Talk:Mike DeWine/Archive 1

Archive 1

First Name?

Is Mike DeWine's first name actually "Richard"? On his letters, his initials at the bottom are given as "RMD" and his entry in "Who's Who" lists him as "R. Michael DeWine" and gives his father's name as Richard. PedanticallySpeaking 16:57, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...could this be an instance of someone switching their first and middle name? I know my grandfather did this. He was born Sylvester Robert Kenney, but changed it to Robert Sylvester Kenney. I'm not sure if he ever did this officially, though. What are we to do in such instances? john k 16:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

His father's name is Richard, so is his son's. And I got a letter from him last week which had the initials "RMD" at the bottom. So his name is Richard Michael. PedanticallySpeaking 16:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Exchange at User talk:Soltak

I re-reverted the Mike DeWine article. For sourcing see the comment I posted last year on the talk page or do a Google search for "Richard Michael DeWine" such as this one. What "official" biography did you refer to? In both Bioguide and the bio on DeWine's senate site say nothing of "Richard". PedanticallySpeaking 15:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's true that his online Senate bio only lists him as 'Mike,' however, I happen to be a constituent of Mr. DeWine's who has written to him on several occasions and he signs official correspondence Michael R. DeWine. In addition, a paper 'pamphlet' biography is circulated through Ohio around election time and that also lists him as Michael R. In light of these things, I have again corrected the page. -Soltak 17:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I too like in Ohio and last week received a letter from him. It says at the bottom "RMD". I have never seen him sign his name "Michael R. DeWine"--this letter has a computer generated "Mike" but the secretary's intials are preceded by RMD on the letter. Who's Who lists him as "R. Michael DeWine" as do other sources. PedanticallySpeaking 18:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I just received an e-mail from Jeff Sadosky, the Senator's press secretary who writes "R. Michael DeWine is correct." PedanticallySpeaking 18:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Source?

The article claims:

Some members of the right have expressed the intent to seek revenge against DeWine for his involvement with the filibuster compromise by interfering with the plans of his son Pat to run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

But does not provide a citation for this allegation. Who are these "members of the right", and where did this "expression of intent to seek revenge" actually occur? I think including this in the article is fine, but it needs to be supported by a reputable citation. Neilc 00:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Jessica Cutler

I agree with those who want to keep out of this article any information about fired congressional staff assistant Jessica Cutler. There was never (as far as I know) any indication that DeWine was involved in, aware of, or responsible for this scandal. When DeWine found out about this, he fired Cutler.

DeWine probably has a couple dozen staffers, and probably interacts with only a few of the most senior on a daily basis. Like other Senators, he probably spends most of his time talking to other Senators, senior House and Senate committee staffers, members of the Executive Branch, lobbyists, and important constituents and contributors. So it's not like he should have sensed, somehow, that there was a problem, or somehow known about it because the Capitol is such a small place.

An encyclopedia article should focus on the most relevant information for understanding a subject; the episode here provides absolutely no insight into DeWine. Cutler could just as well have been working for one of the other 99 Senators; that it was DeWine was basically a random thing. John Broughton 13:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and recently re-removed the paragraph because it is just too trivial for his bio. The controversy appears to be about her activities and I can't imagine any Senator not firing her. --Ajdz 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Paper

There was an amusing piece today on Dewine's commercials, but I'm not certian its worthy of note for the article:

• "Too Much Mike?" by David Niven, The Other Paper, October 5, 2006

-MrFizyx 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Social issues need sources

Please add sources to the section on "social issues" everything is either unsourced or comes from a source the doesn't meet our criteria (see WP:RS, you need something with less POV than Sherrod Browns site). Without sources it is difficult to tell which statements are accurate and which have been vandalized. The only item that I removed was the RINO designation, per our policy WP:BLP. -MrFizyx 07:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

It is important to state the current state of events, not what will happen soon. As such, the Senator is still in office, and has not been succeeded yet. Stealthound 20:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball

Please consult this source, (Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball) before changing the "Succeeded by" sections of the article. This is the official position of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, predicting what will happen in the future. As the Senator is still in office, the article should be left as it is. Thank you, Stealthound 08:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life: Pat DeWine

Pat DeWine is now a justice on the Ohio Supreme Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:324B:3210:1C7A:D82F:38CE:4BBF (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike DeWine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110114427/http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2291 to http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2291
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120815184807/http://www.sos.state.oh.us/elections/Research/electResultsMain.aspx to http://www.sos.state.oh.us/elections/Research/electResultsMain.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

April 2019

Recently an IP has sought to include under #Abortion the sentence:

• This law does not make any exceptions for rape or incest.

I believe there remains significant BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns for this sentence as it only mentioned in passing in the cited Time Magazine article. It's obviously true, but I feel it doesn't belong on a biography of Mike DeWine specifically. I could be wrong, or I may not be. So far I am the third editor against its inclusion. Should we or should we not include this sentence as worded?
Pinging involved editors: @PCock, Zingarese, and CLCStudent:. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@MJL, PCock, and CLCStudent: Dear all, My thanks to MJL for opening this conversation. In my opinion, I feel this detail merits inclusion. I know that in other states, such as Georgia (signed into law a few days ago) and in Iowa (which was struck down by a federal judge), exceptions were made in case of rape or incest. This Ohio bill does not make such an exception - only in cases of danger to the mother's health as far as i'm concerned. Also, I would also support including another important detail about this bill: that it doesn't take effect until July unless held up by legal challenges. The ACLU has already threatened to sue. Source: nytimes

However, I'm far more concerned about the repeated rolling back of this IP's edits. This is such a serious misuse of rolback, as this IP's edits clearly were not vandalism. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zingarese: I welcome a discussion on the use of rollback on my talk page or wherever y'all see fit to have it, but this thread should probably stick to the content dispute.
In regards to your points, I feel this should be ingrained in a single concise sentence rather than be talked on at length with all those details. If more needs to be said, we should use a hatnote, right? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear @MJL: There's no need to discuss the rollback use - it was completely wrong, and should never happen again. Yes, I'm happy to incorporate all necessary details into one single sentence. How about something like this: In April 2019, DeWine signed a bill into law that prohibits abortion after a heartbeat is detected in the fetus, even in cases for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. The law is scheduled to take effect in July. Zingarese talk · contribs 13:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• RMD-Official-Headshot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussing the "Related current event" template.

Just wanted to discuss my opinion on why the "Related to a current event" template should be added to Mike DeWine. First of all, Mike DeWine is listed and named in a current event. Second, the impeachment articles are a huge deal even if they don't move much past where they are. Only 8 State governors have had impeachment dealings in all of U.S. history. Third, since an article about him is tagged with the "Current Event Template", it would make sense to tag his article with a "Related to a current event" template. Just wanted to put that out there. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, I don't think it's anywhere near important enough for that. This is political maneuvering by those in his party who are to the right of him. I'm not even convinced it's important enough to be included. —valereee (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Undue

Elijahandskip, including it here at all at this point is undue weight for something that has widely been condemned -- from both sides of the aisle -- as political posturing, grandstanding, attention-seeking. I've added the information to the articles for the state reps in question, but at this point, this has zero to do with DeWine. You have a lot of very experienced editors disagreeing with you about this at Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine. I think you should rethink this. —valereee (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I know. But if people think logically, it is a piece of history. Think of an NFL player who retired 30 years ago. They didn't make a superbowl or anything. They were on an NLF team, which makes them "notable history", so they can have a 2-3 sentence article. Only a handful of state governors in the last 200+ years have even had impeachment articles drawn up on them. It happens so rarely that it is like "Notable History". I know that people don't agree with me, but in my mind, if a NLF player who did nothing huge in his career is notable enough for a 2-3 sentence article, then an article documenting a piece of history that will be with the name "Mike DeWine" forever and that is like 10x bigger than some NFL player articles, is notable enough just to stay. Most likely, the article won't have much more information too it, but that is my stance on it. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO our policies for notability of sports figures are WAY too loose, so that argument isn't going to sway me. :) —valereee (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine should be merged here. As it stands, this is barely more than a publicity stunt. The only thing politically interesting about it is that it is being driven by members of DeWine's own party. It should be made a section near the bottom, and the title should redirect to that section. BD2412 T 23:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft Space Move. It was suggested earlier to be moved into a draft/user space. I can move it into a draft space and edit it/improve it. If something does happen, I can easily move it to a real article again OR add the information to Mike DeWine. I would vote on that instead of a 1 sentence merge right now. (Doubtful), but for all we know, he could be impeached and I would hate to have deleted the article and have to retype it. A draft is just as easy to delete OR make into an article depending on what happens. Anyone agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs)

Yes, I think that's also reasonable. BD2412 T 23:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree, move to draft is a good idea —valereee (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Not even sure it deserves a section. Maybe a mention in 2020, but honestly...this is just political grandstanding. I'm not sure it even deserves a mention until we see whether anyone is even mentioning it in a week. —valereee (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Just pointing out that a move to draft space can't even take place for 7 days before an idiot, Nsk92, started a deletion process after we started it here. I told people to talk here instead of on the deletion process page. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's not call people idiots. Don't worry, we'll get it moved to your user space. Nothing is ever completely lost. You won't have to retype. —valereee (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. The only reason I called him an idiot was because anyone suggesting to delete an article should know the process for anything like that. A merge process was already in progress so it just made everything so much worse and complicated. You are suppose to discuss the article issues on the first set of discussions, but the deletion thing prevents any actions for 7 days. Just makes it complicated. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, nah, go into the deletion discussion and make a clear statement that as creator, you want to draftify. We can get someone to do that. I've already !voted so I probably shouldn't, but someone will move. —valereee (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

subsection for political grandstanding by others

I do not think this needs a subsection for Becker's grandstanding articles of impeachment. In the article about Becker, sure, but this is immaterial for DeWine's. —valereee (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Started a draft

Started Draft:Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about a "Source" (Potential use)

So I created a website (See the note below) that is called "IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION AGAINST OHIO GOVERNOR MIKE DEWINE {UNOFFICIAL WIKI}". URL: https://dewineimpeachmentwiki.weebly.com/. The website is similar to a mirror of Wikipedia, but contains content not included in Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution. All of the content is sourced and people with thousands of followers have tweeted about it. Is there a way to have a discussion on if that source can be used and ONLY be used for that subsection {Aka the "Impeachment resolution" subsection}?

Note* I have read Wikipedia:Verifiability and I don't want to cause problems (aka, don't say "I am too close to the subject" ect..). My User page has a declaration about the website. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Love of Corey could you discuss more on the reason you reverted my edit? Thanks, Elijahandskip (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I jumped the gun on the edit summary. We should be using third-party news sources to back up the information, not a Twitter post and a website created by the very Wikipedia user advocating for the information's inclusion. Love of Corey (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I understand. No problem about the edit revert. Just wanted to learn the full reason for the revert. Also, according Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way". Would you agree that if an RS source mentioned the interview, it would be ok to publish that information with all 3 sources (The RS, Twitter, and website)? No RS has mentioned it, but since Senate Bill 311 was denied an override veto, it might gain a mention in the next few days. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)