Talk:JD Vance

Peter Thiels’s involvement in Vance’s career

Thiel got Vance almost every job he has ever had. He also Vance’s political career. This is not reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectronn (talk • contribs) 06:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"False claims" of election fraud are actually "Yet unproven" claims

When reporting the results of investigation(s) into allegations, a good reporter will always make a distinction between a reference to "false claims" versus a reference to a "current lack of identified evidence". Ergo, it is never wise to report that there is "no evidence" of the allegation(s). A "current lack of identified evidence" of an allegation is most accurately referred to as "no identified evidence". To say otherwise infers that nothing more can ever be learned about the allegation(s). 72.55.241.35 (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

They are in fact false claims

- Klausklass (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

should be simply, "claims", and not "false claims". 2600:6C55:42F0:4DA0:CB52:AC2A:E112:46EF (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would we want to make our article less precise? The claims are false. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No, they were unproven. No court took the cases that were litigated due to issues of standing, not proof. They've never been proven false, merely rejected. Mojomusic72 (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. As the sources in the article indicate, a number of cases were dismissed after the campaign (or third party) lawyers were judicially invited to submit evidence of their allegations and indicated they had no evidence they (the alleging counselors) deemed credible enough to present themselves. One of the myriad of reasons for the false allegations being taken to court, it was deemed, was in the performance of the strategic delay role.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Asserting the claims are false is showing of bias. Evidence is inconclusive either way. "Unfounded claims" would even be better than "false claims", although, I think even that would be inaccurate. "Claims" would be best. GramCanMineAway (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources say its inconclusive? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have found any reliable sources saying the evidence is inconclusive, please update this article (and related ones), as that would be new information. You can read the sources on those articles to understand why they are conclusively false claims. Klausklass (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Should there be a summary of Vance's ideology in the lead?

I added this paragraph into the lead:

During his time in the Senate, Vance has been described as a neoreactionary, national conservative, and a right-wing populist, as well as an ideological successor to paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan. He has cited Curtis Yarvin, Rod Dreher, and Patrick Deneen as political influences. Vance has been considered a maverick for his willingness to break from Republican orthodoxy and supports raising the minimum wage, furthering unionization, a robust and interventionist antitrust policy, and has opposed many foreign policy interventions, including continued American military aid to Ukraine during the ongoing Russian invasion.

Which I think is a good, neutral, concise, and WP: DUE summary of his main political influences and actions while in the Senate, yet this was subsequently removed because it repeated information elsewhere in the article. I'm fine with revising the wording. But most of this is definitely notable enough to remain in the lead of the article and has been both mentioned and affirmed by an overwhelming amount of reliable sources.

Do you have a suggested alternate to this summary? Open to suggestions, @Esterau16:.KlayCax (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop putting duplicate paragraphs in the article. Look for consensus on whether the paragraph should be in the lead or political positions section. Esterau16 (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Leads are supposed to summarize information contained in the body of an article's page. You completely removed important, WP: DUE information about the candidate.

Political ideologies and influences indisputably belong in the lead of the page. KlayCax (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Tagging other editors who have recently edited per WP: CANVASS rules, @BootsED:, @Michael V Gold:, @FieldMarine:, @Dancingtudorqueen:, @TDKR Chicago 101:, @Dmhll:. KlayCax (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I just added a one-sentence summary of Vance's ideologies to the lead. I didn't see this discussion beforehand. Apologies! BootsED (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I reinstated Ukraine, a brief mention of influences, and "maverick" economics as well, as all have been mentioned repeatedly as well. Although I substantially trimmed out the fat. Does this work?

During his time in the Senate, Vance has been described as a neoreactionary, national conservative, and a right-wing populist. He has cited Curtis Yarvin, Rod Dreher, and Patrick Deneen as influences. Vance has been considered a maverick from Republican orthodoxy on economics, supporting raising the minimum wage, unionization, tariffs, antitrust policy, while also opposing American military aid to Ukraine.

See National Review, Politico, ABC News, AP News, The American Conservative (written by his friend Dreher no less!), and many others who have all overwhelmingly mentioned these things. KlayCax (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I would normally oppose mentions of "influences" in the leads of political figures. But we do when individuals repeatedly cite particularly people: and Vance has consistently mentioned Dreher, Deneen, and Yarvin as his main three influences. Reliable sources also repeatedly bring this up in every profile of him. (Like the other things listed.) It seems to merit inclusion to me. Albeit I see how that sentence will probably have less of a consensus than the rest.

Would you agree with me? Or not? We could trim it down further. But in my view we start losing important information after this. KlayCax (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to run for a few hours, but I'll be back after, will respond when I get back from work. @BootsED:. KlayCax (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think your three-sentence political outlook paragraph is solid @KlayCax, and I agree that setting out these influences are important for the article. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Partly because I think that when we deal with articles about politicians, you have a spectrum of people in terms of how openly they display their intellectual influences. Most politicians don’t even bother. President Joe Biden, for example, has (as far as I know) never really spoken about who the thinkers and writers were who influences his views on politics and religion.

J. D. Vance very much has, very frequently, and actually in quite some depth. If the purpose of a Wikipedia article in this category is to give the reader an understanding of the views, positions, beliefs and backgrounds of an individual politician, then I think highlighting the people that they themselves have publicly claimed as influences is relevant. I think it simply adds helpful and verifiable information for the Wikipedia reader. KronosAlight (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it seems highly atypical to include references to individual influences in the lead section for a politician. He isn't a philosopher. Thirdhuman1 (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Analogous references aren't included in any other living politicians's lead on the entire planet that I could. This is wholly precedent-breaking. Thirdhuman1 (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Esterau16, please see MOS:LEAD. The leading section is meant to be a summary of the content of the article, so it may well repeat material from the body of the article. This is fine and meets due weight given so many reliable sources are mentioning these points. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me Thirdhuman1 but your argument sounds a lot like WP: OTHERCONTENT. I hope we can debate what's useful and interesting about the actual article. I feel the article is becoming more and more interesting, and one of the things that makes it interesting is the material on influences. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"Influences" simply or broad ideological characterizations aren't standard procedure for elected politician in the lead section. Even U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders doesn't have "socialist" in his lead despite the fact that this is a widely known association of his. This just doesn't have a precedent that I could be identify. Thirdhuman1 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Large block quotes

Can we please stop inserting large block quotes such as these? As an encyclopedia, it is a good practice to summarize sources. Repeating them verbatim has several disadvantages, which I talk about a bit more in User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Problems with quotes#Problems with quotes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind seeing a few quotes of things the subject has said, especially as he is described as an author, seems relevant. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think on articles about living persons and especially politicians, we actually should rely a bit more on what they’ve actually said (i.e. primary sources) over what others have interpreted them to mean (i.e. secondary sources).

A lot of right-leaning sources have been prohibited on this website for various (often very valid) reasons, but the outcome is that by relying on secondary sources it presents a potentially biased interpretation of what was actually said.

Actually in an earlier version of this article, someone had (at some point) only partially quoted Vance’s claim about the relationship between slavery and abortion. If I recall correctly, the only bit quoted was about "There's something comparable between abortion and slavery” and ended it there. I’ve obviously since completed the quote until the end of his sentence in order to accurately represent his actual claim ("There's something comparable between abortion and slavery and that while the people who obviously suffer the most are those subjected to it, I think it has this morally distorting effect on the entire society.”) but I’m just highlighting that as an example of where this tendency towards secondary can sometimes produce biased or inaccurate outcomes here. KronosAlight (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree @KronosAlight. Primary sources can intelligently be used, so long as that source is clear, not requiring extensive knowledge of the subject. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed in recent edits by someone. This looks much better. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, some good material there. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Private "Facebook" messages violate WP:BLP

I think this is a biographical article and we need to be careful about WP:BLP, especially on content that is based on private messages, that are largely unproved, and reported by secondary or tertiary sources. One such content is : In a private message on Facebook he described Trump as "a cynical asshole like Nixon" and "America's Hitler".

There are no primary sources that verify these claims, though it has been reported in some secondary sources.

I think it violates the standards for WP:BLP : This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced, especially if potentially libellous, should be removed. RogerYg (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Even the latest NY Times biographical article on JD Vance (July 15, 2024) does not mention private message, and Wikipedia must follow WP:BLP standards not applicable to tabloids and magazines, which report unverified private messages.

''Criticism of Trump'': During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Vance sharply criticized Mr. Trump, describing him as “cultural heroin” and as a demagogue who was “leading the white working class to a very dark place.” He described himself as “a Never Trump guy.” In a Twitter post that he has since deleted, he called Mr. Trump “reprehensible” because he “makes people I care about afraid. Immigrants, Muslims, etc.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/us/politics/who-is-jd-vance-trump-vp.html

RogerYg (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. KronosAlight (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

J.D. Vance once compared Trump to Hitler. Now they are running mates from Reuters. Primary sourcing is not only not necessary, it is less desirable than secondary sources. In no way does the "America's Hitler" comment violate BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Pointers to the official policy preferring secondary sources:

WP:SCHOLARSHIP Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.

WP:RSPRIMARY Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Arcturus95 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, agreed. KronosAlight (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That has multiple sources. Not sure why it would be called "contentious" or "poorly sourced".

We can add even more additional sources (including the one mentioned by @Muboshgu above) if you like. Arcturus95 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Additional sources all supporting the original content.

1. [1] Trump names JD Vance, once one of his fiercest critics, as 2024 running mate

2. [2] ‘America’s Hitler’: All the Times J.D. Vance Trashed Trump

3. [3] In first interview as VP candidate, JD Vance explains why he called Trump 'America's Hitler' Arcturus95 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

In the USA today article, JD Vance never acknowledged saying "America's Hitler", rather it's a broad statement about being skeptical of Trump. The article title seems mischievous, and USA Today is not a reliable WP:RS source

Vance told Fox News he was initially wary of Trump in 2016.

Monday, the Ohio senator said he has changed his mind.

{USA today comment on Private message}

"I don't hide from that. I was certainly skeptical of Donald Trump in 2016, but President Trump was a great president and he changed my mind. I think he changed the minds of a lot of Americans," Vance told Fox's Sean Hannity in a friendly interview.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/15/jd-vance-past-trump-criticisms-abortion-shooting/74418450007/

RogerYg (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP articles have a higher standard of Wikipedia:Verifiability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

" four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material. The four types are":

direct quotations,

material whose verifiability has been challenged,

material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and

contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced. RogerYg (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

But the material is not unsourced nor is it poorly sourced. In fact we have plenty of reliable sources. Arcturus95 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

1. You are ignoring the other sources that back up those comments.

2. Where does it say USA Today is not a reliable source? It is reliable per WP:USATODAY.

3. Also, the USA Today article clearly says he made those comments. The third paragraph of the article is:

"I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler," Vance wrote in a 2016 message to a friend.

Arcturus95 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Previously, several hundered Wiki editors have largely agreed that content whoose source is private Facebook messages, as is the case ( "American Hitler", which was allegedly sent in a private Facebook message by JD Vance), are generally not reliable. Please see the discussion:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

"American Hitler" is a claim based on a private Facebook message as reported in some sources, but has not yet been acknowledged by JD Vance.

This is a claim by USA today in this artilce: "I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler," Vance wrote in a 2016 message to a friend.

If in some interview, Vance is directly quoted as acknowledhing it, then we may discuss to include it, if there is a consensus. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

If in some interview, Vance is directly quoted as acknowledhing it, then we may discuss to include it, if there is a consensus.

That is not how sourcing works. The subject of the article does not have to acknowledge it. Reliable sources have to include it. Arcturus95 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Let us wait for more inputs from other editors, since this topic is not so simple, and it does relate to WP:BLP & Wikipedia:Verifiability issues.

Previously, multiple editors discussed it for several weeks as below to gain consensus, which was against Facebook message content.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Thanks for your patience, as we need more input from other editors on this issue. RogerYg (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding that RFC. We cannot use Facebook as a source. However, statements from Facebook comments, messages, posts, etc can be included if they are sourced from reliable sources. Arcturus95 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources document the "America's Hitler" comment, therefore it is reliably sourced. That's all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Despite dozens (hundreds?) of headlines, Vance did not refer to Trump as "America's Hitler". He expressed an apprehension that it might turn out that way. Wikipedia has it right by simply quoting the entire sentence. Yitz711 (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

yes, I agree that quoting the entire sentence is important, as it was an apprehension rather than a description. RogerYg (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024 (3)

Footnote 7 attributes a quote in New Statesman to Vance; if you read the New Statesman article in question, it quickly becomes clear that the quote wasn't said by Vance, it was said by Dreher. 2A02:C7C:5CBB:F800:44B6:43CF:BC50:726F (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Does this issue still exist? This article has understandably gone under a lot of revisions since this request. If so can you be a little more specific, the citation numbers are dynamic. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done – with a search through the page history I found the passage. It did still exist and I have now removed it. Tollens (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Combat Veteran

This entry says Vance is a combat veteran. If you are a Marine and you have experienced combat, you are awarded a Combat Action Ribbon. Doesn't appear that Vance has one. Therefore, he is not a combat veteran. Fix his Wikipedia entry. 2600:8800:4706:C00:3981:139:CB10:142C (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You only receive a CAR under certain conditions, usually you must return fire in a firefight. It is a personal award, and not necessarily the only indicator of a combat veteran. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

close but wrong We were there got indirect fire and didn't rate a CAR but I can assure you, we are combat Marines. S/F 47.132.192.172 (talk) 03:11, 19 July 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/ - Stanley Gordon

Wiki voice lead - Notable aspects

Older version: American author, venture capitalist, politician, lawyer, and United States Marine veteran serving as the junior United States senator from Ohio since 2023.

Newer version: American politician, author, venture capitalist, lawyer, and United States Marine veteran serving as the junior United States senator from Ohio since 2023.

As per WP:Notable aspects, after the VP announcement, his most notable aspect is as American politician, and author should come next. RogerYg (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Most notable three would be politician, author (for his memoir which made him "famous") and US marine -- based from most of his campaign for senate

- https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pro-j-d-vance-super-pac-goes-up-with-ad-ahead-of-launch-of-ohio-gop-senate-bid

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alr9qmOAgqU&t=19s&ab_channel=ProtectOhioValues (video calls him veteran, conservative, and author; in that order). Stanley Gordon (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stanley Gordon: is either of those a reliable source in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that those would be the three notable ones. I would point out that Vance himself has claimed that the third role (veteran) has been a crucial influence on the direction of his life afterwards, i.e. going into writing and then into politics, so while I don’t think in general that service would be mentioned in the first sentence, it’s relevant insofar as he has himself explained the influence it had on who he is today, i.e. whom this Wikipedia article is describing, which maybe elevates its importance. KronosAlight (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"which maybe elevates its importance" it does not... That is not among the criteria we consider. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

For the first sentence I would just say polticians (thats what we did for a long time pre-nomination), the rest can be elaborated on in the other parts of the lead. Given the extremely short duration and insignficance of his military service its not going in the first sentence. Author is a maybe... Lawyer also a maybe but lean no. Venture capitalist is a no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone trying to help fill out this article about this individual’s views and policies, just wanted to register that I have no particular opinion on the opening paragraph. I’m not fussed, personally, but respect others who wish to weigh in. KronosAlight (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the broad consensus that

Most notable three would be politician, author (for his memoir which made him "famous") and US marine -- based from most of his campaign for senate

Updated version: American politician, author, and US Marine veteran, who is serving as the junior United States senator from Ohio since 2023. RogerYg (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Notability is not the concept under discussion here... Due weight is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Horse Eye's Back (talk),

The WP:Lead First sentence policy does mentions "notable aspects" to be included.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section_TT_first_sentence_content

The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"

Stanley Gordon has provided good reasoning for "Why is this subject notable?" above, to include 3 notable aspects: politician, author, and US Marine, which are also mentioned in most WP:RS sources. Further, KronosAlight (talk) agreed with those 3, and I also strongly agree with those three: politician, author (for his memoir which made him "famous") and US marine. Therefore, there is reasonable consensus for those 3 to be included, as also they are mentioned widely in most WP:RS sources. Thanks for raising your argument. If the consensus changes in the future, we can update accordingly. RogerYg (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is the mention of "notable aspects" ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Its mentioned in general WP:LEAD guidelines, but here also it says: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" RogerYg (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is MoS, not guideline... And it says "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." as for answering "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" all of the options under consideration appear to do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I dont think specifying very briefly the 3 most notable aspects should be considered overloading. We actually reduced the overloading by cutting out venture capitalist and lawyer, which most editors here found as not notable.

Many Wikipedia articles include atleast 2 or 3 aspects in lead sentence.

See Donald Trump

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

And please wait for inputs from other editors for any changes in a reasonable consensus. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You have edit warred your prefered changes onto the page without a reasonable consensus... That is the current live version. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think majority of editors here such as Stanley Gordon has provided good reasoning for "Why is this subject notable?" above, to include 3 notable aspects: politician, author, and US Marine, which are also mentioned in most WP:RS sources. Further, KronosAlight (talk) and I agreed with them, which can be considered a reasonable consensus as of 7/17. If the consensus changes, I will be happy to accept the new consensus. 05:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the sources which Stanley Gordon provided are reliable in this context. I also don't see anyone suggesting that Vance is notable for being a Marine vet, but I can see saying both politician and author. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do not edit comments after they have been responded to in ways which change their meaning[4] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, it happened because we are reponding quickly just now, I was just correcting the grammar to make it more clear. 05:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please find below some more examples. Many veterans, have it mentioned in the lead sentence.

Jason Crow

Jason Crow (born March 15, 1979) is an American lawyer, veteran, and politician serving as the United States representative for Colorado's 6th congressional district since 2019.[1]

Jack Bergman

John Warren Bergman (born February 2, 1947) is an American politician and retired United States Marine Corps lieutenant general serving as the U.S. representative from Michigan's 1st congressional district since 2017.[1]

RogerYg (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

On wikipedia comparison doesn't mean anything, one page looking one way has no bearing on whether another page should look the same way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The common point from the other Wiki pages, is that being a Veteran can be often considered notable enough by editors to be included in first sentence. RogerYg (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is... When the subject is notable for it, like Bergman and likely Crow... Neither of them has a military record which even vaguely resembles Vance's. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Many WP:RS sources introduce JD Vance as a Marine veteran (which may be considered notable) as below:

The Washington Post

J.D. Vance adds veteran appeal to Trump’s populist campaign

As a former Marine Corps grunt, the VP pick speaks to the military and lower working class

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

US Marine veteran and ‘Hillbilly Elegy’ author once described former president as ‘idiot’

https://www.ft.com/content/aef1a7cf-13ee-4c8a-9509-e7218aa2429a

Politico

Veterans of the war on terror saw the limits of military power firsthand and are driving the erosion of support for Ukraine.. Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance took to the floor of the Senate to offer a sweeping rebuke.. Vance suddenly got personal and pivoted to a less frequently discussed source of his skepticism: his time serving as a Marine during the Iraq War.

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

RogerYg (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

None of that indicates that Vance is WP:NOTABLE for their military service. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We are not discussing WP:NOTABLE here. Notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

The Notability of this page is well established.

The discussion is about MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which is more subjective and consensus based.

Lead should include Notable aspects.

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the non-specialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.

I think these WP:RS sources introduce JD Vance as a politician and Marine veteran, supporting the reasonable consensus for the same here. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Left to my druthers, I'd throw "businessman" or "venture capitalist" back in the 1st sentence _pbp 20:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, we cannot write Wikipedia content based on one's druthers. Most WP:RS sources don't seem to give much weightage to his role as a "venture capitalist", and almost none refer to Vance as a businessman. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  There's definitely some good arguments for venture capitalist. I'd oppose businessman being added under any circumstance. KlayCax (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Can you explain why? Thirdhuman1 (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Question about characterization of J.D. Vance's political character.

Is the following statement an opinion of its author or, it is a citation from external sources: "During his time in the Senate, Vance has been described as a neoreactionary, national conservative, and a right-wing populist." This sentence has no sources, reliable or not; just a plain statement. Shouldn't such statements amounting to a general characterization of J.D. Vance as political persona be taken from reliable sources and not be just an apparent presentation of an assessment by the author in Wikipedia without any explanation of why this characterization is a correct one? Aren't Wikipedia authors supposed to be just neutral reporters about facts that can be found in reliable sources? Therefore, shouldn't the part "Vance has been described" have prepended by few citations from few independent from each other sources? 70.31.233.169 (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead of an article doesn't necessarily require citations if they're provided in the body of the article. In this case, those statements are cited in the #Political positions section – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section summarizes the body of the article, and it is not necessary to include references for things that are properly referenced in the body. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point and agreed. As long as the claims are the same in the lead and in the relevant section, and the latter has the appropriate sources, it’s fine. KronosAlight (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Please be reminded that this is a WP:BLP article, with much higher standards for WP:RS & WP:verifiability, and therefore, it's preferable to start adding references in the LEAD to avoid arguments and misunderstandings. 04:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, please add ref names to the references, so that references are not duplicated. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Dark Enlightenment influence from the article

Editors keep deleting any mention of his "reactionary" beliefs and ties to the "Dark Enlightenment". Despite the fact that he's openly self-identified as such. This sentence:

and has embraced aspects of the Dark Enlightenment, a movement that sees mass participatory democracy, particularly liberal democracy, as a threat to or incompatible with freedom.

Is a short summary about his belief and is an obvious thing that we should add into the article. He has repeatedly stated that its ideas are important to his politics and has been repeatedly identified as a "reactionary" by self-identification and a "neoreactionary" by dozens of reliable sources. This shouldn't be up to dispute. It's central to his politics and has been overwhelmingly covered.

What exactly is being disputed here? KlayCax (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As Unherd notes:

Vance has described himself as a “reactionary” at war with the “regime.” He drops casual references to his personal friend Curtis Yarvin, and he’s fond of delivering thunderous pronouncements like “the universities are the enemy” (the title of a 2021 speech) and “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat” (his 2021 advice on a podcast to a future President Trump). On X, where he is a prolific and at times pugilistic poster, Vance follows a host of edgy right-wing accounts, from the race-realist blogger Steve Sailer to the infamous anarcho-fascist Bronze Age Pervert. He doesn’t eat seed oils. And he has voiced support for some of the passing enthusiasms of the “based” internet crowd, such as banning internet pornography.

It's absolutely insane to say that this is not notable when Politico, Unherd, Wall Street Journal, and many more sources have all uniformly cited all of this stuff. It's central to his appeal.

This isn't a claim by critics as people are suggesting. He's been saying this stuff on podcasts for years! KlayCax (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

On your own profile page you register your bias as a paid-up Member of the Democratic Party. KronosAlight (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as a disclaimer, @KronosAlight:. I have no idea what you mean by "paid-up member of the Democratic Party" as I'm not campaigning, work for, or given money to the party in 2024. KlayCax (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this is just ignorance of American politics but payment is not required for party registration, most people actually register for a political party at their state Department of Motor Vehicles when getting a driver's license. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources supporting your view that he endorses such positions? KronosAlight (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The dozens of sources within the article. He self-describes as a neoreactionary, postliberal, and as being influenced by The Dark Enlightenment. What's exactly being disputed here, @KronosAlight:? He's explicitly stated all of this stuff dozens of time. It's covered in The Wall Street Journal, The American Conservative, Politico, Slate, Vice, Vox, and many other sources. I'm confused about what's even being disputed here. KlayCax (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to note that the current wording of the Neoreaction section, as of the time I'm posting this comment, is much better than how it looked two days ago. Can't go through the edit history but thank you to editors involved. NotBartEhrman (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Notable Social issues for Lead mention

As per WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT, the lead summarizes and includes the most notable aspects. Therefore, the same needs to followed for Social issues. Older version: On social issues, he has promoted strongly conservative policies, opposing abortion and same-sex marriage and favoring bans on pornography and transgender healthcare for minors.

Since "pornography ban" does not seem to be a notable social issue currently highlighted by Vance as per most recent WP:RS sources, it should not be mentioned in the lead. RogerYg (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would it need to be currently highlighted by Vance? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:LEAD paragraphs are summarized version of the most important and notable, and Due weight content.

Also, we must be reminded that this is a WP:BLP article, and contentious claims about living persons have higher level of WP:RS and WP:NPOV consideration.

I agree you that probably it does not need to be currently highlighted by Vance, if recent high quality WP:RS sources are highlighting it. If you have such sources, please include the relevant references, even in the lead, and include pornography ban in some context or timeline, instead of mixing it with other high prominance issues. I have no intention of edit warring, just to keep the article per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and try to build consensus per WP:TALK, as you may see, I have much more entries on TALK page than in the article. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at recent sources they don't generally seem to mention anything about pornography, but they do seem to mention immigration policies. How about we replace porn with that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, yes please replace porn with immigration policies as per the recent sources. RogerYg (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2024

Under Advocacy, the sentence: Jamil Jivani, a friend from Vance's Yale days, was tasked with helping run the organization and later said the group's work was derailed because of Vance's cancer diagnosis.[39].

It wasn't Vance's cancer diagnosis, but Jivani's.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20240717082212/https://jamiljivani.substack.com/p/how-cancer-changed-my-life Zorgothus (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Fork out "Political positions"

This article has grown considerably in the last few weeks. I think we should consider forking the "Political positions" section out to Political positions of J. D. Vance. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thats probably a good idea, the page is ballooning rapidly (doubled in size since the VP announcement). Some of the views might also be better covered in detail at Hillbilly Elegy which is still rather short. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Horse Eye's Back (talk) and Another Believer _(Talk) to fork out a new Wiki page " Political positions of J. D. Vance.", but please fork after the Name "J.D. Vance" is fixed in this Wiki page title., and we can have the exact same name in the forked article. RogerYg (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2024 (2)

Under the section “Advocacy” it states Vance’s cancer diagnosis. Wasn’t it Jamil Jivani and not J.D. Vance who was diagnosed with cancer. It’s misstated and should be corrected. 2600:8802:5510:E500:B927:4D19:6F21:89F0 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. While the opposers' main points against the proposed name are not satisfying MOS:BIOEXCEPT and stylism, the majority (2/3) is in favor of moving to JD Vance, arguing that MOS:BIOEXCEPT is satisfied and the name is used most commonly by sources. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 05:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

---

J. D. Vance → JD Vance – Under MOS:BIOEXCEPT, Vance prefers unspaced initials. There are many sources that do not include a space between "J." and "D.", including The Washington Post, Slate, New York, the Los Angeles Times, and The Economist. The title tag of his Senate website and the cover of Hillbilly Elegy do not include a space, either. The Atlantic is the only publication that includes a space.

However, the about page on Vance's Senate website, his Instagram and Facebook profiles, Trump's WinRed page, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, CBS News, BBC News, The Independent. PBS News, The Hill, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, NBC News, CNN, ABC News, MSNBC, USA Today, and the Financial Times omit the periods and spaces, so I am not partial against moving this page to JD Vance. Politico, The New York Times, Variety, NPR, Reuters, The Verge, Axios, and Wired formerly included periods, but do not now. Additionally, his Twitter account reads "JD Vance"; at the time that this move request was opened, it read "J.D. Vance". For fairness, his name is listed as "J. D. Vance" on HarperCollins' website and his listing on congress.gov. I assume the periods are included in the sources above to conform with the style guides of those respective publications, while Vance prefers no periods whatsoever. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This couldnt be more arbitrary, but ight. 2600:1016:B002:CE1D:FC48:ACD3:A9DE:C4A9 (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - your argument is solid @ElijahPepe. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support move to JD Vance, no periods, no spaces. It is what the article subject consistently calls himself, full stop. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

On his twitter account and in the <title> tag of his Senate website, he calls himself J.D. with periods. NotBartEhrman (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Move to JD Vance (without period). Except for few US publications such as Variety, Axios, and NYT, we don't need period for naming this article. Assuming that my argument is right, most US publications and nearly all non-US one (included website that nominator cited) already use non-period name (as JD Vance). 103.111.100.82 (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  support James David Vance or just james vance as despite being known as jd they are just initials 173.72.3.91 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting: it appears his campaign signs in 2022 are another example of omitting both the periods and space SecretName101 (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support move to J.D. Vance. :GandalfXLD (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Especially if a subject requests his common name to be spelled a specific way on top of all the secondary coverage, this should be a no brainer. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support move to JD Vance, without periods or spaces. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. Carguychris (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also support moving to JD Vance, no periods, no spaces. Either option is better than the current title. Carguychris (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support move to JD Vance, without periods . There has been no consistent spelling between him nor any publications. Taking away the periods allows this for it to be the simplest spelling while retaining recognizability. Wozal (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support JD Vance.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support move to JD Vance -- no periods or spaces, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography - Unusual exceptions, which is also consistent with all the major sources outlined above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support move with periods and no space between J. and D. Having it just be "JD" is contrary to his self-identification as J.D., which should be the most important factor. If someone has a personal preference on how their name should be written then their preference should take precedence. with no preference towards JD or J.D. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

HadesTTW — Comment : Vance's Senate website indicates he uses no periods. Where are you getting the idea that using periods is what Vance prefers? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Misinterpreted the first paragraph, I was just checking his Twitter page which uses periods. I don't think he really has a preference the more I look into it, so I change my position to that of neutrality. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to J.D. Vance. As a matter of personal taste, JD Vance looks quite ugly and unprofessional, and I don't see any clear reason to pick it over J.D. AveryTheComrade (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Even if the article subject uses and prefers JD? At Wikipedia we respect what pronouns a person would pick for himself/herself/theirself but we're going to tell the person they picked an "ugly" and "unprofessional" name and change it for them? BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  That is not what I said; if there was or is clear and compelling evidence that Vance prefers "JD" over "J.D." or "J. D." then it should be moved to "JD". AveryTheComrade (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose J.D. as being against the manual of style of a space after a period in an initialized name. No opposition to JD as this seems to be a common initialism, but preference is for status quo if the periods remain. Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support J.D. Vance as it looks better than just JD.--Wikisempra (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. MOS:BIOEXCEPT says that Exceptions to the guidance in the Names section are only made when: the person has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style for their own name; and an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that exceptional style. Where has he "clearly declared" this preference? Shouldn't that be an explicit declaration? Ham II (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose move to J.D. Vance but open to move to JD Vance. Both J.D. and JD appear to be in common usage; however, JD comports much closer with the MOS. MOS:SPACEINITS provides that we would ordinarily use spaces and periods, much like how other non-acronym abbreviations use periods. If we are not using spaces, however, this is more closely analogous to how we treat acronyms (MOS:ACRO). Graham (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment :  It seems doubtful that anyone is going to find a "clearly declared" statement from Vance that he prefers no periods, but then, where has he "clearly declared" that he does prefer to use periods?  No such declaration, either way, is known to exist, so therefore we should abide by MOS and use the style that is evident in "...an overwhelming majority of reliable sources....", as outlined above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You mean like the sources cited in the original move proposal?

the about page on Vance's Senate website, his Instagram and Facebook profiles, Trump's WinRed page, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, CBS News, BBC News, The Independent. PBS News, The Hill, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, NBC News, CNN, ABC News, MSNBC, USA Today, and the Financial Times

Graham (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they don't use spaces or periods. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment FYI, the WSJ reached out to Vance's office and confirmed that Vance prefers "JD" over "J.D." per this July 17 article: Our Washington bureau checked with Vance's office and confirmed that the no-periods style is his preference (the initials stand for James David)—and our newsroom is now using that approach. Malerisch (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's the sort of thing I was looking for: an explicit statement from his office is as good as one from him personally for the purpose of determining what his preference is. But do an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use JD (not J.D.), as that's another of MOS:BIOEXCEPT's necessary conditions for breaking with MOS:SPACEINITS? Also, both JD and J.D. appear at the top of his Twitter page. Ham II (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe? I guess it depends on your definition of "overwhelming". I should mention that at least two sources cited by ElijahPepe in the "J.D." camp have recently switched to "JD": Politico appears to have edited its articles to use "JD" instead of "J.D.", and Variety has switched to "JD" in its recent articles: [5] [6] [7]. Malerisch (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to JD Vance per User:Malerisch. Both WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:IDENTITY apply. Keivan.f^Talk 01:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support move to JD Vance. "If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." That MOS:IDENTITY principle is clear and reasonable, though I had never seen before! @Keivan.f you've persuaded me. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Support move to JD Vance - seems one way for him to buck the norm. What JD wants JD gets, with regard to his own name! ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to J.D. Vance; oppose move to JD Vance: that's just not his name. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  If Vance told the WSJ what his preferred pronouns were, they and we would respect that. So why deny him the basic human right to be called by the name of his own choosing? BBQboffin^{grill me} 05:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Again, he is not consistent with his own naming style, and he uses the periods in various places that would be utterly easy to change if he wanted. It is up to Wikipedia whether to accept initialisms without periods in names, as a point of style. NotBartEhrman (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - I support change to JD Vance citing congressional website and his preference @MediaGuy768. — Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Support move to J.D. Vance; oppose move to JD Vance: because these are initials of 2 given names so it should be written as J.D. Vance. -Artanisen (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Like George H. W. Bush when he served as president and vice president, his name was not changed or the full stop removed. So why should J. D. Vance be changed? 202.80.212.83 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If J. D. Vance is changed, then George H. W. Bush is changed. That's only fair. 202.80.212.83 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I very much agree with your opinion. I think the correct name for the title of the Wikipedia article is J. D. Vance. Teknologi Positif (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose . Strongly disagree. What if J. D. Vance was elected vice president of the United States? If "J. D. Vance" is changed, then "George H. W. Bush" must also be changed for consistency. So I still totally agree with using the name "J. D. Vance" Teknologi Positif (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The media sometimes uses the name "George HW Bush". But is the title of a Wikipedia article changed just because of the media? Apparently it hasn't been changed. The Wikipedia article title retains the name "George H. W. Bush". So I hope the name of the Wikipedia article on J. D. Vance hasn't been changed either. Teknologi Positif (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

What would be the policy or guideline based argument behind "must also be changed for consistency" ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Insert a period and a space after Initial in a person's name. Try reading this document for yourself. https://www.slideserve.com/caine/section-5-abbreviations Teknologi Positif (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe

I think it should be renamed to "JD Vance" as that is most relevant to him.

In any case your argument is very sound. Tillky (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, this is a no brainer. MrNoobNub2 (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed solution — It seems at this point the opinions are all over the map regarding the three styles used in Vance's name; i.e.No spaces and periods,  Spaces and no periods, and  initials with both periods and spaces. — With this in mind I have submitted a request HERE, at the Vance Senator's website.

    Dear Mr. Vance, at Wikipedia editors are having a debate as to how you would prefer to have your initials laid out, to be used in an article at Wikipedia about you. The big question for us is how we should lay out your first two initials in the title of your article. i.e.with or without periods and/or spaces. Any comment you could leave in this regard would resolve what is becoming a rather involved debate.. I am not sure how we can follow up on any reply you may have time to respond with, but you can inform me through an eMail, which I have submitted and we can go from there.
— All the best. and good luck with your campaign, the Editors at Wikipedia.

Hopefully we will get a response we can all check on for ourselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Malerisch previously posted this article https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/television/vol-37-no-7-jd-vance-a5c4683c which states that Vance confirmed with WSJ that his preference is JD Vance. Wozal (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment (Well, a question, really.) Does Wikipedia necessarily accept or reject stylized intialisms for living persons? I would lean towards JD Vance since that is what the subject has indicated he's preferred, but that's not typically how WP resolves stylization discrepancies. The obvious example that comes to mind for me is that LEGO Company's own preference – which they've vigorously stuck to for decades – is that LEGO is always capitalized in any context, but the Wikipedia article is titled Lego, because WP:MOSTM tends to reject stylized capitalization unless fairly high thresholds are met. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Vance's name is not a trademark. As noted above, per MOS:BIOEXCEPT, stylized names are allowed when "the person has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style for their own name; and an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that exceptional style.". The WSJ, article linked just above, says that Vance prefers JD, with no periods or spaces. This is the style used at Vance's Senate website. All this should settle the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am still leaning towards JD Vance, but I wouldn't consider this settled. Can we really say that he has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style? A single statement to the WSJ does not seem like a clear declaration to me, and in his past we do not see a consistent usage. Since Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, it's not fair for me to support or oppose on the basis of my guess regarding what might happen in the future, but what he might prefer at this time might align with the fact he's currently in the middle of an election campaign. JD Vance, sans periods for his initials, looks cleaner on lawnsigns and his campaign website, but I would not be surprised if, in the future, he prefers the more formal looking J.D. Vance as he deems situations might call for a more 'formal' notation (I think we've already seen this at least once, with his book authorship as J.D. Vance).

That anticipation aside, since it doesn't appear that the criteria of BIOEXCEPT have actually been met, the title should go with whatever Wikipedia considers to be the default for initialisms. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment, Actually the idea of consistently is a relative idea. Once upon a time Vance sometimes used periods, but as of late he does not, and he said as much, that he prefers 'JD' with no periods. Since WP policy also maintains that we go by the overwhelming majority of sources, giving the most weight to sources like e.g.Vance's Senator Website and nearly all the major news media, this is the way we should go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Teknologi Positif. I don't see anything wrong with J. D. Vance. We haven't seen it as a problem prior to his VP announcement. If anything, we can revisit this should he be elected VP and we'll see how he goes by then. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I very much agree with your opinion. I think the correct name for the title of the Wikipedia article is J. D. Vance. Teknologi Positif (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — Given new information published by The Wall Street Journal, I support the target of JD Vance. Supporters of J.D. Vance should state their position given WP:BIOEXCEPT. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support But as JD Vance (without space and period). As much as i see in the discussion, only one (or two) that oppose the renaming outright. Either J.D. and JD are correct (depending of which newspapers that someone read or which location they lived). However, giving that the nature how reliable secondary sources saying about Vance's name, the name "JD Vance" without period is more preferrable instead of J.D. Vance with period. 2404:8000:1037:587:39CE:D79F:C149:C42D (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per MOS:BIOEXCEPT. The policy allows for stylized names which break the usual conventions if and only if two criteria are met; [1] that the subject of the article has clearly and consistently indicated a preference for an exceptional stylization, and [2] an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that style. Regarding [1] from the aforementioned WSJ article, Vance has clearly indicated a preference for JD Vance, but a one-off cannot be said to be consistent. We have discussed in this request past instances where the subject of the article has, for example, previously authored books as J.D. Vance, among others, as well as also going by JD Vance at other times. In the greater context, there has not been consistency in which stylization he prefers. It seems to be too early to grant the subject of this article a, shall we say, 'dispensation' to override the usual conventions of Wikipedia. Regarding [2], overwhelming is a relative term and editors have right to interpret it as they wish since the term has not been defined to a sufficient degree, but it is clear that there is some heightened threshold has been set and it behooves editors to demonstrate that a move request to an exceptional stylization has a large degree of evidence to meet such a threshold. The only hard evidence offered so far is with the resources the nominator pointed to, which does not show an overwhelming majority one way or the other – it actually illustrates the opposite. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Given The Wall Street Journal's article, his Twitter account, and publications that used "J.D. Vance" now reading "JD Vance", there does appear to be a repeated preference for "JD Vance". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

— Re the idea of overwhelming majority of sources.– It's next to impossible to dig up all the secondary and obscure sources, but not so with the major ones, which include major media sources and Vance's own Senator web cite, that nearly all employ no periods or spaces. No one has even come close to 'illustrating the opposite' with major sources that carry the same weight.
— Re: the adjective Overwhelming. If there was a 2—1 vote in favor of some idea, two votes over one vote is not exactly overwhelming. However, if this ratio took the form of a 100—50 vote, then this would begin to take on overwhelming proportions. Further, 150—50 would certainly be overwhelming. When it comes to the major sources, e.g.listed above, so far we have about 26 major sources that don't use periods and spaces. Can anyone come up with at least 13 major sources that use periods and spaces, for at least a 2—1 ratio? Apparently not. Unless we can come up with a number that would at least reflect a 2—1 ratio, we easily have an overwhelming majority of major sources that don't use periods and spaces. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"No one has even come close to 'illustrating the opposite'" the opposite I was referring to was the idea that "The sources do show an overwhelming majority preference." is opposed by the sources as scrounged so far illustrate that, in fact, "The sources do not show an overwhelming majority preference." You've sort of seized on another point I made – that as overwhelming is a relative term and editors have right to interpret it as they wish – and decided to proffer your own definition for what that word might mean, but no one else is really bound to it. I don't think everyone would agree with the idea a 2:1 ratio is overwhelming. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

What I said is that 2–1 begins to take on "overwhelming proportions" where I went on to say that 3–1 is what unquestionably amounts to overwhelming. Yes, editors are free to interpret matters as they wish, so I suppose you can also "interpret" what 3–1 amounts to in terms of overwhelming proportions. Having said that, how many major sources can anyone come up with that uses periods and spaces as compared to those major sources that don't, as outlined above? That point was sort of avoided, as was any effort to produce major sources using periods and spaces that would compare to those that don't. .. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I still don't follow what you're saying but MOS:BIOEXCEPT is a set of guidelines which isn't an either/or but requires both criteria to be met to allow for exceptional stylization. A repeated preference in the span of a two week period cannot really be said to be consistent, and that a number of reliable sources do not seem to be overwhelmed such that they're still using the same stylization as they did before suggests that neither criteria is being met all that well. While I personally think the article should eventually move to JD Vance, this move request seems to be too soon because the criteria of the policy that would allow it to be moved cannot be met at this time. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

AVNOJ1989 — Not sure where you're getting "two weeks" from. Are you saying that Vance's current preference is only a couple or so weeks old? In any case BIOEXCEPT is a guideline, not a policy. In the header of every guideline it says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. " Then of course we have WP:IAR and PILLAR #5 for cases where some editor uses a policy or guideline not in the best interest for the integrity of an article. i.e.Vance prefers no periods and spaces, so his biography, a BLP, should respect that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Vance is not consistent on what he uses up to and including the current point in time – with the title of his website using J.D. Vance [8], conflicting with his apparent assertion to the NYT that he has a preference for JD Vance. BIOEXCEPT is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply, and there is guidance provided for when those exceptions can be met, and the discussed the conditions for those exceptions have been expounded on and no good case has been made that the conditions for exception have been met. There is no need to cite the "break glass in case of emergency" utility of WP:IAR or other overarching metas. The reading of MOS:BIOEXCEPT not terribly complicated and more than sufficient, and by no means closes the door on visiting this again in a few years (or even in a few months). AVNOJ1989 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — As of July 20, Politico, The New York Times, and Variety are omitting the period, leaving NPR, The Washington Post, Reuters, Slate, New York, the Los Angeles Times, Axios, and Wired as the only publications using "J.D. Vance", though the Los Angeles Times and New York use "JD Vance" to categorize articles about Vance. His Twitter account now reads "JD Vance". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Support move to J.D. Vance. It looks better, and the extra space is very unnecessary. -Wheatley2 (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Support as J.D. Vance. It's more formal for now, and the space looks ugly. Lucafrehley (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The dots "look ugly" to the article subject, per his clear and recent preference, and the overwhelming majority preference of the sources. Former J. D. and J.D. sources are switching to JD. Can you name one source that is going in the opposite direction? The trend is your friend, friend. BBQboffin^{grill me} 01:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The dots "look ugly"?? I'm not in favor of "dots", but come on, let's be somewhat academic. At this point we should be considering, above all, the preponderance of major sources that don't employ periods and spaces, along with Vance's own preference. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, it is a preference stated by his staff, but he has not opted for this style consistently, which is the requirement for MOS:BIOEXCEPT. NotBartEhrman (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Vance's own personal staff said as much. You seem to be suggesting that only something in the order of a written, signed and notarized statement from Vance himself is the only acceptable criteria to support the idea of Vance's preference. Again, Vance sometimes used periods and spaces some years ago. However, in later years up until the present he consistently prefers no periods and spaces, which is reflected by all the major news coverage, and Vance's own website. All I'm seeing here is the belaboring of the idea of consistency which is a relative term per time period involved. If we were to look at someone's entire lifetime, it's unlikely you find any consistent habit where formalities are concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You're suggesting that people suggesting consistency is important – which is a stated requirement of MOS:BIOEXCEPT – are belaboring a point. I think this might be because you have the wrong impression. You claim that "in later years up until the present he consistently prefers no periods and spaces, which is reflected by all the major news coverage, and Vance's own website" but this isn't even true – the header of his senate website, at time of checking, still has "J.D. Vance" as the header [9]. A look through his X by way of archive.org suggests his display name was still "J.D. Vance" during the period of time you suggested he was 'consistently' preferring no periods or spaces, and there is not an overwhelming consistency for either J.D. or JD in journalist coverage leading into the period of his VP nomination despite what you've asserted. Per MOSEXCEPT, consistency is one of the criteria to allow for exceptional stylization, and consistency has not been met. This isn't belaboring an idea so much as pointing out a criteria isn't being met. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the link you provided to Vance's web cite doesn't use periods or spaces. As for the sources, several times I have asked for someone to provide a number of major sources that employ periods and spaces – a list that would compare to the list (above) that doesn't use these. Currently, nearly all the major sources do not employ periods or spaces, including Vance's website. Again, Vance's personal staff maintained that he prefers no periods or spaces. That's a lot to be ignoring for someone's BLP and suggests that WP. isn't concerned much, if at all, about this idea as it is with a style guideline (i.e.not a policy), which "are not carved in stone". Please see WP:5P5. This guideline also maintains, " Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles." (bold added)  We would certainly not be doing anything reckless if the article reflected the majority of major sources and Vance's personal preference. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the link you provided to Vance's web cite doesn't use periods or spaces. Line 10 of the html page source is as such; <title>Home - J.D. Vance</title>. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Generally unresponsive. Not sure what "line 10" is supposed to amount to, but the current web cite uses no periods or spaces. Meanwhile, you've not responded to all the remaining points raised. i.e.The abundance of major sources that don't employ periods or spaces v the one's which do (i.e. next to none) ,Vance's preference, guideline-not a policy, WP's 5th pillar, per updating the article, consideration for someone who is the subject of a BLP, etc.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying you're incorrect. You're claiming the title of JD Vance's personal website, which uses "J.D. Vance" in the header, does not use "J.D. Vance". There's limited point in responding to the rest of your post since it's predicated on disagreeing with reality. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Vance's current web cite does not employ periods and spaces. The attempt to dismiss all the other points on your erroneous premise is, regrettably, so typical. I believe we're done here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does! It literally does! You're either illiterate or intentionally being obtuse. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) I retract this comment. On reflection, there are other possible reasons that you cannot see or process the information that is readily available. For the purposes of the conversation, a lack of competence on your part to assess information relating to the move request is made apparent, but there isn't really any need for me to suggest possible reasons as to why that is the case. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No need to hit bottom with personal attacks. The current website, which you're trying to dismiss with what was used in the past, doesn't use periods or spaces, nor does nearly all the major sources. See my other comment to you below.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have struck the attack and apologize. However, my frustration continues on unabated given you are still stating an incorrect statement as fact(!) See below.. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Support move per the comments of other editors. KlayCax (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The manual of style for Biographies indicates the use of spaces after peroids in initials MOS:INITS. However, per MOS:BIOEXCEPT and Malerisch & SecretName101 and others, Vance appears to personally prefer the unspaced initials with no dots, JD version of the name. Cocoaguy (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support, appears to be most commonly used by reliable sources as well as the preference (albeit apparently not exclusive) of the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment — As of July 22, NPR, Reuters, The Verge, and Axios are using "JD Vance". The argument that Vance's name should be written as "J.D. Vance" is thinning. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Even if JD Vance were to update the title of his personal website at this very minute – it still says "J.D. Vance" – the fact would be that it's only recently been that you've had these sources settle on a single consistent stylization, and only recently been the case that the subject would've been consistent of his own accord in terms of which stylization he uses himself. That's not consistent, which means even in the best case scenario means that the conditions of MOS:BIOEXCEPT that allow for exceptional stylization isn't met. Since the situation is such that both conditions must be required, and not an either/or, the argument cannot really be said to be thinning at all. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

What I am suggesting here is that many sources used "J.D. Vance" because it adhered to their style guides. Vance signaled that he prefers "JD Vance"—publicly known through The Wall Street Journal, whose Washington bureau "checked with Vance's office and confirmed that the no-periods style is his preference"—and other sources likely independently corroborated that information through their bureaus. Frankly, it's weak to assume that there should be an objection based on one title HTML tag, of which we know neither the reason for its presence nor the time that it was placed. Vance has stated his position and news outlets that deferred to periods are now reversing course. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The objection isn't based on "one title HTML tag", it's based on that still being the current title of his website and up until only recently being part of an overall pastiche where both J.D. and JD were used and there was no consistent preference for either stylization. Consistency is key for accepting exceptional stylization, and Vance has not been and is still not consistent, so exceptional stylization cannot be accepted without violating BIOEXCEPT. Is there any reason to ignore BIOEXCEPT in this case? None has been provided. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, several have been proposed, including what the greater majority of major sources employ, and Vance's own webcite, which does not use periods and spaces. That, and how we should treat a BLP of a person who has indicated that he doesn't use periods and spaces, which can justify evoking WP:IAR, esp since BIOEXCEPT is a guideline, not a rigid policy. We can do this if we have consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I say again! The website you're linking to does use periods in the title of the page!! This is at least the third time I'm telling you this – I have previously load the site using three different browsers (Safari, Firefox, and Arc) and the periods were able to load in all three. In a previous comment you indicated you're unfamiliar with html and given at least one other editor has independently acknowledged the presence of periods in the title of the site article – see User:NotBartEhrman's comment on 12:22, 18 July 2024 – you appear to be unqualified to assess the presence of periods in a website, for reasons which escape me so you'll have to figure out on your own.

Incorrect information doesn't make for a compelling argument to override the usual conventions for stylization, which already has its own suggestions on the conditions for when exceptions can be allowed. The points to which BLP speaks to is primarily about ensuring Wikipedia articles do not become unreputable gossip coverage about living subjects, and therefore a heightened awareness of all relevant policies, standards, and expectations. It is not a carte blanche to ignore them. In particular, as you are repeatedly stating something that is demonstrably incorrect as a point of fact, your judgment that we can use the extraordinary rationale of WP:IAR to justify extraordinary stylization is based on incorrect information. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the website linked to. Where are the periods and spaces? The rest of your lecture at this point is something of a blur... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Closer: please note this editor cannot identify or read the title of a website. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

All a closer has to do is click on the many links to Vance's webcites. Please do not give directives to any closer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Purely a stylistic issue and this is Wikipedia's style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• I very much agree with your opinion. I think the correct name for the title of the Wikipedia article is J. D. Vance. Teknologi Positif (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support JD Vance. The candidate's preferences are now well-known, and the media has come to a consensus as well. None of the "oppose" arguments wanting to substitute various editor's own personal preferences are compelling. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree  As explained above, it would be futile to review a person's entire life in an effort to find a consistent formal habit, where no one would be able to demonstrate consistency, and as such it would be moot for WP to even have a BIOEXCEPT guideline in the first place. What is consistent is that all the major sources omit periods and spaces, and presently Vance is consistently doing the same, per the inquiry made by the Wall Street Journal and Vance's own web cite.We have consistency in Vance's present days, which is all the consistency we need for our purposes, esp since we always abide by the most reliable and major sources.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That to me is a very liberal interpretation of what "consistent" in BIOEXCEPT means. If the subject of the article reverts back to J.D. Vance after the election campaign ends, but goes back to JD Vance for the duration of any subsequent election campaign, would you argue that must Wikipedia retitle this article back and forth to suit the marketing preferences of the Vance campaign for the periods in question, so long as he's "consistent" in stylizations during those campaigns? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"If" indeed. In that unlikely event, make another MOVE request. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The subject of the article was born James Donald Bowman and as a child his name was changed to James David Hamel. As an adult, the subject of the article changed his surname to Vance. The subject's name has changed fairly often, and this discussion has documented a lack of consistency in how he prefers (or does not show any clear preference) in how he stylizes his most recent name change. It does not seem fair to suggest future stylizations (possibly even name changes?) are unlikely. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — As of July 23, Wired is no longer using "J.D. Vance". Again, this is not a change that is occurring in reverse, where sources are preferring "J.D. Vance" instead. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

elijahpepe@wikipedia your last edit inadvertently wiped out Walsh90210 vote, which I added back. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Also as of July 23: the home page of Vance's personal website [10] is still titled "Home - J.D. Vance" and some of the subpages lead to humorous inconsistencies such as the About page being titled "About JD Vance - J.D. Vance". [11]. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Don't know what you're seeing but I see several examples of JD and Vance's signature -- with no periods and spaces. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, your certainty in this made me doubt myself but after checking this in 3 separate browsers, as well as archive.org, and identifying that at least 2 other editors have acknowledged the title of JD Vance's personal website still uses J.D. Vance as its title, this seems like it is something you're going to have to figure out if you wish to continue to weigh in regarding what the title of Vance's website is at this time. Perhaps the WP:HELPDESK can assist you? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop giving orders to other editors and telling them what they should see no less. These are the links [12] and [13]. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Those are the links. The title of those pages are, respectively, About JD Vance - J.D. Vance and Home - J.D. Vance. This talk page is not an appropriate venue to run tech support for you. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This misses the forest for a tree; Vance's website uses "JD Vance" in every other situation. We know not whether this was a decision made for SEO purposes or a remnant that the developers of his website overlooked, not knowing that Vance prefers periods. Again, I don't see how this is a particularly significant detail. It was a brief mention in my initial move request. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a significant detail because it means the subject of the article is not being consistent in preferring exceptional stylization. The discussion has stalled out from where it probably needs to go; let's say all the sources we're looking at uniformly change to JD Vance tomorrow, and Vance's website uniformly changes to J.D. Vance tomorrow. I assume you would feel that the conditions of BIOEXCEPT would be satified, but this would discount that this a relatively new development and determining whether a subject is being consistent in exceptional stylization is not well-defined. I've suggested in previous comments what I think is non-obvious – given the lack of preference either which way in the past, this preference might be an decision for the purposes of his election campaign. What if he changes back at the end of he campaign? Is Wikipedia beholden to keep switching the title back and forth according to what Vance's marketing needs or preferences are at any point in time? Or does it take a long view and say "this is not someone who is consistent in what stylization he prefers over long time periods, so he does not ever satisfy the conditions of BIOEXCEPT which allow for exceptional stylization."

You're making an argument for BIOEXCEPT on a much narrower timeframe of only a few weeks, but the examples in BIOEXCEPT regard individuals who consistently preferred exceptional stylization for years at a time. It's my assertion you're misinterpreting the guidelines in a manner that could potentially allow for the article title to change on the whims of an election campaign manager rather than the genuine preferences of the article subject. Given the spirit of how Wikipedia handles other preference stylizations for marketing purposes – e.g. WP:MOSTM – we should allow more time to determine whether this is genuinely Vance's preference or a short-term marketing action for the purposes of an election campaign. The number of sources which 'flip' one way or another in a span of a few weeks is not compelling until editors have the opportunity to view it all in a longer timespan and determine if the subject will be consistent in preference from hereon out. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Regarding your claim, in this WP:TEXTWALL   ..."you're misinterpreting the guidelines."   MOS:BIOEXCEPT does not say anything about "...individuals who consistently preferred exceptional stylization for years at a time."  What this guideline in fact maintains is that, the person has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style for their own name; .   It says nothing about "years at a time".   All the major sources, Vance's webcites, nearly all the examples at Archive.Org, along with WSJ and other accounts of Vance preferring no periods and spaces in his name, clearly tells us this is the consistent style being used. Going back in time trying to dig up exceptions doesn't change the consistency that is glaringly obvious in the present. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support as the vice presidential candidate himself prefers no periods, per this source. Wikipedia does take in account the subject's preference, i.e. Hillary Rodham Clinton is now Hillary Clinton after her campaign said she preferred her name without her maiden name as her middle name. Many articles about transgender individuals also use the subject's preferred name. cookie monster 755 17:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Regarding maiden names as middle names. Perhaps this is not the best analogy for purposes here, as our case here only involves a style involving whether to use periods and spaces. Yes, Vance prefers no periods and spaces and subsequently all the major sources use this style. On that premise alone we should use his preferred style in this BLP of a highly notable man. WP would be seen as out of step with the times if we didn't. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support, he uses JD Vance. If the man himself uses that, I think it's a pretty clear case of what it should be. Kline • talk • contribs 22:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vance's law school funding (relative amount from GI Bill vs from Yale vs as debt)

I was trying to figure out exactly how his graduate education was funded. I think I heard Vance in his RNC speech say when he proposed to his wife that he said he came with "120,000 dollars of law school debt" (if I heard that right and if that wasn't some exaggeration).

A NYT article says "Yale Law not only accepted him for the fall of 2010, but also offered a nearly full ride."

Another article says "Vance made that journey through his success at Yale Law School, funded in part by the G.I. Bill." Presumably he could have had some GI Bill money left over from undergraduate that he applied to graduate school. Another article says "According to Vance, he received a generous financial aid package to the prestigious law school due to his disadvantaged economic background."

So more clarity would be nice to add about approximately how much grad school funding came from the GI Bill versus from Yale financial aid versus how much he had to pay through debt. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

We should delete the "nearly full ride" part because it is misleading. The language implies a merit scholarship, but Yale Law School does not offer merit scholarships. --Duckduckgoosegoose123 (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Claim that he wants to ban pornography

The claim that he wants to ban pornography should be removed. I've searched for an hour, and I can find no direct quote from him saying anything even remotely close to wanting to ban pornography. The citation in this article leads eventually to this link

https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-political-path-forward-get-married-and-have-kids

In that article, the writer claims to have asked him about pornography and says:

"When I asked his thoughts on porn and birth control and their effects on familial decline, Vance admitted he wants to outright ban pornography."

After this, he basically says that the increased use of pornography and isolation have led people to not make personal connections and relationships in real life. He never says that pornography should be banned.

This isn't a quote from him, and I've searched for an hour and can find no quote from him at all that even remotely says this. In no interview can I find a quote that even gets close to saying he wants to ban pornography.

With out a direct quote on this, it seems unlikely that he told the interviewer this. If he did, why didn't the interviewer quote him?

For such a well-known person, this really needs stronger evidence that it's true to be mentioned here. 2603:8080:7400:E6C:81F9:3D90:F958:7B02 (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that claim that he wants to ban pornography should be removed if there are no strong WP:RS sources, and "this really needs stronger evidence that it's true to be mentioned here.". Also, as this is a WP:BLP article, so there are higher standards for WP:Verifiability.

Hi Horse Eye's Back (talk) - another reason not to include it in the lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Vance is recorded as saying he wants a ban on pornography. A strong and unusual view. Perhaps it's too much to have that statement depend on one source.

However, it's quite clear that he believes the state has a role in preventing adolescents from accessing pornography, and that it is damaging to what he calls the "public good" of marriage. He has written as much in a long opinion piece in the Catholic Journal First Things.

I don't think any of the material should be removed from the article; but perhaps moderated to language such as:

"Seeing the damaging effects of pornography, particularly on adolescents and, more broadly on the "social good" of marriage, Vance has indicated in his own writing that the government should play a role in seeing its access is limited."

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest stay close to the wording from that Catholic magazine that he "admitted he wants to" ban rather that he "supports" a ban. Politicians will often say that they personally may "want" some policy while realistically being aware that the policy is not politically viable and so wouldn't actually support legislation for it. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it comes across as P.R. for Vance. KlayCax (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That version you've quoted seems reasonable @Em3rgent0rdr. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I made an edit using the wording "admitted he wants to ban pornography". Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

East Palestine train derailment section is an embarrassment

The focus of the entire episode seems to be that "Vance was criticized, but…" The "criticism" is a couple tweets by extreme partisans—one who appears to have a bee in his bonnet about Vance—referenced in a single Newsweek article. The vast, vast majority of coverage suggests that Vance did a terrific job of handling the episode, and that his response has been enormously popular with the local population. Our section smacks of the worst sort of WP:POV and is a significant WP:BLP violation as it stands. Anyone up for editing it honestly and in comportment with WP:DUE. WP:NPOV, etc.? Thanks in advance! Ekpyros (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It deserves, at most, one sentence. Happy to help edit unless there are people ready to make a strong argument otherwise. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Intro - No evidence that "Vance opposes free-market capitalism"

I've been unable to find any evidence supporting the contention that Vance rejects free-market capitalism. Later in the article, it is again mentioned with a footnote (footnote 106 at the time of this post) to an opinion piece in The Spectator that (rather flaccidly) suggests that Vance's embrace of Catholicism means he rejects the Protestant (i.e. Reagan) view of economics. On a good day, this is tortured logic.

Whatever Vance's views - and they might differ from the GOP party platform - I cannot find any source in which he rejects free-market capitalism.

Both references to this should be stricken, or alternatively, properly supported with legitimate sources that actually substantiate the claim. Mojomusic72 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Good observation. Is the Spectator a reliable source? Their article reads like an opinion piece. Since Trump is a classic example of a capitalist, and that Vance has been chosen to run as his VP, this more than suggests that Vance is on the same page. I tagged the statement with a tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, how is Vance differ from Republicans on taxes. Maybe on corporate taxes? 2600:1702:1C10:2F00:643C:555B:B790:A384 (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

LOL you people are out to lunch

"Could you get some money by raising taxes on the rich guy who complained to you about his workers?

Sure. I’m not philosophically against raising taxes on anybody."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/opinion/jd-vance-interview.html LOVECEL ^🎔 17:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/16/the-trump-vance-ticket-is-a-repudiation-of-free-market-conservatism-00168578 Lovecel (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

College attended

Reference to where he graduated from college should be changed from "Ohio State University" to "The Ohio State University". 165.156.39.14 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This would be a non-standard addition to only Vance's article as opposed to all other alumni of OSU on Wikipedia. Would require a broader consensus to get this changed on everyone's page, not just J.D. Vance. AveryTheComrade (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Please see

• WP:UNITHE

Wozal (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Political Views /philosophy in Lead

We have three Political philosophies in Lead national conservative, neoreactionary, and right-wing populist

As per many WP:RS sources, the prominent and widely referenced is national conservative, and hence that should get the priority in ordering the philosophies in the lead.

Did Vance sell a new kind of conservative nationalism? (7/18/2024 Washighton Post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/18/jd-vance-rnc-convention/ RogerYg (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is also important to mention that he has embraced Trump's populist agenda as reported widely in latest WP:RS sources

In J.D. Vance, Trump is going all in on populism — and elevating an heir apparent

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/15/trump-jd-vance-heir-populism-00168539 RogerYg (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree.

1. National Conservative
2. Right-wing populist
3. Neoreactionary

To be honest I remain very skeptical about that third one even being included. As far as I can tell it's purely on the basis that he's friends with Yarvin and liked the concept of the 'cathedral'.

Vance is fundamentally a populist from the working class, whereas neoreaction is inherently and unavoidably anti-democratic and elitist. He can't be both. KronosAlight (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not so sure about his "populism" but I do agree on the important point that the word "neoreaction" is generally incoherent, and the media sources which connect it to Vance about seem to describe Vance's self-identified circle of friends (including his former boss) more than they describe a specific ideology which he has consistently demonstrated in his words and actions. If sources consider "neoreaction" an important part of Vance's career we should mention it, but maybe not as his "political view". NotBartEhrman (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi KlayCax (talk), I would disagree with your last edit, made without any WP:TALK discussion or consensus, where you have given priority to Neoreactionary, while most editors here don't even want it mentioned in the lead, as there are no strong WP:RS sources to justify such top priority to "Neoreactionary". Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Also adding content without references in the lead may work for general Wiki articles, but WP:BLP biographical articles have much higher standards of WP:Verifiability, and hence all contentious content (even in lead) must have strong WP:RS references, else it's open for deletion as per WP:BLP.

All editors have different opinions on summarizing the body, and without references in the Lead, it will be just chaos and mess for serious editors. RogerYg (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Vance has explicitly cited it as an influence. It's additionally been mentioned in 10+ sources, @RogerYg:. There's a clear consensus to include it. KlayCax (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not against WP: BLP if he's explicitly cited Yarvin as a source, has described himself as the thing in question, and it's been widely covered in sources. KlayCax (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, KlayCax (talk), the lead without refs works for historical articles where the lead is almost set in stone after the initial discussion, but it does not work well with popular WP:BLP pages that will be continuously evolving, and if editors put in any preffered summarized version of body in the lead without references it will just create enormous and unneccessary TALK page efforts for all of us.

Also, WP:BLP clearly requires references for any contentious or controversial content, even if it is in the lead, else it can be deleted.

I agree with Tentemp (talk) that we need sources in lead, else any Uncited content is good for deletion per WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability. RogerYg (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Further, I agree with KronosAlight (talk) and NotBartEhrman (talk) that the ordering priority per most sources is

1. National Conservative
2. Right-wing populist
3. Neoreactionary

Respectfully, I disagree with KlayCax (talk)'s recent edit that put Neoreactionary as the first philosophy to be mentioned about JD Vance, based on a Source that vaguely mentions 7 thinkers. I agree that it can be mentioned, but not as the first /top political view of Vance.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/20/peter-thiel-book-facebook-trump-jd-vance-blake-masters-josh-hawley-513121

This does not seem to support giving top order priority to Neoreactionary

There are better sources that support "national conservative" as his key political view..

Did Vance sell a new kind of conservative nationalism? (7/18/2024 Washighton Post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/18/jd-vance-rnc-convention/ RogerYg (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Vance has specifically said that he doesn't identify as a conservative, but as a reactionary, and weighting it like this seems heavily subjective. KlayCax (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Clean up

Hey all. The last paragraph of the intro has no references. Can we please site some sources? It says he opposes free market capitalism. “Vance has been called a neoreactionary, national conservative, and a right-wing populist. He has cited Curtis Yarvin, Rod Dreher, and Patrick Deneen as influences on his ideological views and describes himself as a member of the postliberalright. On social issues, he has promoted strongly conservative policies, opposing abortion and same-sex marriage and favoring a ban on transgender healthcare for minors. Vance opposes free-market capitalism and differs from mainstream Republican views on taxes, the minimum wage, unionization, tariffs, and antitrustpolicy, while opposing American military aid to Ukraine.”

can we site sources on this? Tentemp (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Because leads are meant to serve as a summary of the article as a whole, leads are not required to have sources since those would be mentioned later on. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Wozal (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s very hard to believe that he opposes free market capitalism when he is a venture capitalist. Let’s site a source on that claim or remove that text. Tentemp (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Tentemp (talk) that any controversial statement without reference, even in lead needs to be removed as per WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability. 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires references for any contentious content, even if it is in the lead. We need sources in lead, else any Uncited content is good for deletion per WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability. RogerYg (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

False info

Someone put Jd vance “opposes free market capitalism” it should say supports. Shanethebrain63737 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

More protection

I think we are getting a lot of vandalism and should protect this article more Tentemp (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

you are the one who overrid the admin comment to not remove the part about him opposing free markets mate LOVECEL ^🎔 21:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that. No biting. Please site a source that quotes him saying he opposes the free market capitalism. 47.200.116.187 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I literally did, he deleted my citation but woe unto me if I revert

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/16/the-trump-vance-ticket-is-a-repudiation-of-free-market-conservatism-00168578 LOVECEL ^🎔 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That cite reads like an opinion piece; I'd think we'd want a more reliable source (and several for a BLP). BBQboffin^{grill me} 04:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's many more, let me know when I'm free to add it without an edit war or faux incredulousness.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/16/jd-vance-new-right-00168383

"he has championed a distinctive New Right legislative agenda, rejecting the The GOP’s traditional fusion of free-market fundamentalism"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/07/15/vance-trump-economy-gop/

"The Ohio senator leads a GOP faction sharply breaking with party ideology on free markets"

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/jd-vance-things-donald-trumps-pick-vice-president-111964194

"president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, called Vance a leading voice for the conservative movement, on key issues including a shift away from interventionist foreign policy, free market economics"

https://www.ft.com/content/ffbcb42d-476e-4104-939e-97c6b9fa85b3

"Donald Trump’s selection of JD Vance as his running mate cements the Republican party’s shift from the free-market conservatism of the Reagan and Bush eras to the economic populism of the Make America Great Again movement." LOVECEL ^🎔 04:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Are those opinions or a direct quote from Vance? Vance is a Venture Capitalist. He is an active participant in the free market. I read these articles and there is no direct quote from him stating he opposes free market capitalism. Bernie sanders and AOC are quoted saying they oppose free market capitalism. Not sure why you are so insistent that we put Vance opposes free market capitalism. Please act in good faith. Tentemp (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm swagging out in good faith firehousing sources my dude here come even more direct quotes hit me with with an emoticon when you're chill with them joining their buddies in the references section

"[someone trying to live the American dream] will confront society a culture and a market economy that is more hostile to people having children than maybe at any period in American history" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmVjKIEC8rw&t=499s 8:19

"The board of directors of U.S. Steel must reject any bid from a foreign acquirer. If the courts attempt to block them, then Congress should intervene. We must ensure that corporate transactions such as the sale of U.S. Steel advance our nation’s power and prosperity. If we do, we might rescue 600 Grant St. from becoming yet another rusty memorial of American decline." Explicitly saying that congress should prevent the free market outcome for US factories. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/05/jd-vance-america-auction-industrial-base/

"it's time to break Google up...The monopolistic control of information in our society resides with an explicitly progressive technology company." https://x.com/JDVance1/status/1761041871617278246 LOVECEL ^🎔 17:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s not him opposing free market capitalism nor is it a quote in a wiki worthy source. Warren Buffet is in favor of higher taxes and more regulation in some cases, does that mean he opposes free market capitalism? No. You are the only one trying to add this and multiple people are stating we should not include he opposes free market capitalism. You don’t have a consensus. It would look ridiculous to put that he is avenger capitalist that opposes capitalism in this article. His economic, tax and political stances are accurately described. In this article. He has some protection policies and obviously supports free market capitalism there’s no need to include that free market capitalism as it would show an inaccurate view of his economic policies. It would lead readers of this article to think that he supports socialism, or another source of economic modeling please end this discussion . Tentemp (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You tell me to engage in good faith but you reverted my edit which explicitly did not say free market capitalism. In fact I have never once tried to edit it to free market capitalism. Look at my history editing here mate. I never once wrote capitalism. Not a single time. You are tilting at windmills. Can you address what I actually wrote next time? Thanks! LOVECEL ^🎔 22:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s not being included Tentemp (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vice President Vance" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vice President Vance 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 July 22 § Vice President Vance until a consensus is reached. Wozal (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Timing of Marine service vs. school and name change

Currently, it looks like he finished his Marine service in 2007 and graduated with a bachelor's degree in 2009, and some sources on the internet say he "got his bachelor's degree in just two years" (Wikipedia doesn't make this claim, and the sources I've seen don't seem reliable, but it may be true). However, I've been unable to find any details about when or how his Marine service ended, or when exactly his undergrad studies began. Many famous veterans of about his age have specific honorable discharge dates that are readily visible on the internet, but I can't find anything. I'm curious if his undergrad studies may have started rather early, like January of 2007 rather than the beginning of the academic year, or if he may have even begun school in 2006.

The article currently says he "adopted" the name Vance in 2014, but if he legally changed his name then I would suggest saying that more explicitly. I believe he did legally change his name, but I don't know when. "Adopted" sounds like an informal change, or it may mark the date when he began using the name even if it wasn't legally changed until later. Fluoborate (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I added a note for clarification. He was born Bowman, adopted by his stepfather and became Hamel, and then changed his last name to Vance upon marriage. cookie monster 755 02:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"full-ride" at Yale Law School is Misleading

Can we delete the "full-ride scholarship" part of his attending Yale Law School? This is misleading because Yale Law School does not offer merit scholarships, and the clear implication of "full-ride scholarship" is that Vance received a merit scholarship to Yale Law School. --Duckduckgoosegoose123 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I clarified that he received the "full-ride" scholarship for his first year at Yale per NYT source, post self-correction. BBQboffin^{grill me} 05:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Contention that Vance represents Appalachia

Several articles have been written by native Appalachians since the debut of Hillbilly Elegy that counter Vance's depiction of Appalachia or that he represent Appalachia.

1) Hillbillies Need No Elegy by Meredith McCarroll https://bittersoutherner.com/hillbillies-need-no-elegy-appalachian-reckoning

2) Unwhite: Appalachia, Race, and Film Book by Meredith McCarroll https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt22nmbtj

3) Appalachian Reckoning by Anthon rkins and Meredith McCarroll. https://wvupressonline.com/appalachian-reckoning Appalachian Reckoning is a retort, at turns rigorous, critical, angry, and hopeful, to the long shadow Hillbilly Elegy has cast over the region and its imagining. But it also moves beyond Hillbilly Elegy to allow Appalachians from varied backgrounds to tell their own diverse and complex stories through an imaginative blend of scholarship, prose, poetry, and photography... Complicating simplistic visions that associate the region almost exclusively with death and decay, Appalachian Reckoning makes clear Appalachia’s intellectual vitality, spiritual richness, and progressive possibilities.

4) What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia by Elizabeth Catte. https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/582240482/historian-makes-case-for-what-you-are-getting-wrong-about-appalachia-in-new-book https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/products/9780998904146 "There's a projection of his realities onto the lives of everybody in the region, and it's not in my mind accidental. It's right there in the subtitle of the book. It's a memoir of a family, but is also a memoir of a culture in crisis. The universalizing that is done in the book is something that's become a trademark of J.D. Vance's engagement as a pundit and a political up-and-comer. And so my book is certainly a criticism of "Hillbilly Elegy," but I'd also like it to be read as an interruption to a claim of ownership about my life and the people around me." Sjsalyer (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)