Talk:JD Vance/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Can this page use a different picture?

Trump family box at 2024 RNC day 1 (1) (5x4)

This is a really bad picture used on this page when introducing Vance's VP run. The Wikimedia Commons File says it's a screenshot from Voice of America — a badly taken one at that. There has to be a better looking one than this. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump and JD Vance at the 2024 NYC 9 11 Remembrance Ceremony

As of today, a search of Wikimedia Commons for Vance only has one other joint picture with Trump. It would need to be cropped for use here, and would have Donald Jr. behind/between them. A somber scene at the recent 9/11 Remembrance, it may not be a best choice anyway. —ADavidB 18:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be better than the current one b/c of the resolution. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I cropped Trump and Vance from this picture (displayed to right) and used it to replace the one in the article. —ADavidB 02:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And... the replacement was promptly reverted by another editor who cited MOS:IMAGEREL as the reason. The reverter is apparently applying this guidance per section, while I consider it written with an article-wide scope. I've restored the image to the Senate Tenure section instead. —ADavidB 02:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SECTIONLOC would have likely even better to have cited. The 9/11 Remembrance Ceremony is unrelated to the VP campaign, and there’s no reason to deviate from the norm just because no higher-quality images of them together exist. Using this particular image could falsely imply a connection between 9/11 and the VP campaign, which would be misleading, not only for that but also for erasing key notable people there at a non-political event. We typically select images that directly relate to the section's content, not simply because no other options are available. In such cases, we usually omit images. However, the lack of photos of them together in this campaign might itself be noteworthy in talking about the campaign as a whole if the proper sources exist.

As outlined in MOS:IMAGEREL, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative and "not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." Including this specific image isn’t necessary for this section and we would be better served by ensuring that we don't give this page any special treatment just because no other pictures of them together exist. Wozal (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adavidb - Same issue here. "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image too early, i.e., far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader."

Please consider talking this issue here instead of trying to find walkarounds. The picture's inclusion has been disputed. Let's talk about it without giving it any special treatment. Wikipedia:ONUS applies here Wozal (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

An image of Senator Vance with a president of his party is appropriate for his senate tenure section, and shouldn't puzzle readers. The image's second placement was in the Tenure section, though did extend into its committee assignments subsection (where there is plenty of blank space for it). I'll gladly move the image totally within the main tenure section, given your expressed concerns. While another editor requested replacement of another Trump/Vance image regarding their campaign, I don't see how that precludes placing such an image in a different relevant section. Image cropping is quite common and generally not considered special treatment, especially for public domain images. I know of no guidance stating all notable people at an event should always be imaged together. Please do not express concerns and characterize attempts to satisfy them as walkarounds. —ADavidB 04:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because space might exist in a section does not mean that space has to be filled with an image. The previously two quoted MOS sections discuss this in more detail.

The image being replaced was directly related to Vance's nomination as VP. An image with a former president at a nonpolitical event has nothing to do with the VP nomination has nothing to do with Vance's tenure. An insertion in the campaign section gives a false and misleading representation that the event was related to the campaign and that certain people did not attend. An image of Vance's congressional work would be a far better image to be placed there. An image of Vance (like the original photo) as the GOP's nominee for VP or giving a speech as part of the VP campaign (even without the former president) would make stronger selections.

I'm not sure where you think there are walkarounds regarding concerns. A long-standing image was replaced with a new image. The new image was deleted. It was then reintroduced in a different section which also was unrelated. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Images are considered content. An image's existence does not mean we have to automatically include it. If we do include it, its placement in the appropriate section has to be considered.

It is not a requirement that the VP nominee has to have an image with the Presidential nominee. Not including an image of them together does not make people question whether they are running mates or not. Wozal (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say the space "had to be filled with an image", only that the image wasn't displacing text while it was there, which some would use as a reason against placement. The term "walkarounds" was yours above (03:33) in response to my edits after you expressed concerns via edit summary. We will continue to differ on whether the image is related to Vance's being a senator/candidate, and its appropriateness for this article. Happy editing —ADavidB 20:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think good articles have differing opinions from time to time. Happy editing @Adavidb. (On an unrelated note; thank you for all the cleanup you do in articles!) Wozal (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing person / persons

"After Vance debated Walz"

One of the debaters is provided: Vance.

The subject of the debate is provided: Walz.

Who was the other debater / who were the other debaters? 86.160.95.7 (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to the U.S. Vice Presidential debate hosted by CBS news, there were no other debaters. As such, I'm not sure what you're asking to be changed. Wozal (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify by providing more detail.

Debated is the verb in that phrase.

Vance is the subject of the verb: the one who is debating, i.e. a debater.

Walz is the object of the verb: that which is debated.

So we have one debater, Vance, and a subject of debate, Walz.

A debate would normally comprise at least two debaters who would participate in a debate about a topic, but here we have a single debater, Vance, who is participating in a debate about the object of the verb, the topic Walz, but with whom is Vance debating the topic? 86.160.95.7 (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Made a change to the way this was phrased. Looking at the page now, it now means there are 4 paragraphs on the VP debates which now feels like it's overweighted for a single day event when compared to other sections. Wozal (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Writer infobox module

Would there be any consensus to add the writer infobox module given Vance's main notability prior to his political career was as an author?

Example

JD Vance
Official portrait, 2023
United States Senator from Ohio
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2023 Serving with Sherrod Brown
Preceded by	Rob Portman
Personal details
Born	James Donald Bowman (1984-08-02) August 2, 1984 Middletown, Ohio, US
Political party	Republican
Spouse	Usha Chilukuri ​ (m. 2014)​
Children	3
Education	Ohio State University (BA) Yale University (JD)
Occupation	Politician author venture capitalist
Signature
Website	Senate website
Military service
Branch/service	United States Marine Corps
Years of service	2003–2007
Rank	Corporal
Unit	2nd Marine Aircraft Wing
Battles/wars	Iraq War
Awards	Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal
Writing career
Genre	Memoir
Notable works	Hillbilly Elegy
Notable awards	Audie Award for Nonfiction 2017

RachelTensions (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Hillbilly Elegy was indeed a notable book with longlasting attention past publication. Vance is very tied in with the book and well, other things that have come with being associated with it, per JD Vance couch hoax and whatnot. That's just an indicator of its notability, and Vance ties in with it. so Yeah. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not true: "Vance was influenced to convert to Catholicism by Peter Thiel."

This isn't supported by the citation. The cited article links to another article which mentions that Vance attended a Peter Thiel talk and then years later converted to Catholicism after reading Augustine. The claim that Thiel influenced him to convert to Catholicism also makes little sense because Thiel himself is not Catholic. Duckshirt (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The source says "he officially adopted the religion in 2019, under the influence of the billionaire Peter Thiel" and Thiel is intellectually Catholic, even if yes there are some obvious issues with that he is a Girardist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Political positions in lead

I don't see a reason why these should even be in the lead. Looking at other VP candidates from the left and oddly enough such details are neatly tucked away in the body. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds good to me, as long as it's consistent. Dr vulpes (Talk) 15:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That isn't how policy and guideline works, its not supposed to be consistent its supposed to be neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you alleging some sort of political conspiracy? It appears due to cover the political positions in this case, it might not be in others. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. =D

I can see where it's due to mention some of the bills or committees Vance was significantly involved in, but beyond that I don't see how anything else regarding his political positions are due for the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

They're due because they've received a lot of coverage, his political positions have in fact received so much coverage that we've had to break them off into a daughter page Political positions of JD Vance. Are you arguing that a subtopic is notable enough to have its own page but not due for the lead of the main page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, since they are covered on their own page I don't see a reason to cover and summarize the same material across several different articles. It's worth noting that many politicians at this level have a dedicated page for their political positions, because they've received a lot of coverage, yet their BLP's aren't needlessly repeating the same political talking points in their leads. I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS so I'm mostly interested in hearing other editors weigh on this though before we do anything. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats literally what we're supposed to do in this context... The lead is supposed to summarize the section on political positions and the section on political positions is supposed to summarize the page on political positions. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't have anything to do with this, thats about deletion discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)