Talk:Mike Pence/archive

Extending

I just added a number of specifics in the political leanings area, and background in the minority leader category. --A procrastinator 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Parts of this page read too much like a congressional resume, "staunchly opposes anti-semitism" under civil liberties. There is already a mention of his position on the Task Force Against Anti-Semitism which is the presumably relevant piece of information. Also consider that there are quite a few Jews in congress for whom it would be ridiculous to put "staunchly opposes anti-semitism" on their wiki pages even though I'm guessing most of them do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.160.84.1 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To have an article on Congressman Mike Pence without any reference to his legislative agenda regarding Planned Parenthood and the funding of reproductive health services is hard to understand. He has introduced legislation to end Planned Parenthood:

"For three legislative sessions in a row, Pence has introduced legislation that would prevent any entity that provides abortion from receiving funds through Title X, the only federal program dedicated to reproductive health and family planning.

This week, Pence went even further, introducing an amendment to the continuing resolution that would strip Planned Parenthood — and Planned Parenthood alone — of all federal funding." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49609.html#ixzz1E8g6BGoK

Pence has taken this agenda item on, should it not be part of the entry about him?Pjashdown (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Taxes?

Currently the section entitled "Taxes" includes the statements that "Pence voted for ... the Partial Birth Abortion Ban ... He has been a strong opponent of federal funding for elective abortions in accordance with the Hyde Amendment. He has voted against federal subsidies for embryonic stem cell research, and has cosponsored pork barrel spending reform. He was influential in the RSC's Top Ten Agenda for 2006." Some of these have nothing to do with taxes, and others are, at best, tangentially tax related. I hesitate to edit the main page and draw editor ire, but can someone familiar with sill-living bio rules take a crack at fixing? 129.253.170.50 (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This 02-Dec-2010 Column by Nolan Finley indicates that "Pence would replace all federal taxes with a single, flat income tax in the range of 17 percent, and get the government away from using taxes to manipulate behavior." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetpen (talk • contribs) 02:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

This section was copied from [1]. It needs to be checked for neutrality and verifiability. Please feel free to remove any content that is inappropriate to the article. It is not a copyright concern because the source is public domain, but that doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

-Just to note, the Early Life, Education and Career section is currently correct. We own the rights to his bio page at mikepence.house.gov and have e-mailed wikipedia verifying that. HouseofRep. (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC) HouseofRep.

The majority of the potentially biased content is information that is already mentioned in the article. Since it did not pertain to Pence's early life anyway (most of it concerns his time in Congress), I've removed it. A paragraph has been moved to the Political Positions section, although it needs to be cited and checked for bias. The Awards have been given their own section for now, but someone should cite, wikify, and diffuse them throughout the rest of the article. I've removed the neutrality tag from the Early Life section and applied it to the article in general in light of the content from the disputed section now being separated. Ibm2431 (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

COI?

Did Mike Pence's Office Edit His Wikipedia Page To Make It More Flattering?, asks the HuffPo. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, not really sure this is worth mentioning in the article. Using blog sources in BLP's is frowned upon. Completely apart from the fact that it's only mentioned on one blog, adding some fairly innocous fluff text as 'HouseofRep.'- an account that may- or may not (no checkuser)- have something to do with Pence- isn't real sneaky. Nevard (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. January (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The account that made the edits was clearly his office. There is no "may or may not" to it. Huffington Post is not just a blog by the way. It is run by AOL and is cited in thousands of Wikipedia articles. I agree in should be removed, but Huffington Post is a good source. This wasn't an opinion piece in the HP.

--Andy0093 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I would hope it wasn't you who sent the blog the tip on the matter. While it's certainly possible the person making the edits was connected with Pence, the fact that the writer for the blog equivalent of 'The View' was too lazy to even verify that this was the case is just another reason not to waste space mentioning these claims. Nevard (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You act as if Huffington Post isn't a reliable source. They aren't as authoritative as the Washington Post, NY Times, or WSJ but they are a reliable source. The fact that they are an online newspaper and not also in print doesn't take away from the reliability of their content. They are a journalistic organization with a degree of respectability. They have aren't a Breitbart.com, LittleGreenfootballs, RedState, ThinkProgress type political blog. While it is obvious the content came from Pence's office and you are clearly in denial. His office wouldn't have issued the standard "no comment" when they are in the wrong and don't want to admit. I understand you don't live in DC and know the ins and outs of the Hill and I understand why you wouldn't believe they are from Pence's office because you don't understand how Hill online media works. It is actually cute your level of lack of understanding.

All the best, --Andy0093 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside whether the source is reliable, this is not relevant to the article. I can't see any way this could be regarded as a significant enough event in someone's career to be included in a biography of them. January (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's cuter that you think I could care less about how the staff of politicians operate. 'No comment' works perfectly fine when responding to an irrelevancy. Nevard (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of editing to do for all politicians...

So, we have a new section for all politicians who edit their Wikipedia page? Toothis (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a US Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia article which chronicles a few incidents which saw coverage in real news sources. Unlike the edits which may, or may not, have been made by Pence staffers, most of those at least involved a 'children playing with cereal box decoder rings' level of sneakiness. Nevard (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)