Talk:JD Vance/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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: [1] [2] [3]. 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 [4], 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 [5]. 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 [6] 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". [7]. 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 [8] and [9]. -- 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.

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)

Immigration and border security

The words "Immigration" and "border" are not even mentioned once in this article. Immigration, and the border wall, are among the biggest issues nation wide, with large scale shipments of fentanyl and other drugs being smuggled, human trafficking a major problem, not to mention the high numbers of crimes committed by desperate immigrants. While there are dedicated articles that give in depth coverage for Vance's political career and positions, these things still need to be mentioned in brief in the main article where the most (and often the only) views occur, with links to a given dedicated article. Hopefully this will not be like pulling teeth like it is at Joe Biden#Southern border, where the border wall is not even mentioned, and where it was deleted as soon as it was. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Weird ignorance

Vance is famous for his autobiography but we don’t know in which year exactly he met his wife? The article says “About 2011”. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 20:07, 25 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)

@KlayCax I can see the articles who have associated Vance with neo-reactionary thought. And I read the Politico article you mentioned. But I can't see where Vance identifies with reactionaries or neo-reactionaries. Can you share? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Am hoping that this article is not being used as the source. He never says "I am a reactionary", merely observes there is a competition between movements. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Childless cat lady comments

Soooo just gonna ignore this shitstorm that he kicked up himself, huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AE78:1E00:6D74:740F:1890:B038 (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

See Political positions of JD Vance. Keivan.f^Talk 03:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't his birth name in the lead?

many WP articles include birth name in the parentheses with date. Jcbarr (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Jcbarr It is not a requirement for articles to use that format. He has had several name changes and it is better to just summarize it in a note, but you are more than free to be WP:BOLD and add it back. Vice President Kamala Harris does not have her birth name in her lede, but that is a little different because her name was changed two weeks after she was born. JD Vance was legally adopted by his stepfather and had his middle and last name changed, and then changed his last name again in 2014 upon his marriage. cookie monster 755 02:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a WP requirement perhaps, but it seems any well researched biography would include one's birth name, which seems just as, or more, important than any other name changes that may have occurred thereafter, save his current and well known name. They might be out there, somewhere, but I've never seen a biography of a highly notable person that didn't include the birth name. It's almost the same as leaving out one's place of birth. Perhaps one of Vance's political articles might fare with no birth name -- but the biography of his life should include this basic biographical fact up front. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Added birth name, previously tucked away in foot note. Added corroborating citation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Summary style

You should not just chop off an entire section and leave nothing but a "main article" link. Please appropriately summarize Political positions of JD Vance in this article to include an overview of positions. See Joe_Biden#Political_positions for an example. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 26 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)

@Thirdhuman1 we're doing an article on a particular person. As you can see from the above discussion, one of the things that makes this subject notable is his ideas. Plenty of examples given by @KlayCax. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

One could say the same thing about numerous politicians. And yet I'm completely unable to find any president after searching through countless politician pages across many different countries. Can it really be said that JD Vance is ONLY politician on the entire planet with "interesting" influences? That seems wrong and it makes me question whether we're being objective and neutral. Thirdhuman1 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't dismiss arguments that appeal to other articles. We should aim for every article to reach the standards of Good Articles. So I take on what you've said.

I'd like you to consider that this person is, perhaps, a little different from recent VPs, because this person has written about ideas, others have written about those ideas expressed, and they have come from somewhere.

No one wants to make this article completely different from every other person in this category of BLP. We're talking about a few sentences on ideas and influences. And I believe that's both interesting and entirely within the expectations of the WP:MOS. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The leads for politicians are dealing with contentious subject matter. The norm (or maybe natural editing equilibrium?) for their pages seems to be that you don't attach highfalutin concepts to them because the exact content with which they agree or disagree with isn't ascertainable from the pages that they link to and not enough context is provided to adequately explain what they do and don't agree with. When you attach a term like "socialist" or "neoreactionary" to an individual without sufficient elaboration, you're ascribing a bundle of potential beliefs that may not be warranted. For the same reason why the label of "socialist" was concluded to provide insufficient depth on Bernie Sanders' underlying policy views to appear in the lead in such an abbreviated fashion, I think the same clearly applies here. Thirdhuman1 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

One thing I'll agree to is removing the debated terms. Looking at WP:BLPSTYLE, the guidance is "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." The subject is certainly not commonly described as "neoreactionary", and has never identified with the movement. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

JD Vance

You describe JD Vance as a Lawyer. Perplexity And myself found no evidence that was ever admitted to the bar in any jurisdiction. According to The American Bar Association: earning a JD from Yale or any law school is no grounds to call yourself a lawyer or an attorney. You must have been admitted to bar by passing the bar exam and other requirements to obtain a license and actually practice. Having a law degree no more makes you a lawyer than having a medical degree makes you a doctor. 141.239.89.137 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of the need to include "James David Vance, commonly known as JD Vance" to the lead, with a note to explain the name, in order to avoid confusion over why Vance is called JD Vance, as apparently it's not obvious. Per WP:NICKNAME: "Article titles are hardly suitable to clarify, explain, or in any other way elaborate on the composition of a name.". CNC (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

More concerning, is your original point I realise. I've added tags for the issues; the TIME source fails verification for "practising law" (working in a law firm is not the same). The other two sources for practising law are WP:MREL WP:BRITANNICA and WP:PRIMARY WP:SELFPUB (by Vance himself), which is hardly good enough for such statements of facts. If he entered private practice in law, and practised law as a lawyer for two years, I'd expect there to be GREL sources to back this up. Otherwise, he ain't no lawyer. CNC (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

A lawyer is someone who practices law, which Vance did do. You can practice law without passing the bar. Reliable sources widely describe him as one, (i.e. [10]) so calling him a former lawyer would be appropriate unless there are WP:RS that say differently. GuardianH (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that settles the matter. And you're right @GuardianH, sources such these articles in The Atlantic, The New York Times and PBS describe him as such. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That strikes me as sufficient to describe Vance as a former lawyer. Cortador (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a reliable source to include in the article, I did briefly search but was inundated with articles about his wife so gave up. There is just the issue of The Lamp Magazine being used as the source for practising law for two years.[11] I couldn't find any reference on noticeboard for it's reliability, and otherwise is a self-published blogpost from Vance himself. The Britannica source otherwise doesn't contribute to the claim in question. I'm not sure whether it's best to convert to WP:INTEXT "According to Vance", or otherwise requires removal per WP:ABOUTSELF, based on being "unduly self-serving" and "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". For such a prominent figure, it'd be surprising if RS have not documented this if accurate. CNC (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-serious medals

Is it typical to list a bunch of attendance medals for his military service? The Achievement Medal is barely a medal, as is Good Conduct. Iraq Campaign Medal is given to anyone spending time in Iraq, I think 90 days. GWOT and sea service is similar. These are all typical "medals" for doing a couple years in the military, why are they listed?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is with the reliable sources, which are fairly clear on the matter. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

What sources? I see the awards being listed in the infobox, but no source is provided. Is there one in the article body?

Even if there is one, verifiability alone isn't enough for inclusion, especially if the subject of the article isn't primarily known as a soldier. Cortador (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting topic. I find that many editors labour under the misconception that every single item in a given article must itself be notable. In fact, guidelines like WP:N make it fairly clear that the watchword of notability applies to whether there should be an article about the subject at all. I believe that question is settled in the minds of every editor here, the article's existence not being in contention. If however, the question is about weight, then we have a discussion. I believe the material about medals represents 293 bytes out of 102,919 bytes of information. The chap is only 29 I believe, and yet this sentence pertains to five years of his life. I'm no mathematician but that part of his story is, in terms of years at least, I think 17% percent of his life; but this sentence about medals represents a mere 0.003% of the content of this article. I'm being a little whimsical here, forgive me, but—dare I say it?—the many Stateside editors here can be overly serious, not to say partisan and inflammatory. The conclusion I would draw all contributors of good faith to is this — JD Vance is notable, his military service is a significant part of his story, and history, and, information about any recognition of that service is what might be expected in any good BLP. And with that, I wish you all a good evening from a rather frigid Canberra, Australia. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:N is not the issue (what medals, if any, should be in the infobox), apart from BLP-good sources, the question falls somewhat under WP:NPOV. If something has a decent cite, it can be mentioned somewhere, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should. Perhaps Dan Crenshaw is a useful comparison. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thr article body mentions two of the awards (sourced). I've tagged the other three for the time being. Cortador (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to be basic/simple facts from the article body. If it's not in the body, it probably doesn't belong in the box. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I support that principle @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and would only expect any decorations mentioned in the body of the article to appear in the infobox. Yet I also maintain that the medals mentioned are part of the subject's story as the military journals cited make clear. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning the medals noted here [12][13] (never heard of Task & Purpose, but see no obvious problem in using it for that). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus. Will admit that I am not a regular reader of Task & Purpose, nor of the boldly-named journal Stripes, but both appear to have, what one senior editor has called "the hallmarks of being reliable sources" as here and here we see they both have proper published editorial standards and—amazingly—actual editors. I believe we can proceed with a modest degree of confidence.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Is there examples of this kind of influence being handled on other notable figure's pages? PleaseComputer (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@PleaseComputer @Vectronn: See this wikipedia link for how something like this has been handled on another well-known page. I'm not sure if there have been other examples of someone else basically getting someone else every job they've had though. I think this is an outlier. Wozal (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if you did not make a separate section to acknowledge his influence on Vance it may correlate with his experience in San Fransico working venture capital. Sources 36 and 37 were challenged already and may be better replaced with either:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/technology/jd-vance-tech-silicon-valley.html

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-07-17/before-going-maga-j-d-vance-made-big-money-and-connection-in-san-franciscos-tech-world

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/17/g-s1-11654/five-things-to-know-about-jd-vances-connections-to-tech-billionaires Awilling (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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.wiki.x.io/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[14] 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)

  As per WP:RS, and WP:LEAD First sentence, we have to follow the introduction that generally most WP:RS sources give in WP:NPOV articles on JD Vance

  Based on all the discussion above, there is reasonable consensus that we need to include:

  American politician, author, and US Marine veteran, who is serving as the junior United States senator from Ohio since 2023.

  Most WP:RS articles do not mention Vance as a venture capitalist, or corporate lawyer, as that seems to be the less notable aspects of his life, not notable enough for lede voice for WP:RS sources, and untill we have a consensus on that same per WP:BRD and WP:TALK. Thanks. 23:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"DO NOT EDIT THIS" notes

I've removed a series of notes instructing editors not to edit the lede. These were never discussed on the talk page and without firm consensus for telling people they can't edit the lede, they come across as WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• OK. starship.paint (RUN) 13:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• Agreed that its inappropriate, if I had noticed it first I would have removed it. It appears to have been added by @RogerYg: very recently[15]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, to best of my knowledge I only added the note around the Lede First Sentence, and it was based WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK guidelines, which are fundamental for developing the WP:Lede.

  As per TALK page discussion See Talk:J. D. Vance#Wiki voice lead - Notable aspects,

  Reasonable consensus on at least 3 most notable aspects: American politician, author, and U.S. Marine Corps veteran

  I never claimed WP:OWNERSHIP as multiple editors were involved in the discussion on Talk:J. D. Vance#Wiki voice lead - Notable aspects,

  Also, Many WP:BLP pages have such notes in the Lede to avoid violations of WP:BLP by novice editors.

  Since the notes help to highlight WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK guidelines and avoid misuse of WP:BRD, I think it is better to have such notes on WP:BLP article lede to avoid unneccessary Vandalism and WP Violations of lede on a regular basis. But, I am open to further discussion and forming a consensus even on this. Thanks

  RogerYg (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Forming consensus? Good. Making a note so that others feel they cannot edit the opening sentence/lede at all? Bad. I know you didn't claim ownership, but to me at least it absolutely comes across as such when you add these tags to the lede of an article. We can form consensus and discuss this without having to tell people not to edit. This of course isn't just a message to you, it's to whoever added the various other tags around the lede as well. I would assume that there's enough eyes on this page that should a novice editor stumble upon the page and either vandalise it or make a poorer quality edit to it, it could be handled. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Add additional categories to end of article with regards to Mr Vance's religion?

Please consider addding Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism and Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism 208.89.33.72 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello! The idea is to have the cats as specific as possible. The article-cats include Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Evangelicalism, and since both your suggestions are parent-categories of that one, they are unnecessary. Hope this makes an amount of sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is he called Jimmy "The Couch" online?

Why is James Vance being linked to furniture? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussed on this very Talk page, here. Carguychris (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Military Decorations and Awards that JD Vance would have:

Instead of being so non-specific about his military service, why not include information about his military decorations and awards instead of "a lot of medals"?

From most junior to most senior:

Sea Service Deployment Ribbon War on Terrorism Service Medal War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal Iraq Campaign Medal National Defense Service Medal Good Conduct Medal Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal

He would also have a rifle qualification badge and possibly a pistol qualification badge, since his TO weapon would most likely would have been a pistol being, in a non-combat role (even though they are called "Combat Correspondents", they are not considered combatants in the Marine Corps). 2001:44C8:4180:176E:C2C:B08D:F879:9D89 (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We are meant to summarize, IMO if Task and Stripes (or his own senate-page) don't bother to mention these, neither should we. I made this edit [16] which I think is reasonable. Speculation on what decorations he might have doesn't help. @MatthewDalhousie, @Cortador, @ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen, other interested, do you have an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Assuming that Vance has these decorations based on where he was deployed or what he did is original research. We need sources that explicitly state that he has them.

Even then, just because we can verify that Vance has those medals doesn't automatically mean this information should be Including in the article, especially if even a specialised source like *Task* don't bother mentioning all medals, as @Gråbergs Gråa Sång pointed out.

Lastly, most of not all these medals seem to be ones that e.g. everyone deployed to a certain theatre got, not less common ones like, say, the Medal of Honor (which still would need coverage by RS). Cortador (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If he had one of those, I don't think sourcing would be a problem ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, main issue is that sourcing sort of dictates notability and if there isn't sourcing covering those other medals, then we are unable to add it to the encyclopedia. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Am content for the article to mention the subject has received his awards included several decorations including the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal and Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal; as per the Task & Purpose article, no more than that. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Good Conduct and Achievement are the only ones worth mentioning (if any should be mentioned at all). I suspect the average reader doesn't understand how common those "medals" are, but listing only those two is much better than listing the half dozen good attendance awards that existed before.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 19:00, 2 August 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)

I was wondering that as well if he did college in two or two and a half years or maybe started classes somewhere while still in the Marines. Definitely needs a bit more clarification. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have an acquaintance who went to college around that time while he was still technically active-duty in the Marines. According to him, the USMC reduced their personnel requirements substantially and suddenly due to the winding down of the Gulf War, but they didn't want to just send new recruits home, so the solution was allowing Marines to effectively put their enlistment on hiatus and participate in the Reserves while they were in school. Anecdotal, yes, but I speculate that Vance did something similar. It just needs to be documented. Carguychris (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

According to Hillbilly Elegy he didn't start at Ohio State or any college until September 2007 and graduated in 2 years by taking courses in the summer, not sleeping much and adding extra courses semester. I've added those pieces with cites to the article. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

Where it states that he was against transgender Healthcare, it should be more specific, like transgender hormone therapy. Saying he is against Healthcare disingenuously makes it sound like he doesn't want transgender people to receive any Healthcare, which is of course patently false and ridiculous. 2600:6C44:7E7F:8021:8FC7:440:376:E709 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that Transgender health care states that it 'includes the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental health conditions for transgender individuals' it clearly is beyond just gender affirmative care. The article body states 'He has proposed federal criminalization of gender-affirming care for minors.' and the reference states 'U.S. Sen. JD Vance on Tuesday announced that he’s introduced legislation that would make providing “gender-affirming care” to minors a federal Class C felony, punishable with a prison sentence of 10 to 25 years.'

So I've gone ahead and changed it to say 'gender affirming care for minors' instead. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The language itself is very misleading. "gender transition care"? What does transgender surgery have to do with "health care"? Sort of like equating face lift surgery with health care. Wouldn't it be more accurate to simply say that Vance opposes transgender surgery for minors? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

I came here to say the same thing. Yale, Harvard, and Stanford law don't give *any* merit aid. It's all based on parental income/resources. So it's probably true that he got nearly a full ride, but it wasn't a scholarship. It was grant aid. Saying it's a scholarship is misleading and the original article doesn't use that language. 108.31.104.114 (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

References