Talk:JD Vance/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Current lack of laws passed by Vance

From this Spectrum News source, I recently added Data from mid-July 2024 showed that none of the legislative bills Vance has sponsored or cosponsored have become law in the United States; at that point in time, none of his 57 sponsored bills had passed the Senate, while Vance had given 45 speeches in the Senate by then. I think the content is relevant (about Vance), important (he is a legislator and we are reporting on his legislative activity) and well sourced enough. It was removed by MatthewDalhousie with the reason that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a list of things that didn't happen. Would like to bring up for discussion to see if other editors support or oppose this content, and MatthewDalhousie can of course weigh in more. starship.paint (RUN) 07:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you've represented my view fairly, thank you, @Starship.paint. It's the flip side of the WP warning about crystal balls. I understand the article needs to be about the subject and what they've done, not what they might have done, might do, or whether the things they've done will or won't work out. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewDalhousie: - I’m really struggling to understand the “crystal ball” argument. What Vance has done, in his first 18-19 months, is sponsor 57 bills that have not become law. This is not a prediction. There is no “might”, no “will”. This is true given the data point of mid-July 2024. We are not making any predictions beyond mid-July 2024. starship.paint (RUN) 07:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Might have overcomplicated things, my apologies @Starship.paint.

In short, good articles don't talk about things that didn't happen.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, just wondering if Spectrum News has editorial policies, and an actual editor, and if they retract their mistakes, as per expectations for WP:RS, would be good to cover that off. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewDalhousie: … but things did happen. He sponsored 57 bills in the Senate. That is 57 things. He gave 45 speeches. They happened. You removed that too. starship.paint (RUN) 08:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Can we agree to put things in that happened? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Providing that Spectrum News is actually a reliable source, of course. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewDalhousie: - I did put in things that happened, though you didn't appear to recognize them as such. Editorial policies. Editors. Journalists. Corrections.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] starship.paint (RUN) 10:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, if you put in a sentence about things that did happen, that would be fine. And if I combed out some good material as I removed the bad, you have my apologies. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewDalhousie: - I have added a reworded version: Data from mid-July 2024 showed that Vance had made 45 Senate speeches and sponsored 57 legislative bills, of which none of the bills had been passed by the Senate yet; Vance had also co-sponsored 288 bills at that point, of which only 2 passed both the Senate and the House, but the 2 bills were vetoed by President Joe Biden starship.paint (RUN) 13:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I have not done so yet, but I intend to write about the 2 cosponsored bills [6] [7] that got to Biden and were vetoed, that is if I can find reliable sources discussing them in the context of JD Vance. starship.paint (RUN) 03:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find reliable sources that highlighted Vance's role on these 2, so not adding. starship.paint (RUN) 15:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Good morning from Australia, @Starship.paint. What you have recommended here seems absolutely solid to me and absolutely coheres with BLP guidelines as I understand them. Nicely done. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No need of other names in Lede voice

His other names are mentioned in the body under Early life section, and it seems WP:UNDUE to add them into the Lead:First sentence, especially, as he has two earlier names, his birth name, James Donald Bowman and later name James David Hamel.

Also there is no confusion about his name, and all WP:RS sources address him by his current name JD Vance

The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/15/vance-trump-veterans-appeal/

Financial Times Donald Trump picks Ohio senator JD Vance as 2024 running mate https://www.ft.com/content/aef1a7cf-13ee-4c8a-9509-e7218aa2429a

Politico https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/04/republican-veterans-anti-interventionists-00164026

RogerYg (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. A couple of sentences in the early life section should cover it off, but that's all that's needed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it was a lot of room for trivia.Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of Hamel, but moving his birthname to a footnote is out of the MOS. Per MOS:BIRTHNAME; In these cases, the birth name may be given in the lead as well, if relevant. The fact there is "no confusion" with his name is not really relevant. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe we're aligned here, aren't we @Ser!? Agree that the "Bowman to Vance" material shouldn't be relegated to any footnote. It's an interesting part of the subject's story. So, two or three sentences in the "Early life" section. That's where it belongs and where it can be properly explored.

I personally believe that having it in the lede is simply confusing. The subject of the article is JD Vance. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

While I think only Vance is appropriate in lede, I am okay with including the Birth name Bowman, if other editors have good reasons. But, I would strongly oppose adding second name Hamel. RogerYg (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewDalhousie: Not fully aligned I'd say, as I believe it should remain in the lede while you believe it shouldn't - but hear me out. I think it's within the MOS per the aforementioned MOS:FIRSTNAME - like for similar cases (Bill DeBlasio for one) we have the birth name in the first sentence. The subject of that article is of course Bill DeBlasio, but it doesn't hurt to have his birth name mentioned in there as an encyclopedic piece of information. Glad the three of us have found consensus on Hamel however. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I always find myself admiring any editor who has seriously studied the guidelines. Can I ask a question @Ser! Following your argument, and leaving New York Mayors to one side, does the defunct name (a) need to be in the opening paragraph and (b) in bold?

I love good, plain, simple opening paragraphs. We all know the subject is chap called JD Vance. The opening few sentences should bolt into who he is, a couple things he's done, without the eyesore of bold type confusing what we're all meant to be calling him now.

I could, perhaps, be persuaded that, in the second paragraph, he was born X and later in life changed his name to Y.

Am I being reasonable?

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Haha, no need for admiration - it all comes with time and after seven years it comes easier. To answer your questions, I'd say following the Manual of Style on Wikipedia per the above guideline it's best on the first sentence. I wouldn't necessarily oppose the second paragraph but I think it'd look a tad weird and out of the ordinary compared to what other articles do. Put it this way, it'd be the only article I'm aware of where they include the subject's birth name a few lines down rather than immediately. The likes of Jack Benny, Joan Crawford, Elton John, Bob Dylan, the aforementioned Mr DeBlasio and many others have it as [Name for which the subject is famous] (born [Name for which the subject is not famous] [...] even though, as you say, we all know what they're called now and what they do. I get your views of what's most aesthetically pleasing, I just want to be consistent with our Manual of Style. Does this make sense? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense.

Now, forgive me, I don't know if its a genuine desire for readability, or for articles that are simply nice to look at, but I am totally okay with the examples of Jack Benny, Joan Crawford. They are excellent. The name, then the other name, both in bold; fine.

The Elton John and Bob Dylan examples are, well, not exemplary! Too much bloody boldness going, which punishes the eye, and stops the sentence from really developing. Hence I support the structure you refer to, namely, [Name for which the subject is famous] (born [Name for which the subject is not famous].

And so, I beg you, could we do this, with the name change bit in the second par.

Yours with-no-more-admiration-than-is-appropriate,

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the current version is fine personally, but I've had more than my 2c on it. I'll let any other editors reading pitch in so we can form a consensus of some variety. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually this was already addressed a few sections up. Yes, the current version is best. Different versions of names and titles that occur in bold in the opening lede statement are commonplace throughout WP -- nothing unusual. Since this is a biography of Vance's life, it is appropriate that his birth name be mentioned up front, without the reader having to comb through the article to find this basic detail. As for the name that came after his birth name, this would work in the appropriate section covering his early and personal life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, the accepted name, and the birth name to be mentioned up front.

The - shall we say - intermediate name, as was used for a few years, just after his birth, that could go in the early life section. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the current version is a reasonably stable consensus. Many editors would have anyway raised the issue of adding Birthname, so it's better to include it. RogerYg (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Mike Pence also served in the Marine Corps. So JD is not the first to have served

? Needs to be updated

He did not. It's his son Michael who does. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-vice-presidential-debate/marine-sons-of-pence-and-kaine-get-an-early-mention-in-the-debate/ -

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanley Gordon (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

I propose to delete the last sentence ("Vance has suggested that conservatives should use state power to forcefully re-staff institutions with ideological allies who will "actually take a side in the culture war") in lead and put it in political positions, because it's just a quote taken out of context, it doesn't have such big importance to be put in lead, and, therefore, is undue. 62.217.185.86 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is consensus needed to enforce wikipedia's own rules? The quote is completely undue, and the rule is not to put undue content in lead. 62.217.185.86 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Who decides that a quote is due or undue? Community consensus. What is the missing context? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is that taking one quote and putting it in lead doesn't make any sense. By this logic, we can put Hillary's "a basket of deplorables" comment in her article's lead too, because why not? Some sources they, that description of trump supporters was the main reason, why she lost. In any case, what makes that quote so important to put it in lead? 62.217.185.86 (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

First millennial on presidential ticket.

This should be added somewhere. 216.175.28.83 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this adds anything of value to the article. Generation divides are based off of marketing and advertising. They aren't based in science, overgeneralize groups of people based on disputed years, and promote stereotypes. There's a reason why we generally avoid putting fluff like this into articles. The youngest VP was John C. Breckinridge. If this were an age thing. I don't think there's a need to include 2nd youngest, 3rd youngest etc, since that would likely be seen as overly picking criteria to fit a narrative. Wozal (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Nicole Shanahan at the very least beat him to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Generations last no more than a decade or two. Every few elections there will be a person running from a new generation; that is not particularly interesting or surprising. If it was "youngest", I could see the point, but this is very much not that. Endwise (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

The phase "taxed at a higher rate than those with children" is linked to a Soviet Union tax on childlessness. It should be linked to the general concept. If that article does not exist, that link should be removed. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC) Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone else to more authoritatively comment on this, but my opinion is that the article we're linking to does cover the general concept; it's just that either the general concept was only ever implemented and given attention in these Soviet-style states or that it has been implemented or discussed elsewhere and the article simply fails to present a worldwide view of the topic. Thus, I think the wikilink should stay. In Case 1, Vance is talking about something only Soviet-style states have seriously considered, in which case, there's not really anything that can be done about that. In Case 2, the article simply needs to be expanded such that it covers the topic more broadly, but we're still linking to the correct article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024 (3)

98.237.32.169 (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closed.—No request. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Our Ohio Renewal

The first paragraph of this needs better sourcing. At the moment it seems to have a bunch of OR. Nil Einne (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Can you offer a specific example? Everything in that section appears to be cited to highly reliable sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

How so? The only sources given for these two sentences are archives captures of the website. Perhaps this info is in one of the other sources used elsewhere I didn't check, but at the very least the inline cites need to be improved. The archive captures should never be the sole inline source for anything as it makes it seem like editors are performing OR

According to a 2017 archived capture of the nonprofit's website, the members of the advisory board were Keith Humphreys, Jamil Jivani, Yuval Levin, and Sally Satel. According to a 2020 capture of the website, those four remained in those positions throughout the organization's existence.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I just did a quick check, and I didn't find any mention of 'humph' in any of the other sources given in the paragraph. Perhaps the info is in some other source elsewhere, but I'm thoroughly unconvinced that the paragraph is "cited to highly reliable sources" when 2 out of 5 of the sentences seem to come from editor analysis of archive captures of websites. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Photograph of Vance in drag

I just made this edit [8] if anyone has an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely seems WP:UNDUE -- this does not need an entire section, and we don't need to be using WP:HEADLINES either. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree based on the quality and quantity of the existing sources that until it becomes more widely covered, it shouldn't be included as WP:UNDUE. Specifically, I think that it should not currently be included at all, but moreover, I think that giving it an entire subsection such as the one Gråbergs removed is – at present – completely insane. The only outlets providing coverage for it are Newsweek (has become very tabloid-esque since 2013), PinkNews (generally reliable, but a pretty niche outlet given the overall scope of the article), The Daily Beast (fine for reliability for something like this, but quite opinionated in their coverage), and The New Republic (generally reliable like PinkNews, but similarly biased in their coverage; in my experience, they'll put out an article about basically any and every very minor aspect of the election). I think having the subsection there really just pollutes an otherwise pretty robust article, and it stands in contrast with the 'couch' subsection simply because that one has a pool of frankly dozens of high-quality sources that can and have been pulled from. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitly due somewhere on the page, but maybe not a whole section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It is undue at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Entirely UNDUE and does not belong on this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I know the consensus is clear but I have to chime in that I agree. Undue for now, and will remain so unless actually covered in great detail more than "oooh, look, we found photos of him in a wig!" ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You mean like this coverage[9]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is coverage in multiple RSs which is in more depth than just "We found old photos of this guy". If it goes on to impact the election in some meaningful way, or goes on to have some sort of cultural impact, yeah by all means include, but until then it's a mere piece of trivia. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All of the coverage we have is more in-depth than "We found old photos of this guy." If it does the things you say then it would be fully notable for a stand alone page, not just due for inclusion here (you're clearly using the wrong standard) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

What @Ser! is referring to is lasting impact such as Justin Trudeau blackface controversy, which btw, is barely maintained as a redirect to some very convoluted prose. Currently the "RS"'s reporting on this are not mainstream and until such time there is evidence to the contrary this is likely to be a Nothingburger and mere WP:PUFFERY. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much that, yeah. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So when the sources talk about the relevence of this in the context of Vance's political positions you don't read that part? I'm just not seeing how you get to an understanding that the coverage isn't a lot more than "oooh, look, we found photos of him in a wig!" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

In the opinion of one interviewed columnist, yeah. Sure, him dressing as a woman can be construed as drag (not everyone who throws on a wig and a skirt is doing drag), which can be tied into LGBT issues, which he has contrasting positions on if you take it as that. Maybe he said some anti-drag things - I can't find any myself. But the coverage for the most part (excluding your honourable OUT piece) remains sensationalist, and the consensus from this talk page remains clearly against including it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The elaboration into Vance's political history being relevent seems to be in all the sources, not just that one. Vance's campaign has also confirmed that the photos are authentic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

These seem to be mainstream sources in the topic area (LGBTQ issues)... Even if they weren't we count coverage from reliable sources the same as long as the area is within their expertise. We don't weight mainstream coverage higher than specialized coverage when it comes to due weight. (I also don't think that puffery would apply even if everything you said was correct, for it to be puffery the information would have to promote Vance) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Undue and not covered by high-quality RS.

73.123.180.173 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

JD VANCE’s height

I see his height listed as 5 feet 7 inches. How can that be when he appears to be about the same height or taller than candidate Donald Trump? 2601:19D:C080:5960:BD3C:BF8A:8AF6:2D0E (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:OR. We follow what the sources say. Cremastra (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, am I on crazy pills, or do we not mention height in the article at all? I even went to check the article history assuming this may have been recently removed, but no. I can find no evidence whatsoever that we had this information in the article when this IP wrote this comment or in any recent prior revision. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Height is really only important if the person is notable for their height e.g. Napoleon has a reputation for being short (though that was British propaganda - he was of average height), or if they have a profession where height is a key factor e.g. they are a basketball player. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps one day we'll add him to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I never realized such a page existed. Thanks. Abe Lincoln was a tall dude! Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You might enjoy Wikipedia coverage of American politics as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fascinating too. I recall some edits landing on Andy Ogles from an alleged congressional IP range last year. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Almost as tall as John Cleese.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And that was without the huge top hat. Cortador (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27, see [10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Google lists his height as 5'7". Wikipedia article does not include height. As noted, many images have him appearing taller than 5'7", so either better information needed (or he got his footwear from same place asRon DeSantis). David notMD (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Simone Biles thing

On Fox News in 2021, Vance made an unfortunate comment in hindsight about Simone Biles, now America's most decorated Olympic gymnast thanks to her dominance at the 2024 Paris games, and perhaps America's most popular athlete as I write this. (Fun pageview comparison here.) Vance's comment has been picked up by most major news outlets. Does it warrant inclusion here? Carguychris (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source/example? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Google "JD Vance Simone Biles". Examples here, here, and here. Sources meeting WP:RS are obviously picking it up the story, but WP:NOTNEWS arguably applies, which is why I decided to float the topic here before adding it to the main article. Carguychris (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was mostly worried about WP:SYNTH, but your sources are making their own analysis. Really to me it's a WP:DUE concern, I'd wait and see if there is additional RS covering this or if it's just passing news item as WP:NOTNEWS describes. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think NOTNEWS describes that, and the coverage Carguychris just gave you says that its due... You don't need additional when you have The Independent and the NYT (those are the ones you wait for when its just Vice or something like that, you don't ask for more after getting those). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

My concern was around the lasting notability part of NOTNEWS. DUE is part of that. I won't object to one or two sentences as part of a larger paragraph however, because as you say it's very reliably sourced. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no such part of NOTNEWS unless I'm missing something, there is a part about "enduring notability" but its clearly linked to Wikipedia:Notability. I think you fundementally misunderstand NOTNEWS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Locke is referring to WP:LASTING? That's really about the suitability of events to be their own page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, enduring was the word. I don't agree that I fundamentally misunderstood anything, but I also don't see why you're responding when I support inclusion based on the reliability of the sources. Unless we're arguing just to argue now? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't view it as arguing, I thought we were having a discussion and clearing up a genuine misunderstanding. I will desist, I did not mean to cause you undue stress. My apologies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Its due, but only as a sentence or two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back, @Locke Cole et al, I decided to sit on this for two weeks and see if there was any WP:LASTING coverage, and at this point, it looks like it was a flash in the pan. Carguychris (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even hear of this news at all until I read of it right here. starship.paint (RUN) 14:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Off-site Collusion to edit article.

Found a post on Reddit calling out a specific editor and telling others to edit the page. This seems like an issue and I'm not sure where to bring it up.

• Edited out external link*

Hooples (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't really an issue. WP:OFF and WP:OFFWIKI clearly articulate that this is perfectly fine (unless it becomes disruptive). I'd further encourage you to remove the link to the discussion as this could be construed as WP:NOSOCIAL. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, will edit out the link. Still learning, I just know this is a contentious thing. Hooples (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Placing the link back as a no-participation link, as this isn't at all what WP:NOSOCIAL means. Kc, please stop trying to wikilawyer. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS aside, my understanding is that directing people to such discussions runs the risk of WP:OUTING. I'm concerned about the WP:SAFETY of editors. Please WP:AGF. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you're taking it too far, please make a better effort in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hooples - I think this might be a case for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Can you start a case there for their review? Based off the external link, there was intent and it might even be considered disruptive. Per Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion, ""Consensus" in the Wikipedia context means consensus amongst comments posted on Wikipedia. Off-site discussions do not contribute to "consensus"." Wozal (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No one here is suggesting that consensus was gained from the off-site discussion, can you point out where this is the case? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

See many posts above.

Infoboxes often form consensus in how they're used to retain consistency. Per the Military Person Template..."any notable awards or decorations the person received; exhaustive lists should be worked into the prose. Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}."

Since edits appear to have been made from off-site discussion, this goes against the consensus which was already established here. If someone wanted to change long-standing consensus, they should be posting here; not posting remarks offsite which seem to be attacking users here and then changing things to fit whatever narrative they want. Wozal (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The "consensus" until twenty-four hours ago was clearly to include the medals, as they had been there for ages without controversy. It's only now that comparing military service has become a problem for the Democratic Party that "neutral" editors -- all of two of them -- came in here to scrub the article and claim that their politically sanitized work is now "consensus." Funny how that works! 2601:600:817F:16F0:B462:B3E9:7025:CF2 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear based on both what an infobox is supposed to accomplish and based on the well-established consensus around the use of the template that "awards" are meant to be reserved for the most notable ones, not a completely exhaustive list of them. It's pretty evident that this is manufactured outrage from an offsite brigading attempt to use Wikipedia as a political soapbox rather than as a serious encyclopedia. The sort of consensus being discussed here is more broad than just the scope of this article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The claim of including all medals "until twenty-four hours" ago was not what consensus was. Looking over the article over that time period disproves that. The off-site discussion wouldn't be an issue if it didn't go against what the infobox norms are. It's beneficial for editors to acquaint themselves with the rules of infoboxes before trying to change how they're being used, especially when those infoboxes include what should be noted within them and how they should be noted, as Ive already explained here. Wozal (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting some more off-WP stuff at patriots.win. I'm mentioned, which may be part of this spike. Should we add a talkpage banner or something? Ping Ad Orientem if you have a comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The amount of conspiracy theories bandied about as facts by users on that site (and to a lesser extent, Reddit in r/Conservative) is disturbing. Is there any precedent for WP:ECP or WP:SEMI of a talk page? Seeing this makes me wonder if the zombie accounts popping up after 10+ years of inactivity and new users showing up in #The couch thing is somehow related to this. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a notable veteran

Vance is not notable for being a Marine veteran. This should be removed from the lede. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

He was in the Marines longer than he's been a senator. —ADavidB 01:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

So what? 66.69.214.204 (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Tim Walz served 24 years. So what?213.230.87.153 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This is Talk:JD Vance, not Talk:Tim Walz. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, it fits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

Arbitration was extended 65.175.130.76 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.McYeee (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Category removal discussion: Anti-Ukrainian sentiment and Natalism

I think we should remove the "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment" and "Natalism" categories from Vance's article. I've been looking at the BLP and overcategorization guidelines, and I don't think it's correct to include these categories. In particular, "Anti-Ukranian sentiment" seems very inappropriate, while I can see some arguments for the "natalism" category.

WP:BLPSTYLE says to avoid "contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision." These categories feel like they're, at best, walking a fine line there. Particularly "Anti-Ukrainian Sentiment", which suggests a sentiment that is against people of that particular nationality. If the argument is that Vance's statements about the funding of Ukraine justify this categorization, I disagree. There's a clear and important distinction between a political stance on foreign aid and personal sentiment towards a nation or its people. The category "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment" could be interpreted as the latter, which isn't necessarily supported by the sources.

WP:BLPCAT states that "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources." I don't think the current text really justifies these specific categories. I see some mention of his positions on Ukraine funding and comments on children/childlessness, but nothing that clearly stamps his page as something to be included in "natalism" or "Ukrainian sentiment".

If there is something to say about his positions related to Ukraine and "natalism", we can cover this in the article text without needing these specific categories.

What do you all think? I'm open to discussion on this. If you disagree, could you point to specific policy justifications for keeping these categories? ballpointzen (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• From Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, the main article for the category: "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment ... is animosity towards Ukrainians, Ukrainian culture, the Ukrainian language, Ukraine as a nation, or all of the above." I don't think that Vance's opposing military aid to Ukraine constitutes animosity towards the country, the nation, the people, &c. That category should definitely be removed. As to Natalism: "Natalism ... is a policy paradigm or personal value that promotes the reproduction of human life as an important objective of humanity". He has shown support for natalism, and could be described as natalist. However, the "Natalism" category does not include every politician who has ever s hown support for natalism; in fact, it includes very few. I also think that it's fairly clear that he should be removed from that category, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  This happens often with any politician whose expressed any kind of objection to funding of Ukraine's war effort. I'm removing it (just like I do with other politicians who express similar views). Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't just about "expressing any kind of objection to funding of Ukraine's war effort"; Vance routinely spreads Russian anti-Ukrainian disinformation, including a completely debunked conspiracy theory about yachts and claiming that Ukraine is perhaps the most corrupt nation in the world. Defining anti-Ukrainian sentiment as sentiment against Ukraine as a nation (as we do), it's very obvious this category is appropriate here. Moreover, Vance's stances on natalism include calling those who choose not to have children sociopaths and believes they should be treated as second-class citizens – wherein those who don't have kids should have less weight to their votes and should be taxed more than those who are childless. Re-adding anti-Ukrainian sentiment accordingly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  TheTechnician27: This is a good example of why it shouldn't be added; your claim that he expresses "anti-Ukrainian sentiment," based on those statements, is incorrect in my view. Every one of those statements very clearly goes to American military aid to Ukraine; by defining criticism of Ukraine military funding as an instance of anti-Ukrainian sentiment, you make the same error as the "working definition" in assuming any criticism related to a country as an instance of racial, national, or ethnic offense. Your argument is only that "it's very obvious this category is appropriate here," but as I said, all of the statement identified in the Politico article are criticisms of U.S. monetary support to Ukraine. I don't think it's appropriate to characterize such criticism as "anti-Ukrainian sentiment." The same can be said about natalism; while he supports natalism, many do, and it is not a good use of the category to include any public figure who has ever said something which can be categorized as being in favor of some natalist opinion. Apparently, practice is that their must be consensus to include, and especially with this BLP, I've removed both categories. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  TheTechnician27 — Please review Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, It pertains to sentiment against the Ukrainian people, language and culture, not to any misgivings about the government or any involved military.and the half trillion in funding the U.S. is going to fork over. Vance indeed said, "I admire the brave Ukrainians ... but let’s not mistake the courage of Ukrainian troops on the ground with the fact that they have the most corrupt leadership and government in Europe..." --even POLITICO said, "Ukraine is quite and since he clearly sicorrupt, despite efforts by the government to clean up the country". And the issue over yachts means nothing in terns of sentiment against the Ukrainians..Kcmastrpc had it right. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks all. Let's just focus on making sure we're aligned with the guidelines, particularly WP:BLP, WP:BLPCAT and WP:COP.

  On "Anti-Ukrainian Sentiment":

  For purposes of the policies in WP:COP, it's important to make sure that this category is neutral, verifiable and based on defining characteristics. I don't see "Anti-Ukrainian Sentiment" as a neutral or verifiable category, so I'm not sure we even need to get to "defining".

  Based on what @TE(æ)A,ea. and @Gwillhickers have already cited above, the category "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment" is intended to reflect animosity towards Ukrainians, their culture, or Ukraine as a nation. Vance’s statements regarding Ukraine’s government and funding of Ukraine seem to reflect political positions rather than personal animosity toward Ukrainians as a people or culture. The reply from @TheTechnician27, respectfully, seems to base this categorization on deduction/inference from Vance's alleged. comments about yachts and the corruption of the Ukraine government. WP:COPDEF warns against categorizing people based on deduction or inference.

  WP:COP also says "A term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders. Try to avoid category names that could be seen in a stigmatizing way. When in doubt, err on the side of respect." This seems to clearly apply here, unless someone can offer evidence that Vance accepts for himself the label of having "Anti-Ukrainian Sentiment". Otherwise, this is a stigmatizing category that makes him out to be xenophobic and/or a racist, which is against the policies.

  On "Natalism":

  BLP:CAT suggests that categories must be well-supported by the article text and verifiable reliable sources. I haven't seen this connection made by anyone yet. The current consensus seems to lean towards excluding categories that don't clearly align with the criteria outlined in our guidelines.

  Next Steps:

  I invite further input from anyone who can point to specific policies or sources that clearly support these categories. Otherwise, we should proceed with caution and favor removal to ensure adherence to BLP/COP guidelines.

  ballpointzen (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  You keep saying that, yet every time you do you leave our the fourth point in the article you linked to: "Ukraine as a nation". Cortador (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with TE(æ)A,ea. and Ballpointzen. Thanks for the feedback. Just a friendly reminder to all... Too many times I've seen discussions where a consensus is sought for something that clearly isn't so. Consensus can not create facts, and the facts are that Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, as outlined pertains to sentiment against the Ukrainian people, language and culture. Nothing that Vance has said can even be construed as sentiment against the Ukrainian people and culture, as, once again, his comments are directed at a corrupt government and the enormous amount of money the US is prepared to hand over. Virtually any government in the world can be criticized for something -- pointing this out doesn't amount to sentiment against culture, race, religion, etc, and no consensus can change that fact, anymore than we can get a consensus to say the sun rises in the west. Since no one, including the news, has come up with anything that Vance has ever said against the Ukrainian people and culture, and since he indeed said, "I admire the brave Ukrainians ..", we shouldn't even be having this discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There's an "or" in there, it's not necessary for all of those things to be present for someone to be categorized as that, as @Cortador noted, it also includes "Ukraine as a nation". —Locke Cole • t • c 14:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes there's an or in there. Here is the entire opening lede statement: "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, Ukrainophobia or anti-Ukrainianism is animosity towards Ukrainians, Ukrainian culture, the Ukrainian language, Ukraine as a nation, or all of the above. A nation is a group of people. Nothing's changed. The category was inappropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The "Natalism" category keeps coming up in some form, whether it's Natalist politicians or Natalism; I believe the same arguments made above apply to either. While some sources discuss JD Vance's position on Natalist views, currently, there is no prose in the BLP that makes a direct link to him being a Natalist. I'm sure such prose could be introduced, but a) does it need to be to support such a category and/or b) would such prose be WP:DUE? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What policy or guideline based argumnet made above would apply to the Natalist politician category? Just because you disagree with what the prose in this and the daughter article (which makes its way into this article through an excerpt) say doesn't mean that they don't make that link. To answer your questions... A it is already included... B such prose is currently included and due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Criticism of the government is not the same as criticism of the Ukrainian nation. A nation is a group of people, not a land mass or a government. Where has Vance said anything disparaging or prejudicial against the Ukrainian people? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

One thing I find interesting about this debate is Wikipedia's article is being used for the exclusion of Anti-Ukrainian sentiment which reads as follows: Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, Ukrainophobia or anti-Ukrainianism is animosity towards Ukrainians, Ukrainian culture, the Ukrainian language, Ukraine as a nation, or all of the above.

However, the sentence of Natalist views is being ignored. For the record, the first sentence of that article reads: "Natalism (also called pronatalism or the pro-birth position) is a policy paradigm or personal value that promotes the reproduction of human life as an important objective of humanity and therefore advocates high birthrate"

In a different post within this talk page, I've posted the following, which I believe not only covers the first sentence but also has articles which express his view as such, as well as aligns well with the article in question:

"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."

I think that should cover that category pretty well. Wozal (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Because WP:BLPCAT and multiple editors have opposed its inclusion. Is being a natalist controversial? I don't know, but I don't see it standing out as a particular important aspect of this individuals biography. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

From an earlier post:

"The "Natalism" category keeps coming up in some form, whether it's Natalist politicians or Natalism; I believe the same arguments made above apply to either. While some sources discuss JD Vance's position on Natalist views, currently, there is no prose in the BLP that makes a direct link to him being a Natalist. I'm sure such prose could be introduced, but a) does it need to be to support such a category and/or b) would such prose be WP:DUE?"

I've provided sources which discuss Vance's position on Natalist views. There are also currently sources within the article which discuss those views, as such, it appears those concerns have been addressed.

It now appears that the goal line has shifted now that the original questions have been answered. As @Horse Eye's Back mentioned, "What policy or guideline based argumnet made above would apply to the Natalist politician category? Just because you disagree with what the prose in this and the daughter article (which makes its way into this article through an excerpt) say doesn't mean that they don't make that link. To answer your questions... A it is already included... B such prose is currently included and due." Wozal (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Military Medals

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

add Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Medal and National Defense Medal...literally everyone has these medals that has served within the last 20 years or so there is absolutely no way he does not have them. 164.163.189.61 (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If they are so common that apparently no source even bothers listing them, why bother including them? Cortador (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Campaign medals are listed in other politicians and historical leaders. Not everyone that serves during these periods necessarily goes to combat to be awarded campaign medals. Angrycommguy (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Military Medals & Awards

Someone deleted several of JD Vance's medals and awards as seen HERE.

Here is JD Vance's DD-214 from the USMC as seen HERE.

He received:

Marine Corps Good·Conduct Medal. Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Iraq Campaign Medal. Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. National Defense Service Medal. Letter of Appreciation (5th Award). Meritorious Mast. Certificate of Appreciation. Rifle Expert Badge (2nd Award). Pistol Expert Badge 66.169.196.156 (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Service medals should be omitted but campaign medals should be listed. Angrycommguy (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The campaign medals are still not shown, likely been edited out again by a bad actor. 151.205.183.212 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Even the complete list of campaign medals is omited Dash Ripone (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay to remove service medals from Democrats as well? 2603:8000:DA00:1751:90F6:558C:1186:3AB7 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There should be no consideration of political party with this, just the actual facts of what happened. 205.220.215.1 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The medals should be restored. 71.65.123.105 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

Return the list of his service awards that was removed between July and Aug 11.

OMITTED: Navy & MC Achievement Medal Iraq Campaign Medal Sea Svc Deployment Ribbon GWOT Svc Medal Letter of Appreciation (5th awd) Meritorious Mast Cert of Appreciation Rifle Expert Badge (2nd awd) Pistol Expert Badge

His DD-214 is available for reference as you remedy this error. 66.9.76.237 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

It appears some of his medals and awards were removed by editors, including but not limited to: Iraq Campaign Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, National Defense Service medal. Please repopulate them. As a source, linked below is JD Vance’s DD-214, a direct source.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25030454-resp-docs-1pgred-24-3265

Thank you! Nukey18mon (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum CAMPAIGN MEDALS should be included. But all earned medals should be listed. There's no reason to exclude that information. Angrycommguy (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

agree. it is clear the removal was a political maneuver and done with malice. The medals he has been granted from the USMC are:

Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal

Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal

Global War on Terrorism Service Medal

Iraq Campaign Medal

Navy and Marine Corps Sea Service Deployment Ribbon

These are all listed in the sources provided by many in this discussion. 24.206.78.84 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see the argument against service medals but let's give those who served credit for their service and sacrifice. Angrycommguy (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Angrycommguy @Nukey18mon: Per the Military Person Template..."any notable awards or decorations the person received; exhaustive lists should be worked into the prose. Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}."

I think a huge aspect of that is notable. Some of those are earned by basically anyone who has served a minimum amount of time. The infobox shouldn't include every award won or else the infobox would never end for some top military people. Wozal (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, standard service medals can be listed in the body; whereas notable decorations belong in the infobox. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wozal, I think notable in that text is meant to be read WP-literally, as in if the award doesn't have a WP-article, it doesn't go in the infobox. But "any" doesn't mean "every". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, just checking the edit history of when and how these medals got removed and it clearly looks like bad faith. I would highly encourage an Administrator to review this and prevent Wikipedia:Ownership of content of this page, and thusbthe narrative, by a handful of editors that are overrepresented in the amount of edits this article has.

We are better than this.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:C597:7929:2D40:18C0 (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In case the DD-214 form is not acceptable, here is another source for JD Vance's medals: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/07/16/jd-vances-marine-corps-service-would-set-him-apart-most-vice-presidents.html 66.196.23.58 (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2024 (2)

1)Marine Corps good conduct medal 2)Global War on Terrorism Sevice Medal 3)Iraq Campaign Medal 4)Navy and Marine Corps Sea Service Deployment Ribbon 2607:F8D8:5:4970:2426:EF13:12FB:4309 (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of information sourced to the DD-214

@Guest2625: has removed information sourced to the DD-214. I believe that removal is a violation of our policies, which in this case would allow it, as discussed on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#J.D. Vance Service Medals. There is bo question oif fact and there is no more impartial or reliable source than that of the US Depeartment of Defense. Sources need not be online. They must be accessible, as this one is and has been received by multitude people who filed the FOIA request. -- Avi (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And where have these people published what they received in response to their FOIA request? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Especially since there's an ongoing discussion, the removal is inappropriate. The main source of concern (as originally formulated) was the lack of source; now that the source has been provided, if any removal of awards should occur, then it should be as the result of a discussion. As I said in the noticeboard discussion, the DD Form 214 is the best source for any information on this subject. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Per the recent Talk:JD_Vance/Archive_2#Non-serious_medals and Talk:JD_Vance/Archive_2#Military_Decorations_and_Awards_that_JD_Vance_would_have: discussions removal is appropriate. Sure, consensus can change. Per sources [11][12], IMO decorations not mentioned there fails WP:PROPORTION, existing is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ping previous participants @ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen@MatthewDalhousie@Cortador@MaximusEditor if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Consensus is generally needed for the inclusion of content, not its removal. Removal only requires consensus if there is prior consensus on inclusion, which isn't the case here. Cortador (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  To add to this, the current sourcing is weak. One source is Wikisource, which is a user-generated wiki, and of dubious reliability. The other source is Military.com, for whose reliability I can't vouch. That aside, it only mentions all those medials once with the exception of the Marine Corps medial, which is what the article is about. There's still a lack of weight here, because all and by large, sources don't seem to bother reporting on Vance's medals. Cortador (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Cortador: I don't know where you get the idea that consensus is needed for inclusion; if that were the case, one could not write an article without long discussions about every individual facet of it. As for the DD Form 214, Wikisource is not the source; it just holds a copy of the government document (because it is in the public domain). Similarly, for court opinions, if Wikisource has a copy that version is used for the purpose of reference, and the same for other public-domain government documents like letters from Senators, committee reports, and the text of laws. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    Consensus is always needed. Silence - i.e. no objection from anyone else - is a form of consensus, just a weak one. If you want that document to be used as a source, cite the actual document. Even then, it will be a primary source, and not suitable to establish whether this information needs to be included. Cortador (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Small thing @Cortador military.com has the features of being a reliable source. As seen here the platform has a large supervising editorial team, and have won several national awards for their journalism. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, the article about the subject in military.com, which is written by an experienced journalist, (and sits under editorial oversight and has won several awards), establishes only the following as decorations have been received by the subject:

  1. Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal

  2. Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal

  3. Iraq Campaign Medal

  4. Sea Service Deployment Ribbon

  It also reports the subject received "some conventional honors awarded during the Global War on Terror". My view is wikipedia articles should include all relevant facts about a person. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Those four awards are "conventional honors." Most Marines will get a Good Conduct Medal for three years of not being a screw up. An Achievement Medal is very common, most Marines will have one if not more after 4 years of service. It's not a combat or valor award. Iraq Campaign Medal is for spending 90 days in country, doing anything. Sea Service is being on a ship for 90 days, another common thing for a Marine.

  I would say none of these are noteworthy. If we have to list "awards" I'd say Iraq Campaign should be the only one, despite being for something quite common for American military personnel serving in the 00's.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with the statements by Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Facts in a biography of a living person need to be sourced to a reliable source. This means a source, such as a newspaper article by a journalist, who takes responsibility for the accuracy of what they write. So from the two reliable sources there is the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal and Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal. The award infoboxes allow the reader to go up and down in terms of prestige of the different medals. I would only include the Achievement Medal. The Conduct Medal is underwhelming and also sounds underwhelming. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Guest2625: Your concern about reliable sources is nonsensical. This is not a case where we rely on reliable sources because there is no objective truth. For example, there is no roll of post-liberals on which we could find Vance's name, so we must rely on secondary sources' characterization of him as such to make that claim in this article (and in the related article Political positions of JD Vance). However, there is an objective truth as to what medals Vance has received, and the one, singular, official source of that information is the DD Form 214 which I have transcribed on Wikisource. Any media source relating to medals would only be copying this document (or, as is often the case, copying other media articles which eventually lead back to the document). Your comment about a journalist "tak[ing] responsibility for the accuracy" of what is stated is satisfied, because who better than the military would know what awards the military gave him? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say regarding a topic. A source like that document doesn't contribute to that, because it is a primary source and because verifiability by itself doesn't clear the threshold for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Kcmasterpc below. Infoboxes should only include notable service awards. Reliable sources help to inform what is a notable award by mentioning it. A primary source can be useful in some cases, however, the primary source provided above I cannot authenticate. The document needs to be posted somewhere that its reliability can be established. Currently, the Trump Campaign has been hacked. Persian hackers could easily post faked documents in some random internet location. For a primary document there needs to be clear traceability of where it came from.

https://www.msnbc.com/ana-cabrera-reports/watch/trump-campaign-says-it-was-hacked-by-iranian-group-216980037882 --Guest2625 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox should only include notable service awards. A good example of how this could be handled is Dwight D. Eisenhower, he only has a couple of distinguished medals, with a link to a table that includes all of his service awards (many of which are cited from primary sources, so I don't see the issue with using DD-214, either). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY does not say that primary sources may never be used. Policy item one there says they may be used with care if reputably published. They may be used without placing undue weight, to make a direct statement of fact without analysis, interpretation, synthesis, etc. —ADavidB 15:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And the argument is that adding decorations decent non-primary WP:RS haven't bothered to notice is out of WP:PROPORTION, perhaps especially when added as infobox-only. Yes, we can use primary sources, sometimes. But in this case, per the details of WP:NPOV, should we? IMO, no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Including all medals, which are listed in the official government document, is a neutral representation of objective facts. Listing only some medals is showing an editorial view, which is not a neutral point of view. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  On en-WP, existing is not enough, neutral is not enough. We are meant to summarize, so WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION are relevant too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  The neutral position here is covering just what is covered by the high quality RS... Both the position that no medals should be included and that all medals should be included appear to be pushing a non-neutral POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Has any editor here suggested for no medals to be included? Also, a neutral POV doesn't mean a middle ground. Cortador (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  In this specific context the NPOV is absolutely in the middle ground. There is simply no way to describe including all medals as neutral, thats an absurd proposition which should be laughed at. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is not what neutral means on Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Including all medals, which are listed in the official government document, is a neutral representation of objective facts. Listing only some medals is showing an editorial view, which is not a neutral point of view.

  More nuance than this is permitted. If we listed every single automatic good-conduct/deployment/overseas service medal and ribbon that Dwight Eisenhower earned, he'd have a very long infobox! Instead we generally stick to the key discretionary awards in the infobox, with the rest going in the article body (in Eisenhower's case, he has so many that even the infobox is a subset of the most significant domestic awards, with other honours - including international honours - relegated to the body).

  In this case, to list things like Good Conduct in the infobox is adding UNDUE weight to those medals given that the infobox is usually reserved for things like Purple Hearts or Silver Stars (see Dan Crenshaw or Chris Kyle).

  It is quite correct that all service awards should be listed in the article neutrally. It does not follow that they all need to be crammed into the infobox. That would present simple service ribbons on a level with other people's Purple Hearts, which is clearly nonsensical and non-neutral. It is appropriate under WP:NPOV to distinguish between automatic "has a pulse" medals and discretionary awards for individual merit (like his Navy & Marine Corp Achievement Medal, which does have a place in the infobox). Hemmers (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hemmers:"It is quite correct that all service awards should be listed in the article neutrally." what would be the policy or guideline based argument which supports this statement? This seems to strongly contradict with WP:NOT and I can't find a single thing which supports it Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Support your view here @Kcmastrpc. Only the notable service awards to go in the infobox. Notable being settled by what the reliable sources mostly talk about. So, to my mind, that would include 1. Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, and 2. Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Other decorations can be mentioned in the body so long as we have the reliable sources, but that seems to be in hand from what I've seen above.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Notable being settled by what the reliable sources mostly talk about. So, to my mind, that would include 1. Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, and 2. Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal.

I think this is a bit tricky. Vance doesn't have a long list of service awards, so of course when journalists write an article they say "Achievement medal, oh and good conduct", because there's nothing else to write about. But that's conflating a discretionary award for meritorious service with an automatic award for not committing a crime! Yes, it's notable and that gets it into the article. That doesn't mean it needs to be in the infobox.

It's reasonable to say that automatic ribbons and medals like Good Conduct have no place in the infobox which is widely used for discretionary awards like Purple Heart, Silver Star, DSC, etc. Yes, he has a Good Conduct Medal. Shove it in the body. Most former service personnel have a good conduct medal. To present Vance's front-and-centre in the infobox is affording UNDUE weight, as if it is comparable to his Achievement medal (or any other discretionary award). Hemmers (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hemmers, you're exactly the kind of editor who makes Wiki enjoyable. Grateful for your wit and your clear point of view. In fact, I feel personally persuaded that it's probably true that 'when journalists write an article they say "Achievement medal, oh and good conduct', because there's nothing else to write about." However my friend, what you think, or I think, is quite beside the point. We can only go with what the secondary, reliable sources say. And here we need to acknowledge that even the military specialist journals, (such as this one in Task and Purpose written by an accredited journalist who also served in uniform) make mention of the fact that that Vance has several awards and they make particular mention of the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Again, if you and I were writing the article from scratch in a newspaper, I would go with your suggestion. But we're editing for Wikipedia, and we need to go with what the reliable sources say. In short, I believe the two medals currently mentioned in the infobox should stay, and a mention of those two, and the additional awards, need to be in the body. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewDalhousie - I think this is a good start, but I'd like to push back a little. Guidance for the Template:Infobox military person states the following

"awards – optional – any notable awards or decorations the person received; exhaustive lists should be worked into the prose. Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}."

What notable means seems to be debated upon users. Some argue that it's any award that has a standalone wiki page, but I'm not sure based on what I've seen if that's the original intent. I'd wager that most awards have a standalone page even if they aren't written well. Listing all awards (regardless of where) would likely be a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:VNOT. That is to say, While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.

But what must be included then? My original mind went to see what other military infoboxes say. I came across Charles A. Flynn, Michael Flynn and Charles Q. Brown Jr. There are a number of medals which they should have based on their ranking on the wars they've served, but none of those are listed. Neither are any good conduct medals.

Then I thought, what about people who are of a similar rank to Vance? What does the structure there look like? I found Jason Dunham who served during the Iraq War, but doesn't list any "lesser medals" or "automatic medals" for serving x amount of time or staying out of trouble for 3 years. Ruben Gallego (who I didn't realize served in the military until now) served 4 years and doesn't list any medals in his infobox, even some which would be given for automatically given for being deployed.

And then it clicked. There was overlap within the infobox which I believe reveals the intent behind what's "notable" for the military infobox. It's not the standard of having a standalone page, but rather a medal that isn't automatically given to you for being deployed somewhere, for serving x amount of time or for staying out of trouble, but rather those that show you've gone far beyond of what is expected of you and is considered "notable" by the military. It's a harder standard to meet, but it seems to be the criteria that every other page has followed. Treating all of Vance's awards is "notable" is a disservice and I believe would go against the intent of the infobox itself. Wozal (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Great to hear from you @Wozal. I know some editors have an allergic reaction to arguments from other articles. Personally, I don't mind you bringing up articles from elsewhere, and looking at what makes them solid. What's good for the goose, however, must be good for the gander. And if we're asking if articles mention a Marine being recognised with a Good Conduct Medal, for example, then if I find one, such as this article about the legendary Larry Wilcox of CHiPs fame, then that must be taken into account. I guess I could find several dozen such examples, of articles about people that feature good conduct awards in the infobox.

But let's just aim to make this article as good as can be. Do I take your argument to be that the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal should appear in the JD Vance infobox, and the various other medals (I think there are three or four) should be given perfunctory mention in the body. Also, as per the convention seen in many other BLPs, that the bar ribbons might appear at the bottom of the piece.

Your thoughts and recommendations, please.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewDalhousie: I recall that either this article or Walz's article mentioned something about the typical medals associated with length of service and rank. This seemed like an effective way to avoid listing every medal awarded while still acknowledging that more medals might exist, without leading readers to assume that all medals are equally notable. According to the guidelines, verifiability alone doesn’t justify inclusion, so it may not be appropriate to include every medal in the article. Since our goal is to highlight the most significant aspects, listing all common medals might give the impression that they hold the same weight as more prestigious ones, which simply isn't true but does not diminish from the fact that they served.

It feels like we need clearer guidelines on what constitutes a "notable" medal and need more information (possibly from other wikipedia groups that focus on the military?), especially given the extensive debate surrounding the "rank" field in the infobox. Personally, I think we're aligned on this. Notable medals (though the specific threshold for this is still unclear) should go in the infobox, less common medals should be mentioned in the narrative, and routine medals could be referenced in a note about typical awards for a given length of service and rank. Otherwise, there’s a risk of this section becoming disproportionate compared to the rest of the article. Wozal (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I think we aim for the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal in the infobox, and three or four in the main body. I don't mind having the ribbons at the very bottom of the article. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting his medals?

JD Vance also earned a global war on terrorism service medal, an Iraq campaign medal, and a sea deployment ribbon. Isn’t Wikipedia supposed to be an unbiased representation of fact and not some editor’s political hangups or paid-for shilling? 2600:1700:34D0:9840:1DBB:5CFC:AB2A:B2A9 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Because they're not outstanding or distinguished service awards. If I had time I'd create a table of service awards similar to Dwight D. Eisenhower#Honors, but I have work to do. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, WP:OTHERCONTENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea, that's fair, but I don't see why we shouldn't list (in table form) a military service members awards in their BLP, seems generally WP:DUE. Per Template:Infobox_military_person -> any notable awards or decorations the person received; exhaustive lists should be worked into the prose. Separate multiple entries using Plainlist. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You can probably find some WP-articles that have that, and some that don't, like Dan Crenshaw/Chris Kyle. I don't think it's a one size fits all situation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I don't think "any" means "every" here, the message is more "don't include awards without WP-articles in the infobox." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, most of the "non-notable" medals have their own WP-article; but I digress, I think we agree in principle not everything needs to go in the infobox. Style-wise, I particularly like how it's handled on Chris Kyle's page. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

the message is more "don't include awards without WP-articles in the infobox.

Unfortunately, most medals and ribbons seem to have stand-alone WP articles, so this isn't a good measure for infobox inclusion. Most of them are garbage stubs just rehashing (borderline plagiarising) the uniform codes and military notes (e.g. Recruiting Service Ribbon or Overseas Service Ribbon. 100% .mil or .gov citations). The longer ones tend to be WP:GUIDE with wear instructions. These articles generally fail GNG since they're entirely based on primary sources and amount to WP:INDISCRIMINATE (i.e. it would be better to have one article listing the awards, and if people want minutiae they can read the uniform code themselves).

In that vein, my view is that the only stuff making it into an infobox should be key and notable info - major discretionary awards like Crenshaw's Purple Heart or Kyle's Silver Star obviously qualify, as would Victoria Cross or Legion d'Honeur for UK/France. Automatic "has a pulse" medals should just be mentioned in the body. It's a neutrality issue to put them front-and-centre because to a layman reader it almost presents the subject as having won some notable awards for valient service when in fact they've done nothing that a million other service personnel haven't. It's clearly NPOV to list a Good Conduct Medal in the same place as other people have Purple Hearts, as if they're somehow comparable awards. Totally WP:UNDUE. Hemmers (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis on "notable awards". Cortador (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

See

• Talk:JD_Vance/Archive_2#Non-serious_medals
• Talk:JD_Vance/Archive_2#Military_Decorations_and_Awards_that_JD_Vance_would_have:
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#J.D._Vance_Service_Medals
• Talk:JD_Vance#Removal_of_information_sourced_to_the_DD-214

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

On that point, is it prudent to include the "Good Conduct Medal?" This award is automatic in a fashion similar to the "Global War on Terrorism" medal and the "National Defense Ribbon." Every Marine is given this medal every 3 years of service unless they commit a crime. Deagonx (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on that, but Stars and Stripes [13] and Task & Purpose [14] mentioned it, so it seems ok-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Which medals to include?

There seems to be a protracted dispute over the medal-list issue. Previous discussions resulted in imprecise consensuses which in part were based on a lack of documentation, which is no longer an issue. I list below the medals he has received, with citations where they are found. If you find more citations, feel free to add them. The purpose of this list is to facilitate a !vote/consensus discussion as to which medals should be shown in the infobox. Here's the list:

1. Marine Corps Good-Conduct Medal
2. Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal
3. Iraq Campaign Medal
4. Sea Service Deployment Ribbon
5. Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
6. National Defense Service Medal
7. Letter of Appreciation (5th Awd)
8. Meritorious Mast
9. Certificate of Appreciation
10. Rifle Expert Badge (2nd Awd)
11. Pistol Expert Badge

References

In addition, the deletion of the mention of the medals has attracted media attention: Has Wikipedia deleted JD Vance's wartime medals, awards from his page?; Wikipedia scrubs JD Vance's military honors, sparking bias controversy. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We generally only include notable awards. The infobox isn't meant to list every single commendation a service member receives. If you look at other politicians who served, most of them don't have awards listed at all, the rest only have one or two awards listed in their infobox. For instance Pete Buttigieg only has his "Joint Service Commendation Medal" listed.

Vance's awards are common to nearly all service members which makes them unremarkable for the purposes of the infobox, such as the "National Defense Service Medal" which is granted to everyone who enlisted after 9/11. The only slight exception to this is the NAM, but this is still something most Marines get as an "end of tour" award when they finish a contract.

I would say it is probably best to not list any medals in his infobox, or to only list the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Deagonx (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Id argue his Iraq Campaign Medal is notable. 47.198.11.19 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is very true. These contentious edits don't see to be done in good faith and have mostly been pushed by one single editor. Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view apply here. 73.123.180.173 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

His tour in Iraq is listed in the infobox under the "Battles/Wars" item. It's assumed that he has a campaign medal (and overseas deployment ribbon, and the rest) for that tour, just like every other service member who deployed. We don't list out individual tour ribbons in (say) Chris Kyle. Just his discretionary medals. As far as I can tell, Vance has earned precisely one discretionary medal for meritorious service - the NAM Achievement medal. That, and that alone should be in the infobox. To add Good Conduct in a space normally used for Purple Hearts/Silver Stars/etc is WP:UNDUE weighting and fails NPOV. Hemmers (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is a distillate of the rest of the article, so no award not mentioned in body-text should be mentioned there. At present, all medals in the body-text is in the info-box, which is a bit odd, but acceptable-ish. Throw out the DD Form, apart from not being reliably published (per link given), there is no reason to use a WP:BLPPRIMARY source here, there is an abundance of secondary WP:RS on this person. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And another source: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

References

I agree, use of a DD form violates WP:BLPPRIMARY; secondary sources will tell us which medals are significant enough to include. We don't need to mention the ones that everybody gets if RS don't mention them. Levivich (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any secondary sources that reference the DD form, and until such time, it should remain uncited. If a reliable source cites it, I would assert the policy exception of WP:BLPPRIMARY applies -- Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, with the restricted subjects being personal information like DOB, Address, income, etal., service medals would probably not apply to such restrictions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless mentioned by your hypothetical secondary source, medals from the DD form would still be out of WP:PROPORTION. And if they are mentioned by your hypothetical secondary source, the DD form would be unnecessary, and still not reliably published, unless provided by your hypothetical secondary source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, [15]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024 (2)

Please add back in all of this mans military awards. Fltmech1 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024 (4)

Restore J.D. Vance's full list of military honors that were edited out in late July 2024. Full list:

Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal
Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Iraq Campaign Medal
Navy and Marine Corps Sea Service Deployment Ribbon

Not a good look removing them, Wikipedia. Marbran (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closed.—Edit requests are for non-controversial changes. For a change to the medals given in the list, please participate in the discussion above. Once a consensus has been reached in that discussion, such medals as are thought appropriate to be added will be added. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  You reverted my edit and claimed vandalism. This is factually wrong. Just by reading the summary I wrote on each you'd know that.

  Given you are not acting in good faith I am formally asking you to refrain from editing my comments or edits or from posting on my TP. @TE(æ)A,ea

  73.123.180.173 (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree! Restore what was removed. 67.221.212.8 (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2024

Campaign Medals are valid medals and should be included. Military regulation require that if any medal is worn, all must be worn. Campaign Medals are awards for service (just like an achievement or commendation medal they mark a worthy accomplishment by the servicemember receiving same).

Certificates are less than medals and need not be included.

Service Ribbons should be listed in the body text, but not the summary box. Rweicker (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rweicker Not done for the time being; there's a fairly stable consensus currently that including literally all of his medals clutters the infobox and doesn't at all fit with the way this infobox is used in essentially every other article. Please go look at other articles of military personnel (especially ones who had a notable career other than the military). "Military regulation require [sic] that if any medal is worn, all must be worn" is a creative but completely orthogonal argument to the overwhelming sitewide consensus on how this infobox should be used. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2024

Iraq Campaign Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon 184.103.80.196 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Childlessness

Childlessness and Sociopathy

"Vance is an outspoken critic of childlessness, linking it to sociopathy" the link to sociopathy and childlessness is based on literally no evidence. It is a complete fabrication by JD Vance and the neutral tone used here gives the impression that a link actually exists. I believe this should be edited to something such as "falsely linking it to sociopathy" or something similar Overfill3 (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Linking (childlessness) ... to sociopathy" is a complete editorialization. That was never claimed by him. He compared AOC's views on the questionable morality of having children with the state of the world being sociopathic. He never said anything close to non-parents having a higher rate of sociopathy. 2607:FEA8:5980:A0:2C65:CB44:E027:D8F4 (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a study discrediting his claim? If not, then saying it's "false" is just you inserting your bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.154.245.87 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

A study isn't needed to discredit a claim when those claims aren't backed by science to begin with. ONUS here would actually be on the individual making such a bold claim to prove that the two are linked.

In the absence of evidence, it is safer to assume no link at all. Otherwise, we'd be wasting a lot of valuable time on things which there's no reason to believe something causes something else. Wozal (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear Vance attacked AOC's view on families as having a “Sociopathic attitude”

He's not making an academic claim that theres a causation between childlessness there. BenDoleman (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

Please change "Vance is an outspoken critic of childlessness, linking it to sociopathy" to "Vance criticized Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez's position that it is immoral to have children because of climate change as sociopathic."

The current version deliberately misrepresents what he said. Source: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/08/jd-vance-aoc-childless/ 2601:201:8C01:E2F0:8092:62C:505D:8AC4 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This isn't a once-off. See this article for the actual direct link he made. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Children

JD did not speak in any diragotory terms about childlessness. What he said as taken out in f context. This needs to be corrected 2601:148:437E:700:2816:48F4:B4E2:2C26 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The sentence is complete editorialization. The source does not support this phrasing. 2607:FEA8:5980:A0:2C65:CB44:E027:D8F4 (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Childlessness (fourth paragraph)

In the fourth paragraph he is described as "an outspoken critic of childlessness" and then cites a news article quoting him saying "My goal here is to not criticize every single person who doesn’t have children."

He may well be a critic/opponent of childlessness but Wp:Blp needs far better sourcing than this, if it is the case, and either way it is an egregious error for an extended protected page. LOVECEL ^🤍 20:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The way Vance describes himself isn't what determines how he is described here, how sources describe him is. The source (which is just one - there are more in the article body) also states that "Vance then went even further and claimed that childless people were responsible for the rottenness of the nation’s political discourse". Cortador (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:MOTHERJONES needs to be attributed to them and not asserted as objective at the very least. A hostile political news site isn't a better source than a direct quote for BLP LOVECEL ^🤍 06:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

According to your own link, it "may" need to be attributed. There's so requirement to always add an attribution. As I said above, Mother Jones isn't the only source for this; there are plenty of other sources e.g. here and here. Cortador (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not a particularly uncommon talking point of his, so there are sources other than Mother Jones of course. Cortador's CNN article above is a good one. However, in the lead, I think we should just describe his policy positions, rather than give a detailed description of certain quotes from him, so I've trimmed it to just the sentence you mention here. Endwise (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the "advocating that parents should have more voting power than non-parents" should go back for context, and could be included with "support for increasing the child tax credit", which are effectively the two relevant political positions related to this "childlessness" critique. Being a critic of childlessness is not a political position, so it would be better contextualised into one. I get that there isn't a simple "single phrase" summary way to describe the above suggestions, but I don't think this is reason for omitting it either. I'm not completely opposed to your edit though, the lead is supposed to be a summary after all. CNC (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As an example: "As an outspoken critic of childlessness, he has advocated for increasing voting power and child tax credit for parents." To me that's a relatively simple summary, with better context. Thoughts? CNC (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"Comments on Childless Women" Section

I do not think that this topic deserves its own section, as it is insignificant and too specific, overall. The section was clearly written out of bias as well. CavDan24 (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Introduction of PRIMARY sources by Skyerise

@Skyerise I removed your good faith edit because this appears to be a primary source, if I'm mistaken, then I might suggest adding it to the parent article Political positions of JD Vance. The other two removals because 1 was verbatim copy paste from the political positions summary (already covered) and seemed UNDUE, while the other was cited from a source that could be construed as WP:PARTISAN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Look, I said when I added it to please move it as necessary. I don't understand how the excerpt thing works, so I added in the section you indicated. If you could please move it to where you think it should go, I would appreciate it. Skyerise (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

A couple things:

• Excerpts are extracted from the lead of the parent article I linked
• The prose you added is derived from a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used. We need WP:SECONDARY sources to support inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I will note that part of what you removed was already in the lead, so you may want to restore that part which you removed along with my additions. Skyerise (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The part that I removed in the lead was WP:UNDUE and was verbatim copy/paste from the Politics section. With the first half citing WP:RSPVOX had no supporting prose in the body, and thus, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY applies. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: I don't edit much in political areas, too many rules, but I do hope for the courtesy of some editor that does work in the area to correctly integrate and attribute, etc. rather than just remove. Skyerise (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's important to note that Wikipedia:PRIMARYUSE does not ban primary sources from being used on Wikipedia articles. Per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used.

An organization can best speak to who its members, employees, and board members are. Wozal (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll let the already active editors sort out what to include where. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, however, tossing them in the lead without any supporting prose in the body isn't exactly following best practices. I'm not opposed to inclusion, but just throwing them in without discussion is going to be reverted. I'm also not here to do work for other editors, but I can offer suggestions on how and where to introduce such information. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

All of us were new at one point. There are ways to encourage new editors to contribute. Notes are helpful. If editors have gone out of their way to locate sources, it's important that we consider what they have to say. The Federalist Society is a notable organization and likely does warrant inclusion in this article and likely is much more notable than the fact that JD Vance had a movie adaptation on his book. (His published novel is notable since it got him fame; a movie that he seemed to have little to do with less so). Wozal (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise isn't new. She's been editing here for 17+ years with over 150k edits. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Editor has mentioned they don't edit much in political areas; I take that as being new. Each area of wikipedia has a set of rules which might not always be as noticeable to users who don't have extensive histories within those topics.

It is neither up to me or you to police how they describe themselves. Provided that they are making good faith edits, it's important for us to consider good faith.

Also @Skyerise prefers feminine pronouns per their lookup. Please use those pronouns. Wozal (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but with great care with regards to BLPs. It's usually best when there are secondary sources to support them, but on their own, they should generally not be used. I don't feel like this is a controversial take. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's also important to consider that not everything will have a secondary source. Wikipedia does not necessarily ban those from being used. The criteria for an unusable source is deeper than that. Otherwise, I can see a lot of things within this article, specifically information in which the source being used relies on Vance's autobiography which is a primary source that he published with no way of anyone to verify. There might even be greater cause for concern with the memoir because and I quote "Although Hillbilly Elegy implies that Vance adopted his grandparents' surname of Vance upon his marriage in 2014, the name change actually occurred in April 2013, as he was about to graduate from Yale." Wozal (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea, interestingly enough, JD isn't listed as a member on the The Federalist Society, however, other members are and are directly cited. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not state JD was a member of The Federalist Society. Please don't misrepresent or misstate what I've said.

I stated the following: " The Federalist Society is a notable organization and likely does warrant inclusion in this article and likely is much more notable than the fact that JD Vance had a movie adaptation on his book. "

Per the source provided https://fedsoc.org/contributors/j-d-vance-1, Vance is listed as a contributor which means "has spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations."

So, his involvement isn't exactly 0. Wozal (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It was my mistake that I misunderstood that his contributions made him a member. I've added prose to Political positions of JD Vance to reflect that. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise I removed this prose purposefully due to WP:UNDUE concerns as it's literally copy/pasted from the politics section and does not represent a summary. Please consider self-reverting the change. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Just remove it again, dude. I added it back before you told me why you removed it, and I've left the building. Lol! Consider yourself muted, since I already stated I was leaving it to all y'all. Skyerise (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If I do so I could be taking to ANI for WP:3RR, so that's why I asked you to. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I am leaving the article just how I found it. Your closeness to 3RR is none of my concern. I suggest you use your reverts more sparingly. Skyerise (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, that seems to smell a little bit like WP:GAMING, never the less, I've incorporated your contribution to the Political positions of JD Vance article.

Please reconsider self-reverting, never the less. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hard to see how that would be so, since I've never edited this article before and the material you object to isn't mine and I clearly don't have the nose for working on political articles. I restored it in good faith, and I don't make edits at the request of others. Seems to smell a bit like a personal attack. Skyerise (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking that you revert in good faith, since you've recognized the rationale behind the removal, and have admitted that 3RR indeed would apply. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

From your intensity, I would guess you must be a partisan editor; what's the hurry? If I revert, it will likely be replaced by the editor who added it or someone who supports them; I am not involved in your squabble, which is why I put the lead back the way I found it. Sort it out amongst yourselves. Certainly it can wait 24 hours; if it were urgent, some other editor would remove it. Relax! Skyerise (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for editors to be taken to ANI for reverts well past the 24h period. Nevertheless, the same information is in the body and it seems to just be duplicated for no other reason than WP:SENSATIONAL purposes as it's now duplicated in no less than three different places. I kindly requested you restore the revert as I intended since it is entirely WP:UNDUE. Regardless, you're correct in asserting that if it's of any substance another editor will revert. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I quickly weary of editors who spew ALPHABET SOUP all the time, and when I am tired of eating ALPHABET SOUP, I like to remind them that WP:IAR ("ignore all rules" for those who like me dislike SOUP) is policy, while most of the SOUPs being sloshed around are merely guidelines. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

How in the world does a notability guideline (WP:SENSATIONAL) apply here? If you're going to take an alphabet soup approach to wikipedia you at least have to know where the links actually go. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hillbilly Elegy

Unbalanced negative description of Hillbilly Elegy

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)

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)

Like this? Endwise (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE inclusion of reception of Hillbilly Elegy

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

JD Vance name change LEGAL?

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)

• Wikipedia is not a forum for Legal advice.
• Wiki can only report on issues mentioned in reliable sources with citations.
• Most sources mention that Vance changed his name before marriage, so legal issues would have been handled then.
• No reliable sources raise this issue (to best of my knowledge)
• PLEASE DO NOT WASTE your TIME and other Wiki Editors' time, raising issues without reliable sources. THANKS RogerYg (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Pre-high school education.

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)

do you want to be bold and find this information, cite it properly, make an edit request with it, or make an account yourself and go through 30 days of waiting and 500 edits so you're able to write this? YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only report issues mentioned in reliable sources with citations.Thanks RogerYg (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a notable veteran

• 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)

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)

Agree with Kcmastrpc on this issue. Many WP:RS sources mention Vance as a Marine veteran, and a reasonable consensus was achieved to include it in the lead. RogerYg (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

" it's covered exhaustively in the body. "

It probably shouldn't be. His military service was brief and without much notability.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

References

"JD Vance's couch" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect JD Vance's couch has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 6 § JD Vance's couch until a consensus is reached. Isla🏳️‍⚧ 21:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"JD Vance couch sex" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect JD Vance couch sex has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 6 § JD Vance couch sex until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Compromise regarding the couch thing...

I am strongly considering creating an article titled Conspiracy theories and hoaxes in the 2024 United States presidential election as a centralized "directory" for topics such as the "couch thing" and the "cat-eating thing". I think this would address many editor's WP:BLP concerns about WP:UNDUE weight in Wikipedia biographies of all public figures involved – not just Vance. I'm not sure I'll have time to tackle this today and I'd welcome others' help to create it or something similar. Carguychris (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Do it _pbp 04:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Support - It occurs to me that WP, of all places, is greatly suited for documenting hoaxes and conspiracy theories. I agree with pbp above, ”do it”. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 23:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support as well. Great idea. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per rationale of the OP. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Just dropping a pointer to User:Rhododendrites/Misinformation in the 2024 United States presidential election. I don't know if it'll turn into anything, and it's very rough now, but I had the same thought as Carguychris. When I saw him mention it over at the "cat-eating thing" I decided to get down a basic outline of what it could include. Definitely missing some stuff, though, and in bad shape. Anyone's welcome to edit it (happy to move it to draftspace if that makes it easier). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice... Well done. You are gona be one busy writer/editor with just that one alone. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Voting power for parents

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What viewpoint should be more prominent then in your opinion? Cortador (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

That's not a viewpoint on a topic, which is what WP:DUE is about. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the referent of "That"? Please clarify. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Slow moving edit war (JD Vance childlessness sociopathy comment)

This is about the prose currently in the lead, "Vance is an outspoken critic of childlessness, linking it to sociopathy."

This investigation may miss some intermediate reversions of this particular content, it seems there may be a slow-moving WP:BATTLE WP:EW going on here with multiple editors, and I would encourage those involved to consider leaving the contested prose out of the lead and discuss the matter here on the talk page since the material has been removed and restored multiple times, including by an editor who has been blocked recently for edit warring.

• Special:Diff/1238402277 - Introduced 03 August 2024 by @Davefelmer
• Special:Diff/1240339301 - Restored 14 August 2024 by @Davefelmer
• Special:Diff/1240835695 - Restored 17 August 2024 by @Skyerise
• Special:Diff/1243203115 - Restored 30 August 2024 by @Wozal
• Special:Diff/1243298828 - Restored 31 August 2024 by @Davefelmer
• Special:Diff/1243615200 - Restored 02 Sept 2024 by @Wozal
• Special:Diff/1243664150 - Restored 02 Sept 2024 by @Davefelmer
• Special:Diff/1243897765 - Restored 03 Sept 2024 by @Davefelmer
• Special:Diff/1244009521 - Restored 04 Sept 2024 by @Davefelmer

I am also involved, having removed the material once or twice (I don't remember), but my argument for exclusion from the lead is from the guidelines WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and MOS:LEADNO which suggest the lead should summarize the most important aspects of the article, not unduly repeat WP:TRIVIAL comments that Vance made almost 4 years ago. I'd also encourage editors to AGF and not cast aspersions in their edit summaries. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Endwise, @RogerYg, @R. G. Checkers as well since they are involved editors. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Cortador, @Horse Eye's Back, @Locke Cole for same reasons. Wozal (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You might want to slow down there, do you have diffs where they're involved with this particular content? WP:CANVAS is a serious thing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc You do know I've participated in multiple discussions on this page, right? And while I haven't commented on this specific section (because all the comments occurred on the 19th/20th and it appeared to have been resolved), it's a real stretch to suggest I was canvassed here... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd lean towards including the content, because a great deal of coverage about Vance's candidacy has circled around these sort of comments related to childlessness and ultimately it does tie into the platform he's running on - especially with saying his opponents are anti-child, it's not just a comment from a few years ago. However I think with that we should also include some actual policies on the issue that are being discussed. An addendum about his proposal to increase the child tax credit might be an idea. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The sociopathy comment was from 2020, per one of the sources, In a 2020 conservative podcast, Vance suggested “childless people” in the country’s leadership were “more sociopathic” than those with children. It had only recently resurfaced due to his entry into the 2024 election. I agree with the policy angle, but generalizing an off-hand comment from a 4-year-old podcast just seems awfully WP:UNDUE for a lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough re the sociopathy comment being a once off. As a whole I think with the amount he's talked about childlessness and the focus that's been placed on it with the campaign I do think that should be in the lead though, even without the reference to the 2020 comment. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, it's not a one-off. He's said it a few different times, including in a fundraising email. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The link in the source you're citing about emails doesn't mention anything about sociopaths, and again, it refers to democratic leaders, not the general populace. The best I can tell is this is referring to the same 2020 podcast where this was originally referenced. Additionally, Vance clarifies the statement quite succinctly. “Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment. I’ve got nothing against cats,” said Vance, adding that his remarks were not about criticizing people without children, but rather focused on policy and claimed the Democratic Party has become “anti-family” and “anti-child.” A CNN KFile analysis found several examples over the course of a few years of Vance saying similarly disparaging things when talking about people without children — usually while targeting Democratic officials. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough. The email says "We’ve allowed ourselves to be dominated by childless sociopaths - they’re invested in NOTHING because they’re not invested in this country’s children." And no, it's not referring to the 2020 podcast. The article quotes four different examples referring to sociopathy: childlessness "makes people more sociopathic" (2020 podcast), "childless sociopaths" (2021 fundraising email), childlessness "made many elites sociopaths" (2021 tweet), and "we think babies are good because we’re not sociopaths" (2019 speech). He's also said similar things without using the specific word "sociopath," such as "the people who are most deranged and most psychotic are people who don't have kids at home." As I noted earlier, I'm not arguing for keeping the "sociopath" phrase in the lead; I'm pointing out that it's not a one-off. But I absolutely do think that the lead should mention his being a vocal critic of childlessness. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable take, honestly. It's fairly obvious that he's an outspoken Natalist, I don't think that's very controversial. However, suggesting that he has generalized that everyone who doesn't have children is a sociopath seems like a bit of a stretch -- and it seems we both can agree on that, especially considering he's walked back those comments in recent interviews. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Firstly, in needs to be removed right now per WP:BLPRESTORE. R. G. Checkers ^talk 17:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• It's beyond absurd that such WEIGHT is given to them in the body paragraph. Near 1/3 or so of the whole campaign section is about off the cuff comments made before the campaign. It needs to be condensed in the body and not included in the lead because it has little to do with his policy pronouncements or his work in the senate. R. G. Checkers ^talk 18:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Unlike the couch nonsense, which I don't think belongs anywhere in this article, this appears to be a recurring theme with Vance and relates to how he may govern. He has made multiple unusual statements in this area. Some brief addition to the lead that reflects his strong statements is called for. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  the couch nonsense Could you make your bias any more obvious? "The couch nonsense" is very well sourced with numerous reliable sources available and it continues to receive attention. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Locke Cole: I cannot imagine where you see bias. Even ignoring the fact that I can't stand the guy. I think it should be omitted because it is not informative and frankly silly. Not the first time here you have made an odd accusation of bias. Please WP:CIV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed that the negative comments about childlessness is a recurring theme for Vance, and I think should be included. See this section of his Political positions page for more examples. His comments about sociopathy are not as frequent, but there's more than one, including a fundraising email. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. We already had consensus for this as well. Cortador (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• 100% should remain as is. It's frequently discussed in the body, across multiple sources, and is frequently discussed in the media. Furthermore, this is a debate that's already been had before, so I'm not sure why it's being rehashed. As I recall, the consensus was that additional info about him saying parents should have more voting power than non-parents was not considered a fit for the lead but the above was. Attempting to rehash the same argument with a different pool of editors to move towards a desired outcome isn't how this works. Davefelmer (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't recall the WP:SYNTH suggesting Vance made a statement that people who don't have children are sociopathic ever gaining consensus, and regardless, WP:SILENTCONSENSUS is the weakest form of consensus. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  All of the information was evaluated and the consensus was only the non-parents voting power comment didn't fit for the lead. It was quite explicit. Saying there wasn't a direct, explicit consensus on every word and every line so it was a weak consensus and should be rehashed is peak gaslighting politics though lol Davefelmer (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  To suggest there was ever a "status quo" for material that's been reverted 6 times in the past month is also peak gaslighting. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  So now you've just completely changed the subject? Those reverts (some by IPs) were restored by multiple editors, and just because some people disputed content doesn't mean they got consensus to change it. As we've been talking about, there WAS a discussion on the intro lines, and the consensus was that only the non-parents voting power comment didn't fit there. Davefelmer (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  AFAIK none of them were IP reverts, but that's beside the point. WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLPREMOVE are rather clear here, and the material that keeps getting reintroduced is straight up WP:SYNTH and violates WP:NOR. Vance suggested that leaders who don't have children may possess sociopathic traits; the current prose is a significant misrepresentation of what was reported, and Wikipedia has strict standards regarding WP:BLP's. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  The information is well sourced and not OR. He's made numerous comments on it over the years. Davefelmer (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  The line about sociopathy is OR generalization, and thus a BLP violation. R. G. Checkers ^talk 20:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Mostly Agree with Kcmastrpc and R. G. Checkers's arguments that sociopathy mention is WP:UNDUE in the Lead and it seems like an OR generalizationas as sociopathy comment was from 2020 in a context. I think childless issue can be mentioned in the Lead with some Context and neutral language per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEADNO (the lead should summarize the most important aspects of the article) RogerYg (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

    Based on above discussion by multiple Wiki editors, it is clear that there is no consensus to mention "sociopathy" in the lead, rather there are several valid reasons to remove it: WP:BLPREMOVE WP:UNDUE & violates WP:NOR, violates WP:BLP. RogerYg (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

    It's definitely not OR. As I noted (with a citation) earlier, he's said it multiple times, including in a fundraising email. However, I agree that the link to sociopathy is UNDUE in the lead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is not. The information is sourced. Cortador (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  In what way is it OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Because no reliable sources have directly said that Vance has linked childlessness to sociopathy, verbatim. It doesn't exist. They've all referenced various emails and podcasts where he's clearly discussing the topic in context to people in leadership positions (notably Democrats). He, along with his staff, also clarified these statements in a recent interview that is covered by WP:RS. This is an encyclopedia, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  A source that says that verbatim would be a problem copyvivo wise. We seem to have sources that say more or less the same thing unless I'm missing something, DUEWEIGHT seems to be a legitimate argument but not seeing the OR argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's not limited to people in leadership positions. For example, he has said "There’s just these basic cadences of life I think are really powerful and really valuable when you have kids in your life, and the fact that so many people, especially in America’s leadership class, just don’t have that in their lives, you know — I worry that it makes people more sociopathic and ultimately our whole country a little bit less mentally stable," and "You go on Twitter and almost always, the people who are most deranged and most psychotic are people who don’t have kids at home." FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Right, I mean, I agree, we discussed this above as well. He's obviously an outspoken critic of childlessness and what is currently in the lead seems DUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about what should or shouldn't be in the lead. I'm pointing out that your claim "he's clearly discussing the topic in context to people in leadership positions" is false. Some of his comments have been limited to people in leadership positions and others haven't. I just gave you two examples that were not limited to people in leadership positions. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  "There’s just these basic cadences of life I think are really powerful and really valuable when you have kids in your life, and the fact that so many people, especially in America’s leadership class, just don’t have that in their lives, you know — I worry that it makes people more sociopathic and ultimately our whole country a little bit less mentally stable," noting the bolded text, and the follow-up quote about people on Twitter was directly after the above quote. It's also worth noting that Vance has recently discussed these comments and made it clear he was referring to people in leadership positions.

  I don't think Vance should get a pass on any of this, to be clear, it's definitely worth covering -- but to generalize and suggest that he believes that all childless people are sociopaths (especially in the lead) is absolutely wandering into WP:OR territory, I don't see how any one arguing in good faith could suggest otherwise. But that's also just my opinion. We have processes to handle things like this, and I think the next step, honestly, is an RfC (if editors feel that strongly about it). Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Again, I'm not proposing that it go in the lead. I'm pointing out that it's not OR to say that he's linked childlessness to sociopathy. Yes, he added the phrase "especially in America’s leadership class" to the first quote, but in no way did he limit the claim to the leadership class in either of those quotes. And contrary to your claim that "no reliable sources have directly said that Vance has linked childlessness to sociopathy," one can find RS saying this, such as this NYT article: "He has stressed the importance of having children, saying not doing so 'makes people more sociopathic.'” Are you saying that that cannot be characterized as "linking" them? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm saying we'd need a plurality of reliable sources making that characterization, otherwise, we might be engaging in WP:OR per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I'm not disputing that Vance said these things, I'm disputing that Wikipedia should synthesize such a characterization. I think it's also important to understand that Vance has since clarified his position on the matter -- which makes the matter even more contentious. I believe it's perfectly within policy to quote what he has said directly, but in order to WP:BALANCE we should also include his more recent clarifications on those remarks. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest that you edit the body to create more balance. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Gave it a shot. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't be opposed to seeing what uninvolved editors WP:NOR/N has to say on the matter, either. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is no might... It either does or it doesn't and here as far as I can tell it doesn't. From my perspective you are stonewalling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are yours. I'd encourage you to remain WP:CIVIL. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Either you can demonstrate that its an OR violation or you can't, there is no maybe. Please do not cast baseless aspersions like that, there is nothing uncivil in my comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Suggesting that I am Stonewalling is an aspersion, and you have absolutely no right to cast it without evidence. I've stated my position politely, within reason, and without resorting to personal attacks, which is something you seem incapable of doing. So I'll ask you again to either engage with civility or just don't engage at all. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I said that from my point of view you are stonewalling and as evidence I provide this discussion, that is an opinion and you just said "I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are yours." there is no incivility in my comments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  You provided nothing, other than baseless accusations. Can you clarify how I am "stonewalling"? Provide concrete examples, please. You could have easily just said what you said without accusing me of stonewalling. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  From my perspective this is stonewalling[16], it doesn't get much more concrete than that... You've gone on a complete tangent about a perceived slight rather than support your claims about the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Probably because they can't. That seems to be the new refrain whenever someone makes an unsubstantiated claim. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Listen, I don't need to compromise my beliefs on the matter just because you believe something is or isn't OR, and this works both ways. You responded by casting WP:ASPERSION and I called you out on them, and you've yet to substantiate them which is straight up WP:TENDENTIOUS per WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE, WP:NORFC and you're absolutely leaning heavily into WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I have no problem stating this outright because you've demonstrated a pattern of this on this BLP. So either open a RfC, take it to a noticeboard, or keep getting called out on it, I don't care. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  This seems to misrepresent history, you cast aspersions[17] and I called you out on them[18]... You then responded with a "I didn't cast aspersions you did!" argument[19]. You have not stated your position politely, within reason, and without resorting to personal attacks... I have also substantiated my claims, edits like this[20] don't exactly suggest I'm wrong either on an factual or opinion level (even though at some point along the line you decided that I was not entitled to my opinion). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have made a report on the WP:ANEW board concerning DaveFelmer's edit warring violating WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE policies by restoring the disputed content without consensus. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion _pbp 05:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Enix150 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the current version already includes "childlessness" in the lead and "sociopathy" in the body as per WP:BLP, WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, and other WP policies, as discussed by several editors above. I think it's a reasonable consensus. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion since this is likely to come up again. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Marine Corps photo of Vance in Dress Blues is printed backwards.

Turn the photo around. 68.225.121.238 (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Should we mention the leaked Vance dossier?

The Trump campaign's dossier on Vance has been leaked by journalist Ken Klippenstein, and was published on his Substack. Twitter/X has suspended Klippenstein and blocked links to the story; similarly Meta has restricted links on Threads, Instagram, and Facebook citing concerns about foreign election interference.

This seems notable, and should probably get at least a sentence here. What do others think? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There just isn't a lot of weight to this document or leak. NBC News spells it out rather succinctly: At least three major news outlets and two independent journalists previously received a document described as a JD Vance dossier but did not publish it, citing what they have described as a lack of newsworthy information in it. Perhaps it's worth a mention in the 2024 Election campaign article, but since there's no October surprise in these documents, I don't see why we'd even go that far. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessarily for a lack of newsworthy information that it was suppressed though. Major media outlets also decided not to publish in order to prevent and limit concerns regarding foreign election interference.

From the Columbia Journalism Review: Over the weekend, the Trump campaign warned the news media that reporting on the Vance dossier or other documents would be tantamount to “doing the bidding of America’s enemies.” As various outlets noted, this was a screeching departure from the 2016 Trump campaign’s conduct around Russia’s hacking of Democrats: in July of that year, Trump infamously called on Russia to “find” Clinton’s emails, adding, “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press”; a few months later, after WikiLeaks started publishing communications from inside Clinton’s inner circle, he said, “I love WikiLeaks.”

Overall, there is a notable story here: a potential Iranian influence operation based on a hack and compromise of Republican insiders working for the Trump campaign. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That story is at Iranian interference in the 2024 United States elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "Walz vs Vance in VP debate"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Democrat Tim Walz and Republican JD Vance, U.S. politicians whose histories and rhetoric have amassed more headlines than many past No. 2 candidates, will go head to head on Tuesday at the only vice presidential debate before the Nov. 5 election.

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/walz-vance-spar-us-vice-presidential-debate-2024-10-01/

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

ULTRACOMFY (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats not really a fact... If they had ammased more headlines than any other No. 2 candidates I could see it, but as stated its kind of a non-fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The "more headlines" thing is not mentioned in the cited source. The only thing it talks about is the existence of the upcoming debate. I think it might be possible that these VPs have gotten more attention than any other VP to date, but I don't think there's a citation for it and so it would be original research... I think it might pass an initial sniff test, so if someone finds a reliable source commenting about it, that would be a good fact to add. Fieari (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage stance?

The article says one of his positions is "opposition to same-sex marriage," which seems to overstep the only source used for this, 165

He doesn't seem to support overturning Oberfell, which overruled DOMA. He doesn't seem to support other legislation against same-sex marriage or illegalizing same-sex unions or even marriage. He said it was a non-issue and didn't want to tear families apart in the source. Said "we're arguing about rights that have already been granted by the Supreme Court." Seems that without further sources it would be more accurate to say same-sex marriage is not a motivating issue for him politically, that he thinks it's a settled issue, whether he personally believes in it or not (which could also be clarified because I couldn't find it). He opposed something called RFMA on grounds of it being vague and thus interfering with religious liberty.

So saying he either doesn't have an active political position on this or that he opposes further codification of the issues surrounding same-sex marriage... would be less misleading. 115.23.192.113 (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Second name change?

It would be interesting to see the reason for the second name change, from Hamel to Vance, explained in the article. 2601:204:F181:9410:7183:8980:9CCC:8362 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

New subsection under 2024 campaign for VP debate?

Vance struck a rather cordial and more "moderate" tone in the vice presidential debate (with the notable exceptions of his claims about post-birth abortions and the results of the 2020 election). Initial post-debate polling shows major improvements in his favourability. According to CNN, he was 22 points underwater with voters earlier in the summer. By contrast, amongst likely voters who watched the debate, he is now only -3.

We can wait to see fully how further coverage and polling weighs out, but I think this is a major turning point in terms of the role he is playing on the Trump-Vance ticket - enough that the debate probably merits its own subsection. What do others think? Flip^andFlopped ツ 16:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please be mindful of how WP:RECENTISM is impacting your opinions. VP debates tend to be inconsequential. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should add any "instant polls" They aren't scientific polls. I'm sure there will be overall polls soon enough. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Flip^andFlopped ツ that we need to include a subsection for VP Debate as it is a notable event that has been widely covered in WP:RS sources. We now have serious articles and opinions from the Washighton Post, New York Times, and all the major political analysts on the issue, and its important to include it per WP:NPOV and balanced approach for this Wikipedia page. We have waited and now have enough good material from high quallity WP:RS sources for the subsection. RogerYg (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)