Talk:JD Vance/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Appearance at Christian nationalist event

FMSky, why do you believe this is irrelevant and undue?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1248958016 soibangla (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

He speaks at hundrets of events --FMSky (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

are all his events so notable that the NYT and WaPo publish dedicated stories about them and NewsHour runs a dedicated segment? soibangla (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

while FMSky considers that, do others believe the content should be restored? soibangla (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily opposed to some of it being included, but definitely isn't significant enough to warrant it's own entire section. Just10A (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I would keep the parapgraph but drop the header, I agree with Just10A that the content is due but its not significant (or long) enough to warrant it's own section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Thus far editors haven't shown evidence that this appearance will have any WP:LASTING impact on Vance's life. Since he is in an election campaign at the moment there is some argument that it could go there, depending on whether or not it's had any impact on the campaign. Eg, major drop in polls as a result, etc. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you are fundamentally mistaken about the applicability of WP:LASTING in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The coverage we're talking about is quite routine and seems to meet the criteria described in WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:DEPTH. I'd be interested in seeing any secondary sources which explain how Vance speaking at this event will have any lasting impact on his personal or professional life. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What does the notability of events have to do with this discussion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely significant enough to get mentioned here, but perhaps does not need it's own section header. Please restore the removed content. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see how this is of lasting significance but I have restored a shortened version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1249514592 --FMSky (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be approaching this backwards... We add it now and if it isn't of lasting significance it gets removed later. You seem to be taking a thought experiment as practical guidance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The version it sits at now is good. It mentions it but does not devote an entire section to it. Green light from me. I think this issue is resolved. Just10A (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Excluding who the host does a disservice to the readers. It appears that the new version is way too censored. Per Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so." Wozal (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No one is proposing it be censored on the grounds that it is offensive. Just10A (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be omitted because it's irrelevant. Nothing about it is objectionable or offensive. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc: In what world is a political meeting with Christian Nationalists and election deniers either "routine" (your words above) or "irrelevant"? The United States is a democracy, and courting the support of people who are opposed to those values should in no way be considered the norm. We also must follow what the sources say, so this isn't really up for us to decide based on personal preferences and opinion. Reliable sources have made mention of this, and so should we. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNOT Just10A (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Just10A: Okay sure. So (aside from your partisan beliefs) why not include this pertinent information? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Do not engage in personal attacks. The reason why consensus has not decided upon it's inclusion is already outlined by multiple other editors. I'm just directing you toward policy. Just10A (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you have it backward, the onus is on editors to demonstrate why it should be included. I already mentioned above that the current sources don't rise above the level of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I realize we're here talking about JD Vance, but perhaps we should mention that Joe Biden eulogized Robert Byrd on his BLP? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc: Yes, feel free to take that discussion to the Biden page.

But also: you failed to address my comment above, which I will reiterate - In what world is a political meeting with Christian Nationalists and election deniers either "routine" (your words above) or "irrelevant" (also your words)? The United States is a democracy, and courting the support of people who are opposed to those values should in no way be considered the norm.

Care to comment on how that doesn't rise above the pale? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the sources cited talk about Lance Wallnau and how he and Vance did not interact with each other. I don't see anywhere in those sources mention Vance discussed topics on election denialism or Christian nationalism at the event. The sources don't say Vance has ever acknowledged Wallnau's views either. Wikipedia doesn't engage in WP:OR and create narratives that don't exist. Sorry. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Vance attended a town hall hosted by Wallnau, and New Apostolic Reformation discusses how the group acts by stealth and obfuscation to conceal its activities from the secular world. soibangla (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but do multiple reliable sources that have covered this event make the bold assertion that Vance is directly supportive of that movement as to make it WP:DUE for his BLP? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats not what would make it due or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

this is not about anyone else's BLP, it is about three top-tier secondary sources reporting in dedicated stories about Vance associating with people who advocate Christian dominion over all aspects of American society. I recommend editors read New Apostolic Reformation in depth. soibangla (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is a WP:BLP about JD Vance, it's not about Lance Wallnau, Christian Nationalism or New Apostolic Reformation. See WP:COATRACK Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coatrack articles doesn't appear to apply here Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:BITR seems applicable, but I'll just leave it at, "I disagree." Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

How is BITR applicable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you move on from this discussion by any chance? --FMSky (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@FMSky: "Moving on" would certainly benefit your interests in keeping this information suppressed, now wouldn't it?

How about engaging in the discussion, rather than working to stifle it? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Because engaging with it is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The reasons why a significant amount of people don't support it's inclusion has already been explained to you multiple times (primarily by @Kcmastrpc's posts). WP:VNOT and WP:LASTING seems to apply here. Just10A (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize two or three people as a "significant amount" of non-support. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, considering only ~6 people are substantially contributing to this thread, I'm afraid thats how mathematics works. Regardless, it's WP:IDONTHEARTHAT Just10A (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I see it as I heard your arguments, I don't find them persuasive, and I won't yield to them soibangla (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Just10A: Using that math, we could also say there is "significant support" for inclusion then. :)

This is not a vote afterall, and I simply disagree with your arguments and find them to be unconvincing. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct. That's how the word "significant" works. It's not mutually exclusive. Glad to help with that.

Unfortunately, I'm not going off of what "I see it as" or whether or not "I simply disagree with your arguments" I'm going off of Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Just10A (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Just10A: Yes, you are basing arguments against inclusion on incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia policy. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And wikipedia behavioral guidelines say that competence is required... An example of incompetence (and IDNHT) would be insisting that WP:LASTING applies to a discussion that isn't about the notability of a topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, that was a typo. I meant to cite WP:NOCON about living persons. (which, just to be clear, actually gives us ground to remove the paragraph entirely as was originally done. The current inclusion is actually generous if anything.)

Anyway, it's been explained multiple times now why people have issue with the matter, and why it was modified/removed per WP:VNOT, and it doesn't need to be rehashed. Have a good day. Just10A (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that LASTING does not apply... However that would mean that we do actually have a consenus of policy and guideline based arguments to include. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because sources cover his appearance at this event doesn't imply it's worthy of inclusion, and for us to include coverage of this would require WP:ECREE per WP:TRUE. The issue with including this prose to suggest that Vance is associated with said organization is that very few sources have established that as fact, and the few that suggested the association has been attributed by non-notable individuals who have no weight for inclusion in a BLP.

This prose can probably go in the campaign article or in an article about the event itself, but it has absolutely no DUE weight for inclusion in Vance's BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

We appear to have a consensus of policy and guideline based arguments to include, also this is not an extraordinary claim... It is in keeping with the public image of the subject and appears to be within character. Vance spoke at their event, that is an association. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

There are two problems with the proposed addition:

1. We need more than just a few WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources that mention he showed up to speak at an event to put in Wikivoice that he's associated with that organization. That's the exceptional claim part, so far I've seen very little weight to that claim.

2. Him showing up at this event and speaking is trivial without the above, and editors absolutely cannot SYNTH or OR their way into including such a claim either attributed or in wikivoice to make it non-trivial and DUE.

In summary, find more sources which put weight onto this appearance and how it's had any effect on Vance's public perception, life, or career. There are policy based reasons to not mention anything more than he spoke at the event (see #1 and #2), and I would argue including his attendance at the event is UNDUE because there's nothing significant about his speech that night or his (lack of) interaction with the controversial figures present. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The disputed text [1] does not include a wikivoice claim that Vance is associated with that organization. There is no SYNTH or OR here and what you are describing would not be SYNTH or OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

We're going around in circles, which seems to be a pattern I've noticed. The rationale for removing that was discussed and editors are objecting because it's largely undue, there hasn't been a strong policy based reason to include information about the organizers and funders of the event Vance spoke at. WP:BIT / WP:V just isn't good enough, editors have failed to demonstrate why it's DUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

We aren't going around in circles, I just completely demolished your two part argument. The strong policy based reason to include is that the sources include it, they treat it as important context which means that we should also treat it as important context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, just because some sources go into detail about an event JD Vance attended and spoke at doesn't guarantee that we must include details about the event, the organizers, or the associations of those organizers in Vance's BLP. You've repeatedly failed to demonstrate why we should outside of WP:BIT, which isn't good enough. Feel free to keep trying though. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Its not a level of detail that they go into about other events, they seem to single this one out as particularly important which is why more coverage is due than of other events. Arguing to include it because the sources put empahsis on it is not WP:BIT... Its the most common DUE argument that gets made on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

well that's an odd thing to ask soibangla (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

the content was and remains about what Vance did, he is the protagonist here, not Wallnau

it is both due and relevant soibangla (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to step away, so as to not bludgeon the discussion and let other editors weigh in but seeing that Vance did not interact with Wallnau or make any statements in support of his political activities I simply don't see how it's due or relevant. This is essentially guilt by association, and I don't see how coatracking some activists name and associations in an article about Vance without a plurality of reliable sources making such an assertion is nothing more but original research and synth. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So you can't see that its in the sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The only thing that I saw which could be interpreted as such is an attributed quote to a doctoral student. Not really something I'd be comfortable putting in a VP candidates BLP. Gaspard-Hogewood said Vance’s appearance at the Courage Tour lends credence to Wallnau’s extremist views. “The message it sends is that Vance is not against what Lance Wallnau is saying and preaching,” Gaspard-Hogewood said. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Then you can argue it isn't due... But that not original research/synth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this analysis. Anything more than the article's current state would be getting into tangental/undue territory. Just10A (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Links to sources are readily available for any who want extra details. The organizer didn't speak or appear with Vance. —ADavidB 17:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Length wasn't a problem, the original paragraph is an apropriate length it just shouldn't be its own section. Your short is much too short, at a minimun it should mention Lance Wallnau and New Apostolic Reformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how any of those things pertain to JD Vance, did he voice support for those individuals or organizations directly? Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources treat it as pertinent context, I don't see any reason to second guess them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

agree soibangla (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this should be included if there are articles about this event specifically, which lifts it above the average campaign event. Cortador (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats not a policy or guideline based reason to oppose inclusion. Please make an argument we will actually be able to judge rather than be forced to reject out of hand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

References

"American conspiracy theorists" category

Other than the disgusting notion that pets are being eaten in Springfield, OH, what other conspiracy theories has he promoted in the past or is actively promoting? I ask because I found only two uses of the word conspiracy (none for conspiracist) in the article: one in reference to Jack Posobiec, and the other for the category "American conspiracy theorists". So, given the current state of the article, is it appropriate to continue to use that category, despite there only being one known conspiracy theory in there? Unknown0124 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

He's done a bit more than just the eating pets one. See PBS and New Republic. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Unknown0124 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like adding the category is appropriate provided that content is added to the article as well. Cortador (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

When I initially posted this, the category was there, but someone removed it. From posting the reply last week, I hadn't visited the page until today, so I didn't know that the category was removed. The direct reply to my initial post from @EvergreenFir had some good info, though I feel if it's not already sourced in the article, it should be. Preferably, I would go with the one from PBS over the one from the New Republic because PBS tends to be more reliable and less biased. Unknown0124 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)