Jump to content

Talk:JD Vance

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

The couch thing

[edit]

While it's clearly just a joke, the level of impact on his public perception feels like it belongs somewhere on this page. His VP run has been impacted one way or another. Maybe an "in pop culture" reference of sorts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4000:82:D480:28D8:EF8E:7DB1 (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2001:1970:4000:82:D480:28D8:EF8E:7DB1 (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)wonkachocolate[reply]


Well, it's not hard to find numerous news articles from reputable sources on the issue:
1dragon (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not the point OP's making; the claim's effect on the campaign is separate from its truth. The question is whether or not its effect alone is noteworthy. Tama Boyle (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph focuses on the AP's response to the hoax, not any focus on Vance. Newsweek is not generally reliable [1]. Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politics.[2]. WP:HUFFPOLITICS is not a good source for determining whether a hoax is due weight in a political BLP. The USA Today article is from their 'For the Win' section which is just tabloid garbage. Vulture is a pop culture magazine. I've never heard of Pedestrian TV but just a quick glance tells me it's a tabloid rag. Salon has no consensus on reliability and should not be used to establish due weight here. Daily Beast is mentioned as requiring caution for BLP. I'm unsure about the SFGate. The Vox article goes off on Vance's history of remarks and the Washington Post focuses on how Twitter allows misinformation to spread. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey just a note the "he is it vice presidential candidate" is incorrect grammar and the page should be updated to say "he is its vice presidential candidate" it appears near the top of this article currently thanks. Lol. Aerist (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice if the Snopes fact check gets added, because it debunks a new rumor saying the couch thing was present only in the first edition: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jd-vance-hillbilly-elegy-first-edition-couch-erotica/ 197.1.53.51 (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2001:1970:4000:82:D480:28D8:EF8E:7DB1
it does not belong on this page at all.
hillary clinton's page doesn't mention qanon once, and the qanon hoax has been 100x more impactful than the couch hoax. consistency would be nice. 2A00:E180:171C:3800:F66B:8474:7B18:6C15 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Comet Ping Pong hoax? That may have been about her, but it speak to her, but rather the people who believed and spread it. The couch thing relates to Vance's public perception directly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right so people being able to believe Hillary Clinton was involved in child trafficking speaks nothing about her but people believing JD Vance had sex with a couch speaks to him. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you raise a fair point and I'm not sure why it was ignored. One could also note the employment of the hoax by the Harris campaign as propaganda but instead it's referred to as a "shift in messaging" or "attack line". Pretty interesting obfuscation. 2600:1700:76F1:E8A0:39FF:1896:950:A60F (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no "fair point" in comparing QAnon to this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One is a long-lasting hoax that has influenced thousands of people, including some politicians. The other is a short lived hoax that was quickly disproven and has no evidence of influence over anything. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most important, the original source:

has luckily been archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20240724234824/apnews.com/article/fact-check-jd-vance-sex-couch-038130326229 --89.14.236.87 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I feel like this whole event is notable enough to justify at least a small blurb on the page. It may be worth noting that it's a false claim, but it's the thing most people are hearing about a notable person and the level of virality of the event is quite abnormal PleaseComputer (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's been added now. I think the addition is appropriate; this received widespread coverage as demonstrated above. Cortador (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this hoax seems to have taken on a life of its own, but it's arguable whether it should be discussed at length in this article, I suggest that a WP:SPINOFF page should be created - perhaps JD Vance couch hoax. Thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris Interesting! I'm not completely sure it justifies its own page, is there precedent for these sorts of events being spun out? 72.38.50.76 (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read through WP:BLP. That article was already created and was speedily deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle I'm familiar with WP:BLP and it doesn't address hoaxes. That is the key: this is an obvious hoax, easily demonstrated to be nonfactual through basic research, and many reliable sources have now made that clear. Nobody is saying that it's true; the spinoff article would be about the hoax itself and the people who perpetrated it, and not a vehicle for speculation about whether the hoax is true. That said, I'm on the fence about whether it should be created because the hoax may not have WP:LASTING effects. Carguychris (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPGOSSIP. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not an indiscriminate collection of information. A twitter rumour is not something that merits an article as it has no encyclopaedic value. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Twitter rumor is not the reason it's notable. The notable part that an apparent Internet hoax got picked up by a major news organization, that organization then tried to suppress it, and then the suppression in itself was picked up by other organizations. Carguychris (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in that case how is it relevant to Vance? You're stating the notable part is the Associated Press talking about it - if that is the case it is not due weight to be included in Vance's article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is relevant to Vance because it is a prominent point of public discourse and is shaping perception of him as a vice presidential nominee. SecretName101 (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have no evidence of the latter. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLPGOSSIP it is completely inappropriate for this information to be included. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the hoax has clearly been prominent enough to maintain relevance in its own right. BLP does not mean we ALWAYS shy away from talking about things that aren't shone in a neutral light, but provides that when inclusion is so, we cover the subject in the most factual way possible. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
evidently, this has been prominent enough to function under those standards. gossip, like anything, can become meta-notable when it gains noteworthy status in it of itself, and has more than a shallow status of relevance. There's enough here to warrant inclusion. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-neutral things we might cover in a BLP include criminal convictions and controversial actions. We don't cover false rumours.
>There's enough here to warrant inclusion.
Most of the sources are tabloids. This will not be remembered in 10 years let alone a year. Encyclopaedias aren't meant to cover every single piece of information on a subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm highly, highly skeptical of including the couch thing. Jjazz76 (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if added, it deserves no more than a sentence. "False rumours of ________ were spread from 2024". starship.paint (RUN) 12:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that the Telegraph, HuffPost and AP are all tabloids, @Traumnovelle. yes, that makes sense. 🙄😮‍💨
this has had enough effect and impact on his largely apparently negative (according to proper metrics) public opinion that it makes sense to include it. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AP deleted their story. The Telegraph are reporting on AP removing the story. WP:HUFFPOLITICS has no consensus on it's reliability and yeah it is a fucking rag of a paper. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle that’d be a valid point if The Telegraph was the sole source that covered that. But it was not: numerous significant sources did beyond those three. SecretName101 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous sources would be a valid point if they weren't primarily primary source tabloid rags. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: It's been covered by The Washington Post, The Guardian, NPR, Business Insider, Vanity Fair, USA Today, The Cut and Vulture (both imprints of New York Magazine), Rolling Stone, The Mercury News, The Boston Herald, SFGate, The Hollywood Reporter, Vox, Slate, The New Republic. Plus cable news networks have discussed it. A pretty broad variety of sources are covering it. SecretName101 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're making my point for me. You don't even know what constitutes a reliable source. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP exists. You've even (indirectly) linked to it above. WP:WAPO is reliable. WP:THEGUARDIAN is reliable. NPR is reliable (from WP:RSP). WP:BUSINESSINSIDER is currently no-consensus, but it's not unreliable. WP:VANITYFAIR is reliable. WP:USATODAY is reliable. The Cut and Vulture are reliable (both part of New York magazine, from WP:RSP). WP:THR is reliable. WP:RSPVOX is reliable. The New Republic is reliable (from WP:RSP). There were a few sources listed that aren't listed at WP:RSPS, but only one was unreliable, and that was WP:ROLLINGSTONE.
Even Last Week Tonight with John Oliver covered it (there was actually even another reference to it from last nights episode too). The hoax is incredibly well sourced and definitely DUE given the far reaching coverage it received (as John Oliver noted: coverage even made it into print in a newspaper in Norway). You don't even know what constitutes a reliable source. You really do protest too much; out of sixteen sources @SecretName101 listed, only one was unreliable, with the overwhelming majority already reliable per WP:RSPS and a handful not listed there. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even Rolling Stone is considered reliable by Wikipedia for culture pieces and some other subjects. SecretName101 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a political BLP not a 'culture piece', it's explicitly what it should not be relied on for. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A BLP about a figure who is part of a national political campaign. National US political campaigns and popular culture regularly intertwine and overlap. Even more so in this era. SecretName101 (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today piece is not their main column but some spinoff that is quite clearly some low-tier tabloid journalism based on what other stories they run. They're also primary sources which are not useful for establishing due weight. Secondary sources establish weight. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Traum's kinda noticed he's losing seeing as he's taking potshots at the USA Today story above all else. All the other sourcing stands. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle add Cincinnati Enquirer and Talking Points Memo
It’s also been covered both by conservative (and liberal slanted sources alike. SecretName101 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not convincing me by mentioning different rags that cover it instead of quality secondary coverage that establishes an impact to Vance from it. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that establishes an impact To be clear, that's not a requisite, that's something you personally want. You've been given a dozen reliable secondary sources, you just don't like them for whatever reason. That's unfortunate, but that doesn't affect the decision making going on here with regard to how we cover the hoax. What affects that is those same reliable secondary sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those were not secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you don't know what secondary sources are. You should probably visit the Tea House and get help on that. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should really bother to look up what a secondary source is if you think news reports are secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TEAHOUSE —Locke Cole • t • c 14:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

[edit]

We do have an article on secondary source. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle have you read the article? SecretName101 (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the secondary sources provided above. Glad you finally got that figured out. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are not secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn what a secondary source actually is. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but, respectfully, I think it makes sense to refocus on the principles in WP:BLPGOSSIP. While there has been media coverage of this incident, that alone doesn't justify inclusion in a biography of a living person. WP:BLPGOSSIP explicitly says we should "avoid repeating gossip," even if true, unless it's relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. This is a hoax, and clearly falls under "gossip". And while some of the sources discussing this may be reliable for other topics, I think we should also question whether they constitute high-quality secondary sources establishing this hoax's lasting impact on Vance's career or public image, as required by WP:DUE. Including this information, even briefly, risks giving undue weight to a trivial event in the context of Vance's overall life and career (also see WP:UNDUE).
(Long-time reader/user; first time getting back into the fray of editing in a while since I'm tired of seeing obvious bias.) ballpointzen (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ballpointzen You also seem to have a misunderstanding as well. The gossip would be "JD vance wrote about masturbating....". That's not being included at face-value, nor is it being included for it's face-value assertion.
Rather, what is being included is that there was a clear hoax that received high-profile attention and impacted discourse during his early VP candidacy. All of which is true, notable, and verifiable. SecretName101 (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of WP:BLPGOSSIP in this context. The way it is written, the policy on gossip isn't limited to just repeating the same face-value claim. It says "[a]sk yourself whether the source is reliable . . . and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The key here is relevance, not just reliability. While the hoax gained attention, it doesn't appear to have had any lasting impact on Vance's career, policies, or public actions.
Look, if we think it's necessary, this hoax might be more appropriately covered in a broader article about the 2024 election or social media's impact on politics, rather than in Vance's personal biography. If anything, I think that's what your response above argues in favor of.
If I were to look at this cynically, it would seem like an attempt to keep the hoax alive among aspects of his life that are actually notable or had a significant impact on Vance's career or public image in order to score political points. But I'll reserve that accusation until what is said clearly merits it. ballpointzen (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asserting there isn't widespread reliable source coverage of a hoax involving JD Vance and claims that he said something in a book regarding sexual acts with a couch? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're making it quite hard to assume good faith about your reasons for supporting the content. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a "no"? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole Once again, the question isn't whether there's widespread coverage of the hoax - we've established that there is. The crux of the issue is whether this coverage justifies inclusion in a BLP based on WP:BLP. This hoax doesn't significantly contribute to understanding Vance's role as an author, politician, or VP candidate. It hasn't had any demonstrable, long-term effect on Vance's career or public actions. The hoax seems to fall into the category of ephemeral internet phenomena rather than substantive biographical information. Would a dispassionate overview of Vance's life and career necessarily include this incident? I'm convinced that it wouldn't. Given all this, I think the weight of WP policies - particularly BLP and UNDUE - leans heavily towards excluding this info from Vance's biographical article. The existence of coverage doesn't override these policies. Unless there's compelling evidence that the hoax has had a significant, lasting impact on Vance's career or public image - beyond just being a momentary topic of discussion - I think we should err on the side of caution and remove it from the article. I propose we move forward with removing this section. Does anyone have any final thoughts before we do so? ballpointzen (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

understanding Vance's role as an author, politician, or VP candidate Those aren't the only reasons we include content in articles. WP:DUE is, again, the typical gauge we use to include or exclude content. Given the prevalence of hoax coverage in reliable sources and the continued use of the hoax a short paragraph on the topic is justified. The consensus so far in this section is for inclusion, so your attempt to push through removal seems... unwise. Pinging other major participants to this proposal: @SecretName101, @Carguychris, @Muboshgu, @Starship.paint, @Traumnovelle, @YodaYogaYogurt154, @PleaseComputer —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the prevalence of hoax coverage in reliable sources
I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, but prevalence of hoax coverage is not sufficient to include information in a BLP.
Can you cite to exactly what you're basing the idea that "prevalence of coverage" is sufficient to include information in a BLP? ballpointzen (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE —Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due weight is determined by secondary, not primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what DUE says. And regardless, we have many secondary sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what a secondary source is and you've made it quite clear what your motivation is here. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what a secondary source is Pretty sure I have a firmer handle on it than you do. But regardless, WP:DUE makes no mention of secondary sources, so it doesn't matter anyways. what your motivation is here To build a complete encyclopedia, it's unclear to me what your motivation is considering you've had multiple editors tell you you're wrong, only to just parrot the same things over and over again as if repetition will somehow change the fact that you're wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: Citing WP:DUE with no explanation doesn't look like good faith engagement. And while it's important to consider, we need to consider it alongside WP:BLPGOSSIP, which is specifically tailored for situations like this. So I'll go ahead and actually undertake the task of looking at them together.
Let's also keep in mind the fundamental principle of WP:BLP that we may be overlooking: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." This is crucial in our current debate. Consensus needs to be formed around including this information -- the default is excluding it if consensus isn't reached. Accordingly, it should really be deleted until consensus is reached.
Now, let's apply WP:DUE as you seem to suggest. We must consider if the hoax represents a "significant viewpoint" about Vance. It's a hoax that was proven to be a hoax and has been perpetuated only by political actors since it occurred. How does this contribute a "significant viewpoint" about Vance? I don't see it. WP:DUE also warns about giving "undue weight" to minority aspects. In the context of Vance's entire career, this hoax is a minor event, regardless of some articles around the event. WP:DUE's guidance about minority views not belonging on Wikipedia "except perhaps in some ancillary article" suggests that if this hoax is to be mentioned, it might be more appropriate in an article about the 2024 election or social media's impact on politics, rather than in Vance's biography.
Then let's look at WP:BLPGOSSIP. WP:BLPGOSSIP explicitly says to "Avoid repeating gossip" and asks us to consider "whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." This directly addresses our situation and should be given significant weight. WP:BLPGOSSIP warns us to "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." Many reports on this hoax look like they fall into this category.
While WP:DUE suggests representing views "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources," WP:BLPGOSSIP reminds us that reliability alone isn't sufficient - relevance to a disinterested article is crucial.
Considering these points, I believe the burden of evidence for including this hoax has not been met. Those arguing for inclusion need to demonstrate how it aligns with these BLP principles, not just that it was widely reported.
Unless we can show that this hoax has had a lasting, significant impact on Vance's career or public image - beyond temporary media attention - and that its inclusion serves the goals outlined in BLP, I still think that we should remove it from the article. This conservative approach seems most consistent with the policies designed to protect living subjects. ballpointzen (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite to exactly what you're basing the idea that "prevalence of coverage" is sufficient to include information in a BLP? This was your original question. I responded with WP:DUE. I'm sorry that four paragraphs of text weren't sufficient enough for your needs. WP:BLP is satisfied and WP:BLPGOSSIP does not apply to this (we're not engaging in gossip in wikivoice; however, the hoax itself that promoted a false claim is widely reported in reliable sources). The minor amount of text dedicated to this subject is certainly WP:DUE given the continuing coverage the hoax has. At some point I'm just going to stop replying because we've had this argument now for nearly three weeks. Nothing new has been presented to justify removing our coverage of the hoax. And we aren't required to WP:SATISFY the repetition in arguments. There's also some serious WP:IDHT going on... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we've had this argument over including a hoax in a BLP for three weeks, that seems to clearly mean it should be excluded. Again, the burden is on the editors including the information to demonstrate consensus, not those trying to exclude it. ballpointzen (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There haven't really been any arguments for the past three weeks. It's been mostly one editor arguing against many others using flawed logic. You just showed up recently from an account created in 2005 with edits numbered in the hundreds, and a gap of 15 years since any activity to speak of to.. come here and battleground this? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:BLPGOSSIP is applicable to this situation per the wording of BLPGOSSIP? Not saying I support including more than a passing mention (a sentence or two at most), but BLPGOSSIP isn't going to be the reason we exclude it. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid repeating gossip. ... even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not gossip from the outset: reliable sources all point to it being a false claim that has been debunked. At that point, BLPGOSSIP no longer applies; reliable sources have discussed the incident (the false allegations), at this point the salient issue is whether or not such coverage is widespread enough to satisfy WP:DUE. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the OED gossip is: 'trifling or groundless rumour', that applies to the story here. BLPGOSSIP includes whether rumours are WP:DUE and in this case it isn't due for this article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE covers what is or isn't due. Thank you for confirming BLPGOSSIP is inapplicable here. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And giving undue weight to certain things is a BLP violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily this is not a BLP violation. Which circles us back to WP:DUE, of which given all the reliable sources on the hoax, we have plenty to justify the exceedingly short passage we have thus far. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, this is in fact a BLP violation and I think we're misinterpreting WP:BLPGOSSIP in this context. While the policy does kind of seem to intersect with WP:DUE, it also give specifics guidance for this kind of situation: WP:BLPGOSSIP says "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Even if the sources reporting on this hoax are reliable, we have to question whether this information is truly relevant to a disinterested article about Vance. The hoax itself, while widely reported, doesn't directly relate to Vance's actions, career, or public service. ballpointzen (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“trifling or groundless rumor” would apply to the face-value claim of him humping couch cushions. that is the rumor
however, the internet hoax that promulgated that rumor and the impact that that has had is not a rumor: it is fact. It is factual that a widespread internet hoax exists. SecretName101 (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle, this is not a BLP violation. It would be a BLP violation if we said "Vance fucked a couch" in Wikivoice. Covering it as we do does not violate BLP. And there is considerable impact of the couch meme along with the "weird" vibe on Vance. The couch debacle only underscored Vance’s overall dismal introduction to the country after his somewhat forgettable speech at the Republican national convention last month, prompting some to wonder if Trump should make the historic decision to ditch his running mate just three months before election day. The section is also not so long as to be undue. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article goes far beyond the rumour and focuses on other stuff. You can't argue it has impact when it's nothing more than a clickbait headline for the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-tabloid/rags go in detail about his past or focus on the Streisand effect and ability for misinformation to spread online. It's far more due in an article on online misinformation, not as it's own paragraph and heading in a BLP. There are dozens of news stories published every day about this man. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dozens of news stories published every day about this man Yes, but few have received the level of coverage and entered the corpus of human knowledge like this hoax has. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>corpus of human knowledge
What an utterly absurd statement. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet if you stopped ten random people on the street and asked them if they knew about the couch thing you'd get a lot of people who knew about it. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest if you want to try and prove that. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle In my experience, knowledge of the rumor is shockingly widespread. SecretName101 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think good evidence of this is how late night shows, political analysts, and politicians alike have been able to make jokes/wordplay about Vance and couches without needing to contextualize the jokes for their audiences. SecretName101 (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/04/jd-vance-critics-trump-vp
Interesting article
worth noting also noting: that the term “JD Vance Couch” is getting 1/7 the number of searches as the query “JD Vance”. Pretty much underlining just how widespread this thing became.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-couch-sex-joke-author-speaks-2024-7?amp
a look a Google Trends shows it as the top related search to Vance SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search term "jd vance couch" is receiving comparable if not significantly higher searches than the topic Hillbilly Elegy, the book he became famous for which is mentioned 8 times in the article, per Google trends. (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=US&q=jd%20vance%20couch,%2Fg%2F11c5947bwl&hl=en) Clearly, this is relevant enough to merit the existing mention. 2601:1C2:1400:DCD0:1533:23A0:7BD8:56B7 (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We base what merits inclusion based on what secondary sources do, not on what people put into Google. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle Did you not notice the Business Insider link that I linked to reporting on that? SecretName101 (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed it down to one sentence and put it in his campaign section: On July 15, 2024, an Internet hoax spread from social network X that falsely claimed that Hillbilly Elegy described Vance masturbating using a latex glove placed between couch cushions; Internet memes were generated in response, while the viral hoax's spread was amplified after the Associated Press published and deleted a fact-check of it. I've also cited more reliable sources, WaPo, Guardian and NPR, that justify the inclusion of this sentence. I don't think it needs its own section, it seems to draw even more attention to the hoax. starship.paint (RUN) 12:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint I like your new version better; it adequately explains the event without giving it WP:UNDUE weight. I've made a couple of very minor wording and punctuation tweaks. Carguychris (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris: - thanks, here's posting version for the record: On July 15, 2024, an Internet hoax spread from social network X falsely claiming that Hillbilly Elegy described Vance masturbating using a latex glove placed between couch cushions. Internet memes were generated in response, and the viral hoax's spread was amplified after the Associated Press published and promptly deleted a fact-check of it. starship.paint (RUN) 14:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this revision, I wasn't a big fan of the dedicated section header. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trimming is good. It may yet deserve more content than this in the future, but we'll have to wait and see. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps combine the hoax and polling under a combined section titled “public perception” or something to that effect? SecretName101 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101, I think the hoax belongs in the previous section where it was before you moved it. I don't see what it has to do with Vance's public perception, since none of the sources are reporting that the general public actually believes this nonsense. Carguychris (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this allowed to be added but not other famous hoaxes like the Richard Gere gerbil story or the Rod Stewart stomach pump story?Exzachary (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not basis to question this information. of all the ways you could have took on this thing from your viewpoint, this is the approach you took? YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to point out the only reason this cruft has been kept is because of political bias. If this wasn't a political BLP it'd be strongly opposed.
And no, there is no evidence this has any lasting effect and this attempt to include it on Wikipedia is just trying to create one. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not cast aspersions. You can't just accuse editors of political bias without proof. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been evinced by an editor here where they've shown a clear double standard in regards to including hoaxes. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need better evidence than just saying words. You need diffs and a trip to WP:AN/I, or you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and try to actually make your arguments on the merits. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lame. really lame, Traumn. Accusing other editors of bias unfounded is fuckin' low. borderline personal attack. I wish those in "His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" would simply keep to their arguments and not stray into poor WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments and frivolous accusations. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No of course it does not belong. If that is included, Tim Walz’s stolen valor controversy not only deserves more mention, but it entirely deserves its own page.

Hi IP editor. It's something of coverage and has had an effect and a lasting point. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As hilarious as the hoax is and all the discourse around it, it clearly does not belong on this wiki page as per all of the objections raised above. I'll add also there is an element of "recentism" in here as well. This is unlikely to be a notable topic in his life past December, after he has (hopefully) lost the election and slinks back into obscurity. It is far, far too early to make claims that "it is a lasting point". Per WP:WEIGHT I think it could perhaps be better covered by a simple and neutral sentence such as "Vance has been the subject of numerous internet hoaxes since becoming the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee." David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This proposed sentence is too vague. A reader should walk away knowing that the couch allegation is fake. After thinking some more, I'm okay to simply trimming to this: On July 15, 2024, a viral Internet hoax spread from social network X falsely claiming that Hillbilly Elegy described Vance masturbating using a latex glove placed between couch cushions. starship.paint (RUN) 13:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed the proposal is too vague and being crystal clear that it is fake. That being said, I think the trimmed version omitting the meme portion of the incident (which is ongoing) wouldn't be appropriate. The AP fact-check then retraction being trimmed might work though (it was interesting when the incident first occurred, but it's not really relevant now that I can see from more recent sources). Here are a couple more recent sources that show the topic is still being covered, and the effects of the hoax are still being realized.
    • Marquez, Alexandra (2024-08-12). "Democrats continue to joke about false JD Vance rumor after years of criticizing Trump for spreading misinformation". NBC News. NBC News. Retrieved 2024-08-14. The fervor reached a peak in Philadelphia, the day Vice President Kamala Harris named Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. Walz told an arena filled with thousands of excited supporters: "I got to tell you, I can't wait to debate the guy [Vance]. That is, if he's willing to get off the couch and show up." As the crowd roared and Harris smirked behind him, Walz, who just weeks earlier started a trend of calling Republicans "weird," quipped, "You see what I did there?" The Harris campaign's TikTok account, named Kamala HQ, posted a video of the moment that has been viewed over 5.3 million times.
    • Lee, Michael (2024-08-12). "Dems hitting Vance with debunked vulgar claim 'undermine' their anti-Trump credibility, strategist says". FOX News. Fox News. Retrieved 2024-08-14. The moment went viral on the Harris campaign's TikTok account, named Kamala HQ, garnering 5.3 million views, NBC reported, noting that Democrats have continued to use the joke despite the release of fact-checks debunking the rumor by several media outlets. In one such example, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a news release on July 26 targeting Trump's decision to pick Vance, joking that Republicans are "couching their public praise of Trump's vice presidential nominee with private criticism." On July 27, the Kamala HQ X account shared a screenshot of Vance's moments on "cat ladies" with the caption that the Ohio senator "does not couch his hatred for women." A day later, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, long believed to be a potential candidate to join Harris on the ticket, joked on ABC News that while Trump "talks about all kinds of crazy stuff," Vance is "getting known for his obsession with couches."
    —Locke Cole • t • c 14:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, not much longer: On July 15, 2024, a viral Internet hoax spread from social network X falsely claiming that Hillbilly Elegy described Vance masturbating using a latex glove placed between couch cushions, and Internet memes were generated in response. The current Harris/Walz campaign stuff can go to the Harris/Walz campaign article. It doesn't need to be in this BLP. starship.paint (RUN) 14:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion seems to have gone on long enough to where we should probably just RFC it. I didn't even know about this "hoax" until I read about it here, which one might argue is why we should cover it, but on the other hand, I also believe it's never going to pass the WP:10YT test. I'm going to lean towards this particular circumstance having zero encyclopedic value on this BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd personally be stunned if this didn't find its way into independent biographies on JD in the near future. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I think this, alongside the run for vice-presidency, is what people will remember about Vance. Cortador (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is sarcasm right? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's probably right on, actually. He'll be remembered for his book, this, and the vice presidential run.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. What do people remember Howard Dean for, other than being a politician and the Dean scream? I think Vance will end up like that. Cortador (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A hoax is fake. Stating that the a hoax is false is redundant and poor writing. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The details of what the content of the hoax are is what is causing friction with WP:BLP. The graphic details of the hoax should therefore be removed. The vagueness is a feature, not a bug.
    The word "hoax" should indicate to any reader that there is no substance to the hoax, and it is entirely false. But we can really labour that point if you like.
    If it needs to be mentioned, it only needs to be something like: During his Vice-Presential campaign Vance was the subject of several viral Internet hoaxes. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm convinced that what's causing friction is that this particular hoax is puerile, R-rated, and deeply and indisputably tacky. No other Vance-related hoax is anywhere near as notable as this specific one. Nobody is saying that he actually did the deed. Why sugar-coat this? Carguychris (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is about a real person and we are supposed to treat living people with dignity on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cloventt Given the lack of consensus on its inclusion, why would we not just exclude it? I thought per WP:BLP, the burden is on editors trying to include information to show consensus, not on those who don't believe it's correct to include it?
Genuine question. I may be misunderstanding the policy. Thanks. ballpointzen (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and proposed next steps

[edit]
Summary of discussion of "the couch thing" and proposed next steps

This discussion has been ongoing for several weeks, with no clear consensus yet.

Key points raised:

For inclusion:

  • Significant media coverage from various sources
  • Impact on public discourse during Vance's VP candidacy
  • Potentially meets WP:DUE given extent of coverage

Against inclusion:

  • WP:BLP sets high bar for including controversial content about living persons
  • Concerns about WP:UNDUE weight in context of Vance's overall career
  • Questions about lasting impact and relevance to a disinterested biography

Proposed options for moving forward:

  1. Seek input from the BLP Noticeboard for a broader perspective on policy compliance.
  2. Consider drafting a separate article on misinformation in the 2024 election, where this could be mentioned in context.
  3. Retain a brief, factual mention of the hoax without detailed coverage or its own section.
  4. Request a neutral third-party administrator to review the discussion and make a determination.
  5. Keep the current expanded content as is.
  6. Remove all mention of the hoax.

Please indicate your preferred option(s) in your response. If you have alternative suggestions, please add them to the list.

Note: This is not a vote, but a way to gauge consensus. Final decisions will be based on policy-compliant arguments, not vote counts.

--ballpointzen (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ballpointzen.
Regarding your previous question, my preference is to completely remove it (eg #6 in your list). I would also support #3. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is (#5), I don't see why this is such a big deal if it's clearly labeled as a hoax. The hoax and the reactions to it are clearly notable. The only reason this argument is still going (and going... and going...) is that the topic of the hoax is squicky. Carguychris (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
#5, though I think the dedicated section is gratuitous and wasn't what we had in the article when consensus formed around inclusion a couple of weeks ago. The text @Starship.paint suggested above, in a "Public reactions" section which covers other WP:DUE public reactions would be most sensible. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3, there’s enough coverage. 1 and 4 will probably not produce a result. What is needed is an RFC. starship.paint (RUN) 10:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with starship, needs an RfC. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 6 because this does not pass WP:10YEARS and is just tabloid shitposting. No ignorant/disinterested reader will need to or want to know this about Vance to better understand him.
EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 5 because this has become more than about being fake, it's something that (even objectively wrong) has other lasting effects on Vance. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10YEARS - which is just reverse crystalballing - has this to say: "Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?".
The section that was removed was a single short paragraph mentioning a hoax. It's not confusing. The hoax was widely reported on. Vance will likely be remembered for this. Not much time in the article is devoted to it, as the section was only a few sentences. Cortador (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an embarrassment

[edit]
We already have a section dedicated to this topic, refactoring this discussion into the other discussion —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we settled on removing his medals but made damn sure to add a section cracking jokes about him fucking a couch. (Redacted)2601:600:817F:16F0:ECF7:C037:B1C5:EC3F (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His medals are still there (both in the military section and in the info box). But you do raise a fair point as to the inclusion of the coach etc Editmakerer (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He makes a fair point that wikipedia is not censored? The information is unambigously due, removing it would be polical censorship which we don't do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't cover AOC's Alex Stein lawsuit[1] because it's not WP:LASTING, same thing applies here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LASTING is about the independent notability of events... Which does not apply in this context at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not about "censorship", but whether this rank juvenile unverified "hoax" belongs in a Biography -- a BLP. There is an issue of citation overkill, also, while FACTCHECK said in so many words that the story is bullshit. Also, there is no counterpoint, let alone Vance's words on the issue, which raises serious NPOV issues. Therefore the section has been tagged until we put this out on the curbside with the rest of the biased trash.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxes are no less signficant than anything else, if it gets significant coverage we cover it. If you think that there are sources which need to be included to address a NPOV issue then you are obligated to include them, if no such sources exist then there is no NPOV issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoaxes are not more significant than the basic and established facts.Any issue can be artificially inflated, especially by the news. Sources are not the issue, the way the section is written is. A section can still be unbalanced even when a variety of sources are used, if it only offers one view. We don't need a source to tell us the sun rises in the east. The section is obviously lacking other perspectives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A statement from The Telegraph, per the Associated Press, already used as one of the citation/sources in this section, was included in the 'Couch' section, stating that this "hoax" has been debunked. i.e.'Sex with a couch' was never mentioned in Vance's book. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and folded the couch hoax into the Public reactions section, I also trimmed a sentence that was added that seemed to duplicate what was already said in the second sentence. We already make it quite clear, in wikivoice, that this is a hoax and it is false. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I believe it should just removed completely. We don't need to RfC for removal, editors who want to keep it need to RfC for inclusion. I suspect there have been enough editors object to inclusion at this point to warrant such action. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this hoax is not at all important to the biography. If we let this one slide, then what's next? BLP's are not a gossip column, nor should it have a section for this sort of rubbish. If this ill inspired rumor had significant consequences in Vance's political life, we could consider it. All that this hoax has accomplished is to give various news sources something to rant about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In neutral terms we call "give various news sources something to rant about" "significant coverage" and its is grounds for inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. Your claim would open the door to any rumor that's peddled by the news media. Again, if the hoax had a significant effect on Vance's political life, or his life in general, we could consider inclusion. Many things have "significant coverage" -- this doesn't automatically establish WP:DUE where we have to include any and all such stories.  We have twelve sources/citations for this inflated nonsense, and I noticed none of the sources include ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, CNN, etc, all widely read news sources. Three of the existing sources cover the same bit concerning the Associated Press regarding the fact-Check issue. Please review WP:LASTING and WP:RECENTISM and WP:SENSATIONAL. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The door was open to any rumor that's peddled by the news media long before I ever started editing, if you want to shut that door its going to be a lot of policy and guideline rewriting. Have you ever reviewed those? I don't think you have, if you'd have ever looked at Wikipedia:Notability (events) you would have known that "Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." and that it didn't apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/08/comedian-sues-aoc-for-twitter-block-after-he-catcalled-her-outside-us-capitol.html

Remove the nonsense about the couch

[edit]

So let's remove this embarrassing nonsense where Wikipedia gives credence to stories about him fucking a couch, please. It's quite well established that the only reason it's in the article is due to politically motivated editors who see their job as Harris for President first, encyclopedia writer second. Fun's fun but it's time to stop.

Additional note: This comment was deleted, but baselessly as the "discussion above" has been stalled for several days so I am putting it back. I get it, the job of the various heavily involved editors is to run out the clock until the election but c'mon, guys, have a little tiny bit of shame. I'm sure that soon enough there will be some other baseless slander that can be slipped in and then protected while a month of desultory argument goes by. 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. Please do not cast aspirations of that sort at other editors. Regardless of your personal take on the issue, our process is to come to consensus, which produces the best quality articles, in our experience. The above discussion came to the conclusion to keep a mention, but to make it clear that it was a hoax. This post should also not be under an edit request heading, as it is not an actual request for edit, rather, it is a discussion of content.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article is in no way "best quality" when it is edited out of spite, malice, and bias. This can be seen with the amount of overall negativity and removal of positive aspects of J.D. Vance, like the medals. Vance's comments on childless women were clearly jokes and certainty don't need its own sub-section for it. This article saying him "linking childlessness to sociopathy" and endorsing far-right activists were likely done out of political bias as well. I'd recommend for you to stop being ignorant to the constant editing of this article of political bias and removing talk pages calling it out. If editing out of pure bias is appealing to you, then maybe Wikipedia editing is not for you. Bias in articles is incredibly discouraged by Wikipedia, and it is against the community guidelines and wikiquette as it makes articles untrustworthy, low-quality, and misinforming. Cavdan2024 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed just above ad nauseam, there are significant reliable sources that have covered the hoax. The general consensus at the time was that it was WP:DUE, and while consensus can change, nothing so far demonstrates that it has. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of negative aspects of a person's life does not make the article biased against that person. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, leaving out such aspects even if they are covered by RS would introduce bias. Cortador (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made no reference to the quality of the article. I said that we follow consensus, which was reached after a fashion. You should retract what you said about me, as it likely violates the no personal attacks rule.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shitposts in biographies. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious that there is no consensus for inclusion at the moment with a plurality of editors arguing it doesn't belong in a BLP based on WP:RECENT and WP:DUE concerns. Editors wishing to keep it in the BLP need to open an RfC to find consensus per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A plethora of replies (like Traumnovelle above) does not make for a plurality. There's consensus for inclusion; if you disagree, it is up to you to demonstrate that this is the case. Cortador (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the RfC where consensus was formed? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the comment where I claimed consensus was established via a RfC specifically? Cortador (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the long running discussion (see WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS) on this matter it's pretty clear that WP:NOCON exists for inclusion. Per DC, my assumption had been that there was an RfC on the matter. Given that's not the case, WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE clearly applies here. I suggest you self revert and open an RfC per policy. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that when there is no clear consensus, In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The longest discussion above is almost exclusively one editor supporting removal based on the (frankly absurd) claim that there are no secondary sources. Word count doesn't make for lack of consensus. Cortador (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the current discussion on this Talk page (didn't even bother going into the Archive) and the most recent discussion on the BLP/N and counted 10 editors (not including IP editors) who expressed an objection towards inclusion of this in Vance'd BLP. Shall I ping them? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking me? Cortador (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're suggesting there is consensus for inclusion when there is not. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want my permission to ping a bunch of editors? Cortador (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was obvious, you could either gracefully back away from the comment "only one person is objecting" to this, but it sounds like an editor is going to open an RfC where we can ping everyone who has weighed in on this topic matter. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly against my better judgment, I would throw my hat in the ring in favor of keeping the current form of the information, and if so decided, link to a separate article with more in depth information. I also think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that it isn't a notable hoax, just based of the sources gathered at the top of the page.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I back away from a claim I never made? Cortador (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A formal RFC is not required to determine consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had longstanding consensus from the discussion above. One editor playing WP:IDHT for weeks, then casting aspersions about other editors doesn't change that. Consensus can change, but the burden is on those wishing to make the change to demonstrate that it has. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me where consensus was ever formed, with multiple editors (I've counted no less than 10 logged-in editors) entirely opposed to inclusion since the beginning across multiple discussions on multiple talk pages and noticeboards. Also, stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS, or prove it with diffs. The WP:ONUS is on editors seeking to include the disputed content. Today there were multiple editors who removed the content entirely stating policy behind the removal, so either open an WP:RfC or we can go to WP:ANEW with the issue, because to me it's clear there is either WP:NOCON or a clear consensus to exclude covering the hoax. Continuing to attempt to include without clear consensus has become a slow moving WP:EDITWAR. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've counted no less than 10 logged-in editors WP:NOTAVOTE It's not clear to me where consensus was ever formed During the first few days of discussion above, with only a lone dissent. across multiple discussions on multiple talk pages and noticeboards WP:FORUMSHOP Also, stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS, or prove it with diffs. Lolwut? The WP:ONUS is on editors seeking to include the disputed content. Already have that. The onus is on those wishing to remove it to demonstrate that consensus has changed. So either start an RFC to propose removal or stop edit warring, because to me it's quite clear that there's been consensus for nearly a month. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, this is getting pathetic. Can someone just start a damn Rfc? Please? this whole argument is a waste of time and editor effort. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you're the guy who, below, thinks this stupid couch-fucking hoax from some Twitter rando is going to be the centerpiece of biographies of Vance in the future. It's quite clear that you have a strong negative opinion of the subject of this article and that affects your editing such that you should gracefully remove yourself from the discussion. 2601:600:817F:16F0:9DB3:A3E3:5972:3194 (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said that it would be remembered about him. Then, I advocated to use the formal process required to gain a consensus during a hotly contested argument. Also, you should make an account, as it makes it way easier to pick you out in conversations. Regards, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure they were replying to me, luckily, I never said this stupid couch-fucking hoax from some Twitter rando is going to be the centerpiece of biographies of Vance in the future. I did say it would very likely be part of biographies of the subject in the future, and I stand by that prediction. As noted by someone else, this will likely be like the Howard Dean scream (Dean scream) that he's known for now. And I just want to be crystal clear here: nobody here is saying JD Vance had sex with a couch, we're saying there's been widespread and persistent coverage of a hoax that has long since been proven false that he had sex with a couch. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(BAD) RFC: Inclusion of couch hoax

[edit]
RfC withdrawn

Apologies, see [3] but folks want to do a better structured RFC with a clearer question. Apologies again.


Should couch hoax be included in this article? How much coverage/where? Should it be part of this article, or another? There are continuing questions about whether the couch hoax should be included on this article. There has been talks of starting an RFC, so I'll start one. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Survey - Should couch hoax be included in this article? How much coverage/where? Should it be part of this article, or another?

[edit]
  • Delete from this article. Possibly Weak move the couch material to JD Vance couch controversy and let that page have it, but we shouldn't include or link this biography to a WP:GOSSIP hoax from some random stoned twitter user who wanted to mess with JD Vance on an encyclopedic biography, even with all the coverage. Sidenote, I think Kcmasterpc was talking about WP:10YT, and agree even another article may not survive such a test, but I think its fine to have that argument about keeping or deleting that content if the public eye moves away from the couch hoax for some time Bluethricecreamman (talk)

Further Discussion

[edit]

Paragraph removed without consensus

[edit]

With this edit, @Rhododendrites: removed the paragraph under discussion that had consensus without demonstrating a consensus to remove it. Their edit summary states for contentious BLP material, the burden is on those who want to include it to demonstrate that there's consensus. I don't see consensus to include this. personally, I think it's possible there's a way to include it, but it's not as a "public reaction" to Vance as it's just a hoax. if there were an "in popular culture" or something maybe? Rhododendrites, can you please specify what you view is contentious BLP material that warrants ignoring existing consensus and which specific WP:PAG you are using to justify removal? The only straw-poll like discussion above attempting to demonstrate a consensus (whether it's for continued inclusion, an RFC, or immediate removal) is, at best, "no consensus" for removal. You should self-revert absent evidence of a consensus to remove. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be contentious to report that Vance fucked a couch, even if dressed up with qualifiers to absolve editors from responsibility for promulgating the hoax. Anyone adding that material without the support of a formal RfC would be violating WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about is "contentious"? The paragraph in the article about the hoax was supported by 10+ sources. Can you present sources that contradict the information, i.e. which would actually make this a contentious issue? Cortador (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The material remains at Hillbilly Elegy, and if it remains on Wikipedia then that’s the best place for it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever edited this article or talk page. I saw the discussion at BLPN, looked at the material in question, looked at this talk page, didn't see a clear consensus to include, and so removed it per the rationale quoted above. I see your insistence that there's consensus to include it, but don't actually see that above, and we need consensus to include rather than to remove. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole said, "at best, "no consensus" for removal", per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:NOCON the WP:PAG is (emph. mine, referenced from NOCON) In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. Seriously, open an RfC if you feel strongly about inclusion, otherwise WP:DROPTHESTICK.
@Cortador Sources exist that refute the claim, hence the hoax. Additionally, WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies because not everything about JD Vance needs to be in his biography. If a WP:PRIMARY source, such as another book by JD Vance were published about the election that references this hoax, I could see an argument for inclusion. Furthermore, it is self-evident by sheer volume of discussion -- that I would argue such designation applies. Consider this essay on contention, esp. "we are having an argument, so the claim is ipso facto contentious." Also, WP:PLA is another good essay to consider. Additionally, BLP and AP are designated contentious topics as a matter of policy. see WP:CT/BLP and WP:CT/AP.
As mentioned above by @Anythingyouwant, the hoax is covered in the Hillbilly Elegy article, also I floated the possibility of adding a Misinformation category in 2024 US Presidential Election article, which might be something worth considering (it's also worth considering how it may turn into a breeding ground for more edit warring).
Also, as a final note, I feel like we're starting to wander into WP:BLUDGEON territory, so I'd invite everyone to go read WP:DEADHORSE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kcmastrpc Every source already says this is a hoax, and that was in the article. Can you present sources that contradict that information?
Literally no editor demands that the couch sex thing is presented as truth on Wikipedia; you are strawmanning. Cortador (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally dozens of editors are objecting to it's inclusion on Vance's BLP; hence WP:NOCON. You are WP:IDHT and completely disregarding others editors arguments presented and policy on the matter. Either take it to RFC or stop wasting everyone's time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you present sources that contradict the information that was in the article i.e. making this issue actually "contentious"? You are not doing yourself a favour by presenting an argument and the being able to back it up after having been asked three times. Cortador (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already did above, and I'm about to take this to AN/I if you continue to persist. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kcmastrpc No, you have not. Present the sources. Cortador (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm serious, go read WP:CT/BLP and WP:CT/AP, and follow along to WP:AC/CT. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq said above: "Of course it would be contentious to report that Vance fucked a couch, even if dressed up with qualifiers to absolve editors from responsibility for promulgating the hoax." Plenty of RS reported on this, and there is no disagreement on what happened: someone made a false claim, the claim was debunked, fallout of the hoax persist. If you think that is in any way "contentious", you need to present sources that contradict the information that was in the article.
Just saying that BLP topics are contentious per se as a argument for excluding information is meaningless. Cortador (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm literally drafting the AN/I report right now. Where is the policy that states there must be sources to contradict a given subject for it to be deemed contentious? Perhaps you mentioned it at some point, but this debate is almost 10x the size of the article and I'd be interested to learn about it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you stay on topic instead of making threats.
We aren't talking about a subject (Vance) being contentious. We are talking about the hoax inclusion being supposedly contentious. That is what the user above (Johnuniq) claimed, I disputed that. Furthermore, you claimed that you presented sources that contradict the information that was in the article (see here), and yet seem to be unable to link to whichever comment those were included in. Cortador (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kcmastrpc, you appear to be under the misguided belief that simply saying something is contentious over and over again is somehow going to allow you to ignore requests for sources that support your claim. You linked to Wikipedia:Contentious, and somehow managed to miss the entire forest for the trees (that being that the essay largely talks about unreliable or lack of sources leading to "contentious claims"; not a situation we're facing here with a significant number of high quality, reliable sources). I asked another editor, @Rhododendrites, to explain their actions and specifically to substantiate the contentious BLP material claim in their edit summary (which I note they have not, and have instead claimed no consensus existed, despite there being, at worst, WP:SILENTCONSENSUS, by virtue of the fact that the paragraph in question existed (sometimes in its own section!) for weeks).
Instead of addressing the questions around what you or Rhododendrites see to make your believe this is contentious (in so far as sources are concerned), you've leveled threats of taking this to WP:AN/I which you ultimately followed through with. I'm very sorry you can't quantify what makes this contentious, but in my view this shows just how weak that argument is. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to exclude material that is clearly WP:DUE, and the paragraph should be restored immediately. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kcmastrpc, have you consulted WP:Summary style? Only the “most important” stuff in Hillbilly Elegy should be repeated in J.D. Vance. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the argument I was trying to make with Talk:JD_Vance#UNDUE_inclusion_of_reception_of_Hillbilly_Elegy, however, I didn't have the time or energy to really pursue that debate. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, @Cortador and @Locke Cole, I feel like you and your side are correct. However, this has spiraled out of control. Would you be willing to engage in binding arbitration with an uninvolved admin if @Kcmastrpc and the rest of the proponents of removal would also agree? I feel like this or a formal RfC needs to happen, because as it is this is a slow moving edit war.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose inclusion – This is in article Hillbilly Elegy, where it belongs. I can’t see how a hoax belongs in two articles. In general, unless it can be shown to have had a material effect, I would think it belongs in an article about the person voicing the hoax, not the victim. If someone feels a need for inclusion, start an RfC. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally support including the sentence, I agree that an RFC is needed at this point to end the dispute. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs either in Hillbilly Elegy, an article covering the current political campaign, or both. The hoax is only around because of the book and the campaign, and it does not provide any useful info about the person, which should be the criterion for inclusion here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose inclusion. This whole couch meme/hoax/whatever you call it belongs in the Hillbilly Elegy article (which is already there at Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention) and/or the campaign article, but not this main BLP article (per WP:VNOT, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:UNDUE, etc). Some1 (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to understand how it's relevant in Hillbilly Elegy, but not relevant to the subject of the hoax. Can you elaborate on the logic behind this, as you've cited a number of policies (WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:VNOT) which do not apply, and appear to misunderstand others (WP:DUE). Invoking WP:VNOT also brings us head-on with WP:NPOV; you can't have a neutral article on this subject that attempts to omit a major viral hoax that received (and continues to receive) significant coverage in reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbilly Elegy

[edit]

Unbalanced negative description of Hillbilly Elegy

[edit]

The only sources describing Vance's book either make it out to be pro-Trump propaganda (it wasn't) or some liberal critics.

What about the fact that it was best-seller? What about the fact that it had near universal acclaim -- until Vance dared run for office as a Republican, and now suddenly everything you read about it is negative, fake criticisms.

https://bookmarks.reviews/reviews/all/hillbilly-elegy-a-memoir-of-a-family-and-culture-in-crisis/

Here are some quotes, from "reputable sources" such as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Economist, The New York Times, and more:

"...a quietly thoughtful, poignant look at life in the very places where the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee has garnered the strongest support. It provides a respite (and a much needed one, at that) from the shouting and the sheer noise of today’s political climate, with Vance choosing instead to adopt a tone of thoughtful reflection with a genuine desire for mutual understanding ... while the political timeliness of Hillbilly Elegy is undeniable, Vance truly shines when he takes us with him 'down the holler' into an America we thought we knew — until we realized how little of it we truly understood."


"Hillbilly Elegy is a beautiful memoir but it is equally a work of cultural criticism about white working-class America ... [it's] a riveting book, but it has a sobering message."

"America’s political system and the white working class have lost faith in each other. J.D. Vance’s memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, offers a starkly honest look at what that shattering of faith feels like for a family who lived through it ... You will not read a more important book about America this year."

"...a compassionate, discerning sociological analysis of the white underclass that has helped drive the politics of rebellion, particularly the ascent of Donald J. Trump. Combining thoughtful inquiry with firsthand experience, Mr. Vance has inadvertently provided a civilized reference guide for an uncivilized election, and he’s done so in a vocabulary intelligible to both Democrats and Republicans ... Whether you agree with Mr. Vance or not, you must admire him for his head-on confrontation with a taboo subject" 

71.247.12.176 (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you partially raise a fair point. IMO, if we add a short summary of what the memoir contains, and remove the very long quote from William Easterly, while keeping in the criticism from The New Republic, that would make this section more balanced. I don't think the solution is to dump in even more reviews of it in this article (rather than in Hillbilly Elegy).
At the time it was released in 2016, the book was certainly very popular, but there was also some liberal criticism even back then. Many liberals enjoyed the book as they found comfort in its portrayal of poor whites as (frankly) stupid, which provided them an explanation for Trump's victory (see a great write-up from The Guardian), and some of that liberal praise has definitely been retconned as Vance became a Republican and the distance from 2016 grew. But even in 2016, there was still liberals criticizing the book for it's portrayal of poor whites as stupid or as basically "welfare queens", which the currently cited contemporaneous article in The New Republic demonstrates, so I think that is fair to include as well. Endwise (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? Endwise (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE inclusion of reception of Hillbilly Elegy

[edit]

I've checked a few other notable authors BLPs, and they do not include reception covering their works. Well, except for Michelle Obama where they only include her nomination for some award. Joe Biden, Barrack Obama, George Bush, etc. all only mention that they've authored a book and it's linked for the reader to learn more. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcmastrpc WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a sufficient argument to exclude or include content. I suggest you revert your edit. Cortador (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced NPOV concerns, also per OTHERCONTENT; Dismissing such concerns by pointing to this essay is inappropriate. so, let's take into consideration that articles that have been through some form of quality review—such as featured articles, good articles, or articles that have achieved a WikiProject A-class rating—are often the way they are for good reasons informed by site policy. If such articles have remained current with policy since their promotion, they are often more compelling examples to illustrate arguments. Margaret Thatcher is another good example. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to revert, but I'm definitely interested in other editors weighing in on inclusion because WP:BLPRESTORE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't mention NPOV here or in the edit summary. Since you mentioned this is UNDUE (a policy you did actually mention): what point of view do you believe is not represented here. Cortador (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UNDUE is a policy under NPOV, but I'll explain. Individuals critical receptions about an author's work are UNDUE for a BLP because they represent a extremely small minority viewpoint. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Such receptions would belong in an "ancillary article", such as the article covering the book itself. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which other viewpoint do you think should be represented instead? What other sources are there that demonstrate that the reception previously cited is a fringe viewpoint? Cortador (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any individuals viewpoints on the book should be represented in Vance's BLP, and for good reason. Such viewpoints belong in the article about his book, which they are, and that's why I removed all of them from his BLP. Now, I'm going to step away from this discussion and let other editors weigh in. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question: why do you think these viewpoints are fringe viewpoints? And which other viewpoints are, in your opinion, non-fringe? Cortador (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the views are fringe at all. They are well documented (liberal view on poor whites for example). And in regard to the reception of the book being covered in his bio, the book is a prominent part of his background, which isn't the case for many others who have books out (Obama, Bush, Biden among them). Hells Bells7 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many politicians have self-published memoirs/biographies -- so I don't see how this is any different. I'm not going to engage in edit warring, but WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS apply here, so you may want to consider whether or not restoring the content I removed citing NPOV concerns could be construed as such. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whataboutism aproach doesn't work... In theory something can be due here and not due in the bio of any other politican who has self-published memoirs/biographies... (also note that Elegy was not self published, but we'l roll with your errors) Thats just not how wikipedia works, how something is done somewhere has no impact on how its done somewhere else. In this case including a significant amount of the reception seems due, to me your NPOV concerns aren't NPOV concerns they're whataboutism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the section on the book is to essentially summarise the most important parts of the article Hillbilly Elegy for Vance's biography. Commentary about this particular book is particularly noteworthy, and actually makes up the majority of our corresponding article. For Vance, this was a pivotal part of his career and shot him into politics. At a time, many liberals saw him as key to understanding rural white voters, as they saw the book as providing them a comforting explanation for Trump's win (that rural or poor whites voted for Trump because they are, basically, stupid). This narrative, and corresponding counter-narratives and other commentary about his book, are an important part of his early political career.
I think the examples you provide are helpful. For example, compare this to Joe Biden's memoirs Promises to Keep or Promise Me, Dad. Those books are irrelevant for Biden's career, and they also didn't spawn a wave of commentary and takes and cultural discourse as they are entirely uncontroversial. Of course our articles are going to write about these memoirs differently. They're very different. Endwise (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an important point, in this context we're talking about a book which launched a political career not a political career which launched a book(s). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting power for parents

[edit]

In the opening paragraphs of JD Vance, it speaks about his support of increased voting power for parents, but this is not a key policy position of JD and has been dismissed repeatedly as a mere thought experiment. Presently there's too much of an emphasis on this fringe position and its coverage as a core policy position of JD is rather disingenuous and intended to defame him. Source: https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-backtracks-comments-more-votes-parents-us-presidential-election-donald-trump-1937669 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freespeech2024 (talk • contribs)

Wozal, Editmakerer, Davefelmer, I see that there's been a back and forth about whether the lede should reference Vance's statement about giving parents more voting power than those without children. I agree that it doesn't belong there, per WP:UNDUE. Unlike his frequent criticism of childlessness, and his repeated use of variations on "sociopath" (see, e.g., these CNN examples), I've only seen evidence of his having made the voting power statement once. If you're aware of him having proposed it more than once, please say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a one-time, off-hand comment. I don't know why it should be in the lead when he has said so much else about this topic. Endwise (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried removing it but someone who admittedly has no experience editing in BLP/politics insisted on restoring the content repeatedly. I endorse removing it from the lead as it's a rote duplication of the prose that is in the Political Views section (which is in the lead of the Political positions of JD Vance, and should be removed there as well). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A recent deletion stated the following: "Based on context, it seems pretty obvious that he was being sarcastic as a response to the supposed democratic proposal to lower voting age to 16 with an outlandish remark for which he knew he would be criticized, rather than having such be an actual policy statement. This whole sentence seems suspect, what with the other reference of linking childlessness to sociopathy, but this one is certainly undeserved, especially as part of the first 4 paragraphs:"
However, it’s not our role to assume intent. There are other issues that raise red flags for me, which I’ll discuss later. I wasn’t the one who reverted to the 'established version,' which had been deleted along with newly added lead information. The original lead was restored without the new information, which was moved to another article by a different user.
The next deletion of this stated the following: "Not much of an established version, as it had been removed and then was replaced and never touched again. And again, the whole sentence, both parts, are iffy at best. It would make most sense if it just said “Vance is an outspoken critic of childlessness” and then went into more detail in the main article, without any mention of the second clause for the reasons mentioned in my prev edit"
This time, the edit seemed to shift its reasoning for the reversion. It felt like me a case of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" instead of its original reasoning.
The original statement Vance made regarding this was made in July 2021, as can be shown here. A shorter version can be found here. This is notable because his statement contradicts the principle of 'one person, one vote.' He's had nearly 3 years to claim that this is a "mere thought experiment", but hasn't until recently when there seems to have been backlash to it. As such, I'm not sure I buy that argument. If we were to buy that argument every time a politician backtracked, there would be a lot of empty positions on many politician's pages. The retractions alone might be enough to cause headaches.
It's hard to ignore that this has been picked up by multiple media outlets that can be seen at the following: Washington Post, NYMAG/Intelligencer, National Catholic Register, Vox, The Hill among others. Presented within a larger context, this helps us gain a better understanding of what it means to say that Vance is an outspoken critic of childlessness. Statements like the ones on raising grandchildren is ‘whole purpose of postmenopausal female, making judgement calls on those without children, "childless cat ladies" reflect on why we're starting to see why the media is seeing him as having pro-natalism views. See Business Insider, Axios, The New Yorker, New York Times (which mentions For Mr. Vance and other Republicans like him, provisions like the child tax credit are part of a broader “pro-natalist” project encouraging women to have more children — a key plank of a family-oriented, conservative social vision. Wozal (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: the question is whether this specific content belongs in the lead, not whether it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. There are many examples of him saying things that support "Vance is an outspoken critic of childlessness" (another part of the same lead sentence). There's more than one example of him saying things that "link[] it to sociopathy" (ditto). But as best I can tell, there's only one example of him "advocating that parents should have more voting power than non-parents." Yes, plenty of media reported on it. But plenty of media have reported on all sorts of things that aren't in the lede. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key issue here is the weight and relevance of this content in the lead. While Vance may have mentioned the idea of parents having more voting power only once, the extensive media coverage it received underscores its significance. This single statement has become a notable part of how his views are publicly perceived, making it relevant for the lead. Its inclusion alongside other points helps provide a more comprehensive understanding of his stance on family and societal issues. Wozal (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there's "extensive media coverage" of all sorts of things that aren't in the lead. Even focusing just on his comments about childlessness, his comment about "childless cat ladies" got more attention, but that's not in the lead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: It's important to keep in mind that the lead is often the only thing read by readers. Due to Vance being a politician, people would likely expect to read about his policies, accomplishments, views and statements. However, given his recent (and relatively short) tenure thus far, there haven't been any policies which he has implemented. Of equal concern is that Vance seems to have retracted a number (regardless of reasons provided) of his earlier positions which nearly makes that more of an identifying feature of his rather than any of his policies.
In some articles, we've talked about driving accidents that occurred once and have debated adding more lines to that. His stance on issues is of far greater importance than the fact that he was once a CNN contributor (which remains unclear of how long). In its current form, the reader still doesn't know who JD Vance is or the reasons he supports or doesn't support several issues. We currently don't even cover falsehoods Vance has spread like this one or how "every imaginable issue" has changed as mentioned here. Wozal (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SENSATIONAL opinion articles, especially during election season, may be worth covering, but I don't see any particular reason such specific details are WP:DUE for inclusion in the lede. Readers expect a summary in the first few paragraphs of a BLP, not some in-depth pontification foisted upon them based on a statement he made years ago. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline emphasizes the need for a balanced representation of viewpoints based on their prominence in reliable sources, not just opinion articles. While the statement in question was made years ago, its lasting impact and significant media coverage have kept it relevant. Including it in the lead doesn’t delve into excessive detail but rather acknowledges a key aspect of his public persona that has shaped broader discussions about his views. The goal isn’t sensationalization as your statement appears to claim but to provide a well-rounded summary that reflects his public perception. The so-called " in-depth pontification" is exactly what Vance has called for. ETA: It appears that WP:SENSATIONAL is being used here incorrectly. Direct quotes are really hard to use in that way. As such, it appears that this is nothing more than "Alphabet Soup" as has previously been discussed. Wozal (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to argue alphabet soup when you have no policy to back up your argument. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s also easy to dismiss a point as 'alphabet soup' when you choose not to engage with the specifics as I've discussed above. If there’s something in my argument that you disagree with, I’m happy to discuss it in detail. Let’s stick to the facts and policy to move this conversation forward constructively. Let's remain civil to ensure this doesn't go into Wikipedia:No personal attacks territory. Wozal (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the fact that in an entire article devoted to Vance's political stances, his voting proposal gets only one sentence in the body, despite his overall stances on family, childlessness, and divorce having it's own section with several paragraphs. Or consider the fact that his opposition to abortion only gets a word in the lead here, and a word in the body, when combined coverage of all that he's said about abortion is much larger than the coverage of his voting proposal. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SENSATIONAL is part of a notability guideline, how does it apply to the opinion articles? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to the reasoning for the reversion given by Dave, that’s why the reasoning “changed”. It was the same reasoning, just added on the fact that it wasn’t much of an established version Editmakerer (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also,why would he go and say it was a thought experiment when that much is obvious based on context? He states a proposal from democrats he doesn’t like and counters it with a proposal that they wouldn’t like, that he literally explains why it would be unpopular in general or whatever (doesn’t that violate the principle of etc etc). The only motivation one would have to do so is if people like you were to be like,” wow I can’t believe he would make such a thing a legitimate policy standpoint even though it was the only time he said such a thing and the context in which he said it indicates he was not being serious” as you are now. That media outlets have picked up another one of his foolish remarks and run with it, putting their own spin on it, doesn’t make the truth of the circumstances bend to their will, nor does it make it even worthy of being put in the lede; as others have said, there are other issues regarding him that have been significantly covered yet remain absent from the lede. You accuse me of removing it because I simply don’t like it, but it seems to me you’re projecting: you only want to include it because you don’t like JD. Editmakerer (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador, adding you to the discussion here, since you're now involved in the editing back and forth and likely weren't aware of this Talk page discussion. So far, there are more people arguing against including it in the lead than for including it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion Since this was removed based on WP:DUE - What viewpoint to you believe is not represented here? Cortador (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
I would argue this particular viewpoint marginally falls under this policy, because it's really obvious to most people that this is being spun and he's already walked back his statements on the matter. JD Vance has been quoted invoking Godwin's Law at some point, but we don't stuff it in the lead because NOTEVERYTHING. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources on Vance's statement are easy to find. This has been reported on by Snopes, MBC News, the Washington Post etc. How is that an "extremely small minority"? Cortador (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of sources that cover what politicians say is irrelevant. Politicians say a lot of controversial things, manymost of them don't rise to the level of belonging in a lead. It's whether those statements have any lasting impact or consequence. If such viewpoints were enacted into policy and/or became a platform the party adopted then I would say it rises into DUE territory. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We include what source report on, and the amount of sources reporting on something absolutely factors into that. Statements becoming policy is not an inclusion criterion; you are proposing original research. Cortador (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:IMPACT factors into that, since this is an essay I'll be blunt: In short: who cares and why?. It's not WP:OR to show evidence (by reliable sources) behind "who cares and why?". If we can't do that, then it probably doesn't belong in the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources care, and that's what matters. Wikipedia is a reflection of what sources report on, and the parent thing got enough traction to warrant inclusion. Cortador (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but what belongs in the lead is another matter entirely (and one that is based on consensus, like everything else). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus follows WP's guidelines and processes which is based on credible sources. Neglecting that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.
Consensus is not based on voting. Wozal (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether it belongs in the lead. Per WP:UNDUE, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to ... prominence of placement." He's said many things about childlessness. I wouldn't focus on any specific statement in the lead. As I pointed out earlier, the lead only highlights his anti-abortion views with a single word, despite that having gotten much more attention. And if you were going to focus on one of his childlessness criticisms, it would make more sense to focus on his "childless cat ladies" comment, which got more attention. But I don't think that belongs in the lead either. It's a matter of the overall weighting relative to the rest of the content in the lead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What viewpoint should be more prominent then in your opinion? Cortador (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the lead, I would leave it as "Vance is an outspoken critic of childlessness, linking it to sociopathy." Again: if his opposition to something like abortion only gets mentioned with a single word as part of a longer list, despite his various statements about abortion having gotten much more combined attention, why should the lead single out his suggestion about parents having more voting power? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a viewpoint on a topic, which is what WP:DUE is about. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the referent of "That"? Please clarify. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The points you brought up. They are not viewpoints on Vance's comments about parental rights and children. WP:DUE is about the representation of viewpoints. Cortador (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I already pointed out, one of the elements of WP:UNDUE is that "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to ... prominence of placement." And per MOS:LEADREL, "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject." Think about all of the things that RSs have covered about Vance and then think about what is in the lead. There are all sorts of things that have gotten more RS media coverage but aren't in the lead, such as his "childless cat ladies" comment (which gets the better part of a paragraph in the body of the article) or his relationship with Peter Thiel (a relationship that's mentioned many times at different places in the body of the article). Including this in the lead gives it more weight than it merits. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Editmakerer,
Please don't ever tell me I did something when I focused on the events based on the reasons giving. At no point, did I accuse you of directly of something but rather that the inconsistencies felt like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because of the difference in reasoning giving (and due to the longer standing content being deleted in the middle of some reversions on new content; which the editor restored to the original version when their content was reverted). You are not your argument. While these details may seem minor, there's a large difference between the two. It's these minor details in understanding policies which increase our chances of having productive conversations and are able to ensure edits are based on following WP's policies.
I could see how one could view JD’s remarks as more of a rhetorical device than a serious policy suggestion, and I agree that context is crucial (though made even more complicated because he's had more than 3 years to say it was a "thought experiment" but didn't. We can't simply dismiss a statement as a joke whenever someone claims it was, as that would let them avoid accountability and undermine our trust in anything else they say. The challenge, though, is that once a statement enters the public sphere, it’s open to various interpretations—some of which may not align with the original intent. Widespread coverage from reputable media sources makes it worthy of consideration though.
As for the inclusion in the lede, it’s about ensuring that the coverage accurately reflects what’s most significant or impactful to the public discourse/how much attention it is receiving by said media outlets. If the remark is being widely discussed or misinterpreted, it might deserve mention—if only to clarify the context. Let’s focus on representing the situation fairly, keeping the broader context and public interest in mind.
I think there are stronger leads we could have to broaden it, but I think it's important that we pay attention to credible sources. People likely expect a politician's views, stances, statements or accomplishments to appear within the lead of said politician's page. Leads are meant to inform and with high quality sources they do. Some examples can be found here, here, and here. Wozal (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wozal and the arguments that it should stay in due to it being discussed in the article body and the prominence it has received in media coverage across various sources. Davefelmer (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are all sorts of things that got more media coverage but aren't in the lead, such as "childless cat ladies" (which gets the better part of a paragraph in the body of the article) or his relationship with Peter Thiel (who is mentioned 6 times at different places in the body of the article). So far, no one who wants this in the lead has made an argument for why it is more important than those other things that are absent from the lead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable veteran

[edit]


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): In the lede, change "is an American politician, author, and Marine veteran" to "is an American politician and author"
  • Why it should be changed: Not notable for being a Marine or a veteran. No valid reasons opposing the change have been given in previous discussion.

66.69.214.204 (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOT CHANGED RS cover his military service extensively, and it's covered exhaustively in the body. Established consensus supports that MOS:LEADREL applies and that's further supported by WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

JD Vance name change LEGAL?

[edit]

Did he change his name legally? How is his name going to be listed on the ballot? CECEFO (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-high school education.

[edit]

Mr Vance had a lot to say about education and children. It would be helpful to understand where he obtained his early K-8 schooling. Was it public or private. Were his teachers male or female. Did they have biological children or none? 67.45.112.89 (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JD_Vance&oldid=1243511211"