Talk:J. D. Vance/Archive 1

Website is a parked domain
The URL listed under website in the infobox leads to a parked domain page. It probably should not be listed here, at least until it is filled with a proper website.--UKcrow93 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just came back here and saw that there was still no content on the parked domain listed as website in the infobox, so I deleted it. Please feel free to include it again as soon as there is actual content provided under the URL. --UKcrow93 (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Heading text
I would like to know if you said the following? “. If I had to bite my tongue and vote for Hilary Clinton I would “ I take it that your willing to bow down to the communist Regime and go along with their agendas and help destroy our beloved country and turn it over to the communist party of China? I would greatly appreciate a trust and sincere answer not a political runaround response. Thank you Mark Harper Columbus Ohio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.79.175 (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mark Harper: provides political rant; Also Mark Harper: asks others not to provide political rant. You're adorable.EinBergsteiger (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

J.D. Vance name is spelled wrong on the title of this page
J.D. Vance name is spelled wrong in the title of the page and has a space between the two first initials and is probably spelled wrong in other sections of this page as well Ptero60 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy seems to be Manual of Style/Biography (MOS:INITIALS); specifically, ::: An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien), unless:
 * the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name; and
 * an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person.
 * The second bullet appears to be confirmed by the sources used in the article. As for the first bullet, does Vance demonstrably and consistently prefer "J.D." over "J. D."?
 * -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the cover of the book he authored and there doesn't seem to be a space in between the two initials and every website I've seen that spells his name with proper punctuation spells it as J.D. Vance Ptero60 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * For the first example, we don't know who decided how the book cover should be done--author, editor, publisher, etc. For the second example, websites by other people don't tell us what Vance's position is. The question is, what does Vance demonstrably and consistently prefer? -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "The question is, what does Vance demonstrably and consistently prefer?" see now thats where it gets complicated because Vance doesn't use any periods or spaces at all. See "JD will bring Ohio values to Washington" "JD grew up in Middletown, Ohio" "That outsider is JD Vance." etcHorse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * His campaign website has him as JD Vance, as in "JD Vance for Senate" and "Meet JD" with no periods at all. MOS:INITIALS sets a very high bar, and I think that policy is due for a review, as I believe we should call people by the names and pronouns they want to be called, as a fundamental human right.  But the policy says otherwise. BBQboffin (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"He is best known for his memoir Hillbilly Elegy" ??
Is this accurate? At this point, isn't he more well known for running for Senate?

5,330,000 results for "jd vance 'senate'"

598,000 results for "jd vance 'hillbilly elegy'"

TortillaDePapas (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Another editor (thank you!) changed the lede to: "He came to prominence with his 2016 memoir Hillbilly Elegy ." so I think this has been resolved. BBQboffin (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Reasons for tags

 * 1) The article needs a rewrite, better references, a smoother flow(the Career section needs to have the HillBilly Elegy section split/lessened, the political opinions section is quite awful as there is mixture of opinion and event (Does his opponent{s}  have one??) and it is very obvious that there is no consensus. (As an aside, I would like to have more on Road to Damascus moment). The articleHillbilly Elegy is more balanced, so much so that the mentions of the Elegy here seem stark as being intended to discredit. i gather this is also happening on his opponent from the comments above, have  added an NPOV tag should be added there as well.
 * 2) This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (October 2022) 
 * 3) * LOTS OF References don't always match statements
 * 4) * "In recent decades, rates of domestic violence have decreased" Really...Really ...ok that made me question the source reliability. Have no idea Ohio sources, but Is it a definition thing?
 * 5) This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (October 2022)
 * 6) * His prominence is linked to the rise of Elegy matches Google Trends. but you need a cite
 * 7) *"Born in Middletown, Ohio, Vance studied political science and philosophy at Ohio State University before earning a degree from Yale Law School. His memoir, which describes his upbringing in Middletown and his family's Appalachian values, became a New York Times bestseller and attracted significant press attention during the 2016 United States presidential election. Vance launched his first political campaign for Ohio's Senate seat in 2021 and won the Republican nomination with 32% of the vote. He will face Democrat Tim Ryan in the general election." This whole paragraph does not have references that match any of these facts
 * 8) * Article "Vance opposes abortion and said a leaked U.S. Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade "would be an amazing victory" if true." original tweet "Hope the news of the leaked opinion is true. Would be an amazing victory for the pro life movement and, most importantly, the innocents we fight for." Just let the facts show that he oppose abortion, so remove Vance Opposes Abortion, or get references.
 * 9) * "Vance reiterated Trump's claims of election fraud, falsely stating that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election because of widespread voter fraud." is not the same as  “There were certainly people voting illegally on a large-scale basis,” Vance, an author and venture capitalist, said during a Friday interview. Asked about massive fraud in Ohio, where Trump won by 8 percent, Vance said: “I think it’s probably true that Trump won by a larger margin in Ohio, but I think as things go, we had as (U.S. Rep.) Jim Jordan said, our elections were pretty gold standard. I don’t think things were perfect in Ohio, but I think it was #better here than in 90 percent of the states.” because he doesn't say that Trump lost because of it.
 * 10) *This is a personal preference, but I never like the use of only foreign sources for politics about another country in a paragraph. so back up "The Week". The Guardian, and the Spectator world (even global editions) with US articles
 * 11) * With Biden flooding Ohio with illegal drugs, the article states "He suggested that Biden was intentionally allowing drugs such as fentanyl" Is fentanyl illegal in Ohio? And did flooding mean Biden was selling, distributing, not stopping it
 * 12) The neutrality of this article is disputed. (October 2022) 
 * 13) * I gather hillbilly is a slur in the US, so use the full name of the Hillbilly Elegy at least once.
 * 14) * "Vance has been called a right-wing populist and national conservative candidate, backed by venture capitalist Peter Thiel and endorsed by Tucker Carlson." provide some other options, how has he described himself, how others who don't loathe him
 * 15) * "Economist William Easterly, a West Virginia native, criticized the book, calling it a "Sloppy analysis of collections of people—coastal elites, flyover America, Muslims, immigrants, people without college degrees, you name it—has become routine. And it's killing our politics."" His opinion (he has no reference mentioned in the Elegy) a is overweighted compared to NYT and Washington Post, and The West Virginian native is overemphasised (see article where he makes a joke about it as he left as a toddler). He is also saying that he disagrees with the whole genre, political belief system, ...., Have added a comment on Elegy article. (Aside, also have added his books to my reading list)>
 * 16) Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (October 2022)
 * 17) * Enotes ?? Really Enotes?
 * 18) * Multiple SWYRT
 * 19) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information.
 * 20) * "Vance is influenced by fellow Senate candidate Blake Masters, conservative writer Rod Dreher, and by neoreactionary blogger Curtis Yarvin." THe article does not state influenced by, but friends with. It doesn't describes Curtis Yarvin as neoreactionary, it describes "Laurenson had been a well-known blogger and activist in the BDSM scene back when Yarvin was the central early figure in a world of “neo-reactionary” writers, publishing his poetry and political theory on the Blogger site under the name Mencius Moldbug." (Aside, American politics is far more interesting than I thought)
 * 21) * The Guardian describes Viktor Orban as a far-right Hungarian president, but that is not the consensus on Viktor Orban (and i couldn't find any other matches, so should not be used; I couldn't find any other - it's damning Vance by association.

Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@hUser:Muboshgu Reasons why.
 * Hi Wakelamp. I previously made the exact same mistake (adding lots of tags); turns out that's considered Tag bombing (that page cites "disruptive editing", but often it's also done in good faith). Lots of tags at the beginning of articles make the page unaesthetic, fill up the screen unnecessarily, and are unusually just not necessary. No article is perfect, but unless there's major issues, there's no need for tags.

Middle name
Is it David or Donald? The article mentions that he changed his last name, but theres no explanation for the differing middle names. --jonas (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Scrubbing of Vance's social conservatism in lead
Davefelmer recently removed all mention of Vance's socially conservative policies in the lead, stating it violated the principles of WP: NPOV and WP: Activism. This seems strange to me, as I'm not sure how it's activism or a violation of NPOV to recount positions that he publicly expouses, is well known for, or has on his campaign site.

Vance is widely known for expousing socially conservative views and his previous support of the Never Trump movement. It's perplexing to say this is not notable.

In the edit, he stated: ""


 * Tagging the editors involved in this outside of myself:, , and . I don't want this to become an edit dispute. KlayCax (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Multiple reliable sources (such as this) have stated that abortion is the (or one of the top) leading issues in the 2022 United States Senate election in Ohio race. Vance is widely known for his socially conservative views. It obviously merits inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m inclined to agree with you here, these are pretty core positions in his campaign. Drevolt (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your insertion includes: "His positions include opposition to same-sex marriage[6] and support of increased restrictions on abortion, including in cases of rape and incest.[7]" The first cite doesn't directly support that he opposes same-sex marriage, it only says that he disliked a certain bill related to it (elsewhere I read that he said "I don’t think that law strikes a very good balance." etc.). The second cite about abortion looks more okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The literal definition of WP:LEAD is "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a SUMMARY OF ITS MOST IMPORTANT CONTENTS. What you KlayCax (talk) say when you say "Vance is widely known for expousing socially conservative views and his previous support of the Never Trump movement" means nothing as it's not prominently discussed in the article. His "socially conservative" views cover less than 3 lines in the entire piece, and although he does say he's a "Never Trump guy" at some point to a college buddy, that's hardly being part of a "movement" in the same way as say The Lincoln Project are.


 * And re abortion, again, you bringing in something like this https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/1122694807/abortion-is-top-of-mind-in-ohios-closely-watched-senate-race means absolutely nothing. It's the definition of WP:OR. It's researching a wider topic in other sources beyond what's described in the article and how it directly relates to the subject's life and position on it. And re gay marriage, as the other user notes, his opposition to a bill doesn't mean he opposes same sex marriage in general and it's again WP:UNDUE to say that.


 * Finally, if you really want to reference that he was against Trump and a Never Trump guy, then you can say it as the section is a notable chunk of the article body. But it needs to be consistent and WP:DUE with what is said, which is that he was a critic of Trump during the 2016 election, referred to himself as a never Trump guy, backtracked when he announced his candidacy and that he was endorsed by Trump earlier this year. Something like this:

"Vance was a critic of Donald Trump during the 2016 election, describing himself as a "Never Trump guy". However, he changed his rhetoric after announcing his Senate candidacy, and apologized for his past critiques. He was endorsed by Trump in April 2022."


 * THAT reflects the most important parts of the section. At the moment, you just want to include that he was part of a never Trump 'movement' when he just said that once and then emphasize a hypocritical look by going right into him changing his views ahead of his senate race. It ignores that he apologized for his prior views, it ignores that Trump himself endorsed him which is huge here!


 * So we can cover it like that. But the socially conservative stuff is not prominent enough in the article body to have WP:DUE weight in the lead. Really, the status quo of the old version of the article should remain published while we resolve it here, but if we can discuss and reach a compromise on the above, I'll be happy to insert that in instead. Davefelmer (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If there are no further discussion points, I'll make the change in 24 hours. Davefelmer (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Which being part of the Never Trump movement, opposition to abortion, and support for repealing Obergefell v. Hodges all fit into. Multiple RS have stated that these things are core to his campaign.


 * Vance didn't say that just once. He repeatedly criticized his policies and personality throughout much of his tenure. (2017-2021) There's also been extensive questions about how sincere his endorsement of Vance truly is. Regardless, endorsements aren't usually placed in the lead.


 * Vance has repeatedly stated that he is opposed same-sex marriage and Obergefell v. Hodges, mentioning it in the campaign. Like abortion, multiple news sources have labeled it an important part of his platform.


 * If multiple reliable sources state that it's one of important parts of his platform: it's not a violation of the policy.


 * Then that's an argument for expanding the body. Not deleting clearly notable parts of his biography. To say that he's not primarily running on a social conservative platform is ridiculous and goes against a multitude of sources.


 * None of this violates WP: NPOV or WP: Due. KlayCax (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Re gay marriage: you point to The Columbus Dispatch. It's paywalled. What exactly does it say that supports your statement? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You can access archived copies at the Wayback Machine and Archive.today. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I read I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but I don't think the gay marriage issue is alive right now," Vance said. "I'm not one of these guys who's looking to try to take people's families and rip them apart." If KlayCax had been using that source to say Mr Vance as a political position would not oppose same-sex marriage, I'd have said okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Whoops, sorry. I responded quick and realized that I sent the wrong article. It was referencing a statement from the same newspaper that stated that but I got the links mixed up. But, honestly, thinking more about it: that claim is debatable at best. His stance on abortion and previous opposition to Trump has received significantly more attention in reliable sources. And I (myself) don't think it's that important to include.


 * I wouldn't object if the reference to opposing same-sex marriage is removed from the lead, .KlayCax (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I intend to remove "opposition to same-sex marriage[6] and" from the last sentence of the lead, and remove "Vance opposes same-sex marriage." from a later section. But I'll wait a day in case there are objections from other thread participants. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Vance has explicitly stated that he's against same-sex marriage, though. His quote just seems to mean: "it wouldn't be a legislative priority" if he's elected.
 * I still support removing opposition to same-sex marriage from the lead. KlayCax (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Re the lead: Marquardtika got in front of me and removed the whole sentence. Re the later section: I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * KlayCax you kind of keep missing what Davefelmer was trying to say although I don't agree with every one of Davefelmer's points, in your last paragraph of your response to that user you said that "Then that's an argument for expanding the body. Not deleting clearly notable parts of his biography." except that was not what Davefelmer was doing, Davefelmer was disputing putting the political positions in the lead of the page because it is unusual to do that which I would agree with.
 * You yourself made a similar justification when you said "Regardless, endorsements aren't usually placed in the lead." when you declined to put the trump endorsement in the lead. I am sure the same applies to political positions and especially past ones which vance seems to not have held even a year before he announced his candidacy which would be the "never trump" position. You keep making claims without citing them like when you said Vance was criticizing trump from 2017-2021 and also that still doesn't mean he was "never trump" for this long.
 * The citations you do give are either paywalled or don't really support your claim like when you cited here "There's also been extensive questions about how sincere his endorsement of Vance truly is." which is just trump saying ridiculous things but says he still fully supports vance. Also putting abortion in the lead doesn't make sense because abortion is a contentious issue in the whole country and we don't put abortion positions in the lead for every candidate's page.
 * I disagree with putting political positions in the lead to begin with and it is unusual to add it there and especially previous political positions and I noticed you added political positions in the lead for tim ryan's page as well here [| 1] and here [| 2] where you are wording info to make tim ryan look really good which does seem a little biased which is probably what Davefelmer was referring to when wp:activism was mentioned. I do think keeping the lead as before is probably a better idea and seems to be the norm. Traftra8 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Woah, I wrote out a response to KlayCax's last set of points but it doesn't appear to have been saved or uploaded. Bizarre. In essence though, I think Traftra8 covers a lot of them very well, and to an extent Peter Gulutzan does too. There's simply far too much WP:OR and taking liberties with sources in your explanations. You say being part of the Never Trump movement and support for repealing Obergefell v. Hodges is stated in numerous reliable sources to be core to his campaign, but you can't cite those sources and none are in the article. On top of that, he said he was "Never Trump" to a college friend, while not being part of any actual 'movement' to stop his election. He didn't fundraise against Trump, he didn't campaign against him, he didn't pay for anti-Trump ads. By that logic everyone against Biden now is part of an "anti-Biden movement". The project standard does not normally associate people with 'movements' as such, as seen for example by Kamala Harris not being cited as part of the Black Lives Matter movement despite posting links to bail money funds for protestors during the summer of 2020 on her official social media channels, which is far more than Vance ever did in regards to a movement.


 * You say Vance repeatedly criticized Trump throughout his Presidency and that Trump's endorsement of Vance wasn't genuine, but provided no sources to back up either assertion and none are in the article. Trump saying some nonsense to puff up his ego on the side isn't the same thing as him saying he didn't want to endorse him or didn't mean it. You then say "multiple news sources have labeled" abortion restrictions and opposition to gay marriage as an "important part of his platform", but as ever cannot cite any and none are in the article expressly stating so.


 * You say, but that's the thing, it IS a violation of the policy if you can't cite those sources, they aren't directly to do with the topic at hand (J.D. Vance) AND they're not in the article.


 * Finally, what really gets me is this As Traftra8 notes, this is strange to point to considering all the things not normally placed in the lead that you've insisted for. Political positions are not normally placed in the lead, see Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff, Chuck Schumer, Maggie Hassan and Catherine Cortez Masto as just some examples. Claimed association with broader 'movements' are not normally placed in the lead. Citing information not prominently featured in the article body is not placed in the lead. Yet you seem to be fine with all of those, and it's quite convenient that you want to use one section of the body to cite Vance as part of a Never Trump 'movement' before making it look hypocritical by saying he changed positions when he ran for the Senate, while ignoring that Vance apologized for his past criticisms AND that Trump personally endorsed him from the very same section. At the end of the day, you don't get to pick and choose what to include in the lead to match your views. That's not what the project is about. Davefelmer (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If there's notable pieces of legislation/positions that they have. Yes, it should be added. See Marjorie Taylor Greene (which is a "good article"). It's remarkably typical to have political positions in the lead. I'm not sure why Vance is an exception. And I have nothing to do with the current articles on Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff, Chuck Schumer, Maggie Hassan, or any of the rest.


 * I fail to see how that makes him look hypocritical.


 * Lots of news organizations and commentators have stated it is.


 * Then half of the pages on this site surrounding politicians need rewritten.


 * That's an uncalled for accusation. I've criticized many of the pages currently on this site — including those that relate to the United States (see here) — for left-wing bias that I've seen. Wikipedia articles aren't to make one candidate look "good" or "bad".


 * Here. This isn't to include abortion: which has already been repeatedly addressed. KlayCax (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage under political positions

 * Due to discussion above including my post on "15:15, 26 September 2022" I removed "Vance opposes same-sex marriage" from the body. Now I see KlayCax on September 27 inserted "Vance has voiced opposition to same-sex marriage", this time citing Cincinnati Enquirer, coincidentally the same as in the reply above re "multiple news sources". Once again KlayCax refers to a paywalled site but an excerpt is available on "Ohio Democrats" web page. I continue to oppose this as it's a conclusion that Mr Vance's actual words don't seem to support. Does KlayCax's edit have consensus? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. Marquardtika (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Cullen328: On 19:16, 17 October 2022 you re-inserted this material after Davefelmer removed it. Were you aware of this discussion thread? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I was not aware of this discussion. I reverted once based on the edit summary that said, "relevant source paywalled". That is not a valid reason to remove a reference, since policies and guidelines permit paywalled sources, and most of the best US newspapers from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times and many others are paywalled. Cullen328 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that you're aware of the discussion, you know the objection is not about paywall. Will you be neutral if/when another removal occurs with an edit summary mentioning WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE instead? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that political positions should be presented in the body of the article instead of the lead. But I also want the article to accurately summarize his stance on same sex marriage. You say the objection is not about the paywall but I see the paywall being mentioned repeatedly above and in the edit summary of what I reverted. If the text being challenged accurately summarizes the source, then I think it should remain. If it misrepresents the source, then it should be rewritten or removed. Is the source misrepresented in your view? Most of the recent coverage deals with his opposition to a federal bill codifying same sex marriage as he said in the recent debate. This advocacy source says he said "Marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman," which indicates he opposes both divorce and same sex marriage in general. I am not proposing to use that particular source, but I want the content to accurately summarize the full range of reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Re "paywall being mentioned repeatedly": yes but not with respect to the objection because as I said we can access an excerpt. Re "Is the source misrepresented": no and that was never the objection, but the source Haley BeMiller may be misrepresenting her source which she didn't specify with reference to something Mr Vance actually said. Re "Most of the recent coverage deals with his opposition to a federal bill codifying same sex marriage as he said in the recent debate." yes that is why the Wikipedia article already says that and there is no objection about it. Re your quote "Marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman": the Wikipedia article already quotes almost the same words from another occasion but he went on, as the Wikipedia article says: "I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but I don't think the gay marriage issue is alive right now. I'm not one of these guys who's looking to try to take people's families and rip them apart." So things that you bring up are already in the article and nobody's objecting to them, the only objection is to KlayCax's addition of Haley BeMiller's conclusion. Are you aware that we're discussing something under Political positions not "Personal predilections"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't mentioned with respect to the objection how do you explain this? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I responded to the complaint about paywall being "mentioned repeatedly above", none of the paywall mentions above were objections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a topic subheading = Same-sex marriage under political positions. KlayCax + Cullen328 support the addition. Davefelmer and Peter Gulutzan oppose. Marquardtika judged there is no consensus though that was before Cullen328 re-inserted. I believe there is still no consensus and intend to revert in a day or two mentioning WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to yourself in the third person? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did, I hoped that by listing names only without mixing in pronouns I would make it easier for anyone who wasn't reading carefully. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverted as promised. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Biden section
Recommend omitting "falsely" from the phrase about his claim that President Joe Biden was flooding Ohio with illegal drugs. The first references was an opinion about what he said, and the second made assertions that the information was not true and gave it '4 Pinocchios' but did not conclusively disprove Vance's opinion. Later reports show increases to fentanyl seizures, which counters the Post's article, weakening it's rationale. THEREFORE, the NPOV response would be to remove the value judgement and let the claim lay by itself, without commentary. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/fentanyl-seizures-border-continue-spike-making-san-diego-national-epicenter-fentanyl DeknMike (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Why not rename the section something like "Drugs" and include the existing quote along with other well-sourced text about the subject's views (without the hyperbole) on marijuana, opioids, and federal policy? Deleting one word doesn't do much here; the NPOV response is a bold re-write. BBQboffin (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. Done, and added material with an opposing view from a semi-neutral source. DeknMike (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Should Vance's opposition to abortion and previous criticism of Trump be included in the lead?
Should J.D. Vance's opposition to abortion and previous criticism of Trump be included in the lead of the article?

Version #1:

"Vance was a critic of Donald Trump during the 2016 election, becoming a member of the Never Trump movement, but changed his rhetoric after announcing his candidacy. Considered a national conservative and right-wing populist, he supports increased restrictions on abortion, including in cases that involve rape and incest."

Version #2:

"Statement above not included."

Arguments can be found above. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you add the version 2?
 * It's not justified being in the lede. THe lede's references are substandard; Enotes ???, a NYT paragraph long summary referring to a full NYT review as a reference??. Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Version #2 means not including the paragraph of version #1 in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Version 1 I've read the dispute above and I'm still not sure what the argument for not including it is. This information is all well-sourced. I could maybe see not picking out that specific policy position unless he's really specifically known for it but the rest is clearly WP:DUE. Loki (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No, don't put Version 1 in the lede. If a candidate has a signature issue, like Yang's UBI or Forbes' flat tax, then that makes sense to promote that to the lede, but just having a position on abortion (nearly everyone has one) doesn't make that lede-worthy. BBQboffin (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No, at least not this version. I'm seeing no compelling reason why his abortion position needs to be described in such detail in the lead. None of his other positions are. Why is this one special? Broad descriptions of his political stances could be included in the lead someway, but this proposal is just not great.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Not justified being in the lead, and why the hell has this RFC even been started? You sought to include effectively this exact same information in the body already, were reverted, took it to talk, had 3 editors oppose and only one other support (so didn't get consensus), and now you've started an RFC hoping to void that discussion and get brand new editors to come in and hopefully give you a consensus here. But that's not how it works. Considering you also started a similar RFC on Herschel Walker's page that was quickly shut down where you similarly tried to cram in negatively phrased or viewed policy positions into the lead, I don't see how we can view this in good faith. Seems like the left wing activism attempt of the cycle, where someone always has a pop trying to edit the page of every Republican politician running in a close election or swing state by conveniently cherrypicking out their most conservative or least mainstream policy positions and packing them into the lead, while the opposing Democrat's page either remains untouched or gets the opposite treatment where their most mainstream views and policy positions are plucked into the lead. Has failed before and will fail again this time. Davefelmer (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Davefelmer I agree. I put up pov tags on both Vance and the opponent Ryan, and left detailed notes (as this was my first Rfc - and I was just here to check on my Political Russian Jokes rfc, so I thought I would pay if forward)
 * I checked through all the reverts, most were ok, but the changes included some very unreliable references (enotes!!), references not matching match the content (especially if the reference were negative), weasel, an amazing amount about a refugee and a book, ...and lots of blp type issues.
 * I am not American, but isn't there some of abbreviations for different opinions about abortion?
 * And various editors and rfcers seemed connected or at least edit on similar subject I
 * think.
 * Any feedback on what, and how much I wrote on the talk pages would be appreciated as I was going to put myself down to do 2 per month.( Note, I don't use the WP codes as I am stillrubbish at them, but I know the guidelines reasonably well)
 * Just out of interest, I can't see how heavily biased articles help in an election - in Australia voters just switch off, and it makes WP look dumb - I just tend to not edit them because I can improve something else easier). Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No this version splits the argument and will have us stuck in no-consensus forever: 1. abortion inclusion 2. Never-Trump inclusion and 3. either of them as part of the lead. We have plenty of information to go off of here, and it seems to me that per WP:BLP, we should remove the controversial elements from the lead. Tepkunset (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What about if we used Vance and Ryan's opinions based on their debate  . I am not American, so i asked what the neutral wording was
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No for the lead. It would seem WP:UNDUE there. desmay (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Version 1 (uninvolved user coming from the Politics RfC page.) This is one of the major traits of the candidate that gets mentioned in all news articles. The lead must mention the major traits. hence I support its addition. This has become even more relevant after the Dobbs verdict. Venkat TL (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No for the lead. The issue is important to the party faithful, but a majority say it's not a key issue.  (https://news.gallup.com/poll/313316/one-four-americans-consider-abortion-key-voting-issue.aspx)  It's discussed in the body.DeknMike (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No for the lead. Though policies don't say this outright (they just state that the lead should reflect the body), it's generally good practice for the lead to focus on what the subject is notable for. Hard to see how version 1 meets that criteria. Also, the lead's length is currently proportional to the article length; there's no need to cram more things in. DFlhb (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"He chose Augustine of Hippo for his confirmation name."
Can't fix this myself, so consider this someplace between an edit-semi-protected request and a pointing out the following issues. First, it's uncited. Second, the phrasing is clumsy and silly. I'm pretty sure his local bish didn't ceremoniously tell him, "Augustine of Hippo, be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit." I suggest either "Choose Augustine as..." or possibly better, "Choose Augustine of Hippo as his patron saint", since this seems to be directly sourceable. (The American Conservative interview.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Career section - William Easterly comment
While I find Easterly's criticism of the book relevant, is it relevant to state that he is a West Virginia native? Vance represents Ohio in the Senate, where his book is also set. While Ohio and West Virginia may share cultural similarities, it seems like a bad precedent to give background for everyone who has a comment or give credibility based on being from West Virginia. We don't write, for example, "Joe Biden, a Pennsylvania native." IAmAaron2 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023 for JD Vance Wikipedia Page
Hello,

I'd like to suggest an edit to JD Vance's Wikipedia Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Vance.

Under "personal details" on the right-hand side panel, I would like to add in his campaign website: https://jdvance.com/ in addition to his Senate website which is currently linked. I believe that it would be beneficial knowledge to include in the panel information. Please let me know if I'm able to make this edit to include the link, which already currently appears at the bottom in external sources.

Best, Kelley Kelleybab (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

❌ Wikipedia isn’t an Avenue for politicians to promote their campaigns. I think this request was in good faith, but I will not accept it. Any other thoughts? Illusion Flame (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing that on some Senators' pages (Bob Casey Jr. and Lindsay Graham for example) both the Senate website and Campaign website are both listed in the infobox, but for other Senators (even newly elected ones like John Fetterman), only the Senate website appears. Per WP:READER my thought would be that if a Senator is up for election in the next cycle (or a special election), we should have the campaign link there in the infobox. But for a campaign that's over (like this one), no. BBQboffin (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Per above discussion change is not uncontroversial. Marking answered. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Does not respond to email contact via his congressional web page
It is important information to know that Senator JD Vance does not respond to his own constituents' email via his congressional web page and his congressional website appears to be unmonitored, which would lead one to believe that he is not interested in his own state's views, beliefs or positions, which would make it difficult for him to actually uphold his oath as a senator, not to mention earn his taxpayer-funded paychecks. I have written to him time and time and time again. Might as well be hollering into a Holler. Deb Genetin Dgenetin (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply Dgenetin (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * To add information to the article about his office's responsiveness (or lack) to public comment, we'd need a reliable source saying that per WP:RS. No disrespect meant, but original research such as your own experience can't be used in Wikipedia articles per our WP:OR policy. BBQboffin (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. I thought I was a reliable source! Dgenetin (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia editor is a reliable source, . In short, Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok Ok please delete my attempt to add information about Senator Vance, whom I have tried to contact via his congressional website many times and never received any response or even acknowledgment that my email was received. So So Sorry!! Dgenetin (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no way this is NPOV

 * Also in 2019, the first issue of The Lamp, which has since been called "a Catholic version of The New Yorker", included an essay by Vance describing the reasons for his conversion to Roman Catholicism.

Could we get rid of the included sentence, please? Besides, for me, as a non-American, this sentence is beyond comprehensible. I have no idea, what “The New Yorker” stands for in this sentence.

Ceplm (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * if "The New Yorker" was hyperlinked, would that help your understanding? 31.94.6.135 (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Could we perhaps be forthright and add that the source for that unlikely description comes from "the official newspaper of the Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis"? Even the National Review politely calls The Lamp "eccentric." Johannes der Taucher (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024
On July 15th he was nominated to be the Vice Presidential Candidate for the United States of America 71.3.76.200 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

He is the new nominee for Trumps VP
RNC announcement 24.97.154.2 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Already done. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Vice President 2024 Elections.
JD Vance is the Vice President Pick for Donald Trump in the 2024 elections. The Ohio Senator. 154.160.22.175 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Already done. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (2)
change "to be apart of a presidential ticket" to "to be part of a presidential ticket" 73.97.101.228 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ a few seconds ago. – Gluonz  talk contribs 20:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024 (2)
Change Criticism of Women in the workplace to Supports Motherhood.

This section is currently a biased misrepresentation. 2600:6C83:740:2D:C22:488A:85D2:2840 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Already removed. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)