with policy and guideline, see WP:BRD. Putting his little pet aside (if you even want to count that), there are no WP:CFORK articles of this nature about Pence like the numerous ones about Trump or Biden. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This event being minor is exactly the reason why the pertinent section at Mike Pence shouldn't be expanded any further. Having 8 paragraphs on this in his BLP would post major due weight issues. So the alternatives, to me, are either keeping this article, or deleting it without merging (unless we merely merge a few sentences, which would be fine). I agree that AfD is the proper place for that. DFlhb (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Pence_classified_documents_incident&oldid=1209690990"