Talk:Mike Pence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Criticism and controversy" section

I only just noticed this article has a "Criticism and controversy" section. Why? WP:CSECTION applies; this information, if it belongs in the article, should be spread out into the appropriate sections. Since it's a subsection of LGBT, that means within that section. Can get a rewrite? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The section is a monolith. It should not be spread out. wumbolo ^^^ 18:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It really is a monolith. It seems to me to threaten the article's neutrality. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• I see only one solution to avoid having a CSECTION. The "Criticism and controversy" sub-section should be merged to two sections: (1) "§ Governor of Indiana (2013–2017) § Religion and LGBT rights", and (2) to a new sub-section "§§ LGBT rights" under "§ Vice President of the United States (2017–present)". A new sub-section should be created because it is awkward to have several paragraphs about the same topic in the same section with different topics. wumbolo ^^^ 10:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It's such an eyesore, lol. Action should really be taken to clearing this mess up, either merging it with other content or eradicating it altogether. --MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view. There is no "acclaim" section. I support either removing this section and leaving it, making an "acclaim" section, or removing this section and making a "reception" section, to keep this article as neutral as possible. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Beware of false balance. X1\ (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and is therefore not a rule that we must follow. It merely represents the views of some Wikipedia editors, so we can decide whether or not it is appropriate. Furthermore, WP:CSECTION also says:

A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location.

--Nbauman (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"The Pences have four pets: a cat, a dog, a rabbit, and a snake."

Really?

In an "encyclopedia"?

A good advert for two childrens' book authors, one of them Pence's daughter.

Why not advertise the business that sells the pretty pink ribbon that the pet cat wears on its birthday, too? Could even charge for in-article adverts.

(For anyone that doesn't get irony the preceding is a statement making an important point about the appropriateness of the content referenced). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.120.34 (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Criticism and Controversy segment into LGTBQ views

The section on Pence's controversies is a clunker, and quite frankly overly verbose. Because 99% of Pence's controversies have to do with his views and actions on LGTBQ rights, I propose merging these 2 sections together. Amorals (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus Task Force chair

The infobox listed Pence as the first and only "Chair of the White House Coronavirus Task Force", from January 29, 2020, to the present. However, the White House press release from that day says "the task force is led by Alex Azar", and our page for the task force says that Pence became chair on February 26, 2020. I've changed the infobox to reflect this. Davey2116 (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Public Health

The section regarding Pence’s public health record as Governor of Indiana seems to need an amendment to maintain a neutral point of view. The section suggests that Pence’s removal of funding for Planned Parenthood removed HIV testing from the area most effected by the outbreak. As referenced here the state government under Pence provided free testing in its stead.

The critical POV that Pence’s move to end the statewide ban on needle sharing was delayed is also countered by supporters who argue that the move to implement needle sharing happened as quickly as possible with the necessary legislative process.

At a later point, the section uses the connotatively loaded word “ostensible” to describe Pence’s experience with public health before adding a clause that argues that Pence actively obstructed the HIV response in his state.

In short, the section’s arrangement of data almost seems calculated for a persuasive rather than informative tone. NJIM73 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)NJIM73

NJIM73, I think you're missing the point of NPOV, which is to accurately present information, even if it's negative, and what Pence did in Indiana re: HIV and syringe exchange. He dragged his feet, which led to preventable deaths. That's often how health pandemics work, you have to act to stop them. We saw the damage that Pence did to public health in Indiana much as we're seeing the damage the Trump administration is doing to the country. It's NPOV to say so.

Here's another source that goes deeper into the timeline of Pence's failure to act on the HIV epidemic in Indiana. Nov 2014 - first infection, Jan 2015 - Indiana State Dept of Health starts investigating, Feb 2015 - state finally notifies local authorities, Mar 2015 - Pence declares a state of emergency, May 2015 - Pence finally relents and allows needle exchange on a temporary basis, without state funding, and on the same day criminalized having needles. The damage was done: by 2017, a total of 215 cases of HIV infection had been attributed to the outbreak. When we performed our analysis of the the Indiana outbreak, we found that undiagnosed HIV infections peaked about 2 months before Pence declared a public health emergency—after the rise of HIV had been detected, but before the governor chose to act. Using a mathematical model of epidemic dynamics, we estimated that up to 127 HIV infections could have been averted if Pence had implemented public health measures like HIV testing and needle exchange proactively in 2013, when he had been urged to do so by experts in his state. Was the outbreak avoidable? Public-health experts largely think it was. His supporters can try to spin this any way that they want to, but it's clear that Pence dragged his feet and a preventable outbreak was allowed to happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

And, as editors applying a NPOV, we should keep/include reliably sourced content from supporters as well, showing their perspective, even if we think it's spin. —ADavidB 11:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Early life section

In June 2020 a certain "Mr Tan" removed the information describing Mike Pence's family as "Irish Catholic Democrats" with a note saying his father had "German ancestry" (which, by the way, was distant and a negligible component of his overall background). You really ought to learn the difference between 'ethnicity' and 'ancestry' before making such edits. Pence grew up at a time when being "Irish Catholic" was still thought of as an ethnic group, and one usually synonymous with "Democrat". It was the proper way to describe his upbringing, and the way virtually every RS describes his family background. Mr Tan was perfectly permitted to add more details on Pence's ancestry, but he had no business removing that content.Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Presidential succession

Due to recent events, I'm here to ask, if 45 passes away before the election, how will we edit Pence's article to reflect that he is the 46th POTUS? Do we have to wait for him to take the oath? Do we presume he's the POTUS and edit it as soon as 45 is declared dead? To my knowledge, this hasn't happened in the history of Wikipedia. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We'll deal with presidential succession, if it happens, as it happens. We'll use the sources that come out as they come out. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Date of assuming office appears to be off by 4 years on side column

Assumed office February 26, 2020 President Donald Trump

I don't know how to submit this fyi so am doing it here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnehuff (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The February 26, 2020 date refers to his becoming Chairman of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, not his becoming Vice President. Indyguy (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

LGBT rights section, again

The section on LGBT rights, in its current form, is generally responsible. The first three paragraphs seem appropriate because they deal with what Pence has said and done. The following paragraphs, however, should be deleted. They are just opinions from obscure people not connected to Pence, and if half the section is simply random reactions instead of biography then the section seems to violate WP: Undue. Would the article suffer in any way by the remioval of those paragraphs?NobelSavage (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on this, though the last paragraph in the section on Biden's comments and criticism seems more appropriate given his subsequent presidential campaign. —ADavidB 01:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Just went through the whole article except for tables. I agree that the paragraphs following the third one should go. There is quite a bit of similar coverage interspersed throughout the article, making it redundant.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I kept the first three paragraphs and the last paragraph in the section, but removed the ones in-between.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Expected to -> will

The article currently states that Pence "is expected to leave office on January 20, 2021." Pence WILL leave office on that date since he and Trump lost reelection; if he refuses to leave voluntarily, he will be removed by force. Please update the article to reflect reality. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:6852:6195:FDF4:DD65 (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The current wording is appropriate, unless it can be predicted with 100% total certainty that he will not die or resign before January 20, 2021. If not, then we are left with the existing statement; though ", when his term expires." could be added to it to allay your issue with it. Drdpw (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly problematic that, at present, the wording implies there being a non-infinitesimal probability of Pence remaining in office *after* that date. If it's intended for the statement to allude to the possibility of his early departure, that's fine, but it needs to be changed to actually do so. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:49B1:9C8E:FC66:DEA6 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Further thought: The use of definitive future tense is widespread, including on Wikipedia, since conditioning everything to account for low-likelihood scenarios would quickly result in ambiguity and unreadability. Given that the probability of Pence's early departure is low, there is no value in explicitly mentioning such a scenario; simply changing "expected to" to "will" therefore remains the appropriate action in this case. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:49B1:9C8E:FC66:DEA6 (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Consider alternate wording: "His term as vice-president will expire on January 20, 2021." This makes no implication about hanging on or leaving early.--Scott Davis ^Talk 12:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Accurate and unambiguous. Thank you. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:49B1:9C8E:FC66:DEA6 (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't care for this. His term was ALWAYS going to expire then. The current language is fine; the ambiguity seems to in the possibility that he would leave earlier, not later. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"Having failed in his re-election bid in the 2020 United States presidential election, he is expected to leave office on January 20, 2021." GreatCaesarsGhost 17:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

His *first* term was always going to expire then. If you insist, "Having failed in his re-election bid in the 2020 United States presidential election, he will leave office on or before January 20, 2021" is better. 2A02:6B61:214E:0:D1B8:63CE:A246:69EB (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove "Succeeded by" information based on VP-elect Kamala Harris

Going to raise the same argument here as what was raised on Donald Trumps talk page. The infobox documents when the office bearer was sworn into office, not when they won the office at election time. As such, VP-elect Kamala Harris should not yet be documented as Pence's successor. -- Tytrox (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• We also list the successor when known. Changing this now reeks of humoring Trump's "dispute" of the results. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Who lists the successor in Infoboxes before succession (and why)? This isn't a new argument; I've seen it in other articles over the years. I'm generally in favor of waiting, more so the higher the office. —ADavidB 22:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I have never looked at an article where it was possible and NOT seen it. Obama's showed it. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Check out Trump's talk page now. A lot has transpired in the last few hours. -- Tytrox (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Remove it. According to {{Infobox officeholder}} guidance: The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place. That's the Wikipedia guideline, and the information has been removed from the succession box at the Trump article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. -- Tytrox (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit restriction has been temporarily upgraded to Full at my request, but someone managed to sneak in re-adding Kamala as successor. Oh well, at least it stops the edit warring that started even before I accidentally triggered one. -- Tytrox (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

*INCLUDE - Why now start doing things differently. We've always added the newly elected individual to the 'successor' section of the infobox of his/her predecessor. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW: Would recommend that this discussion be combined with the Trump article discussion, so that we don't get inconsistency in the respective infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that User:GoodDay has been partial-blocked from the Donald Trump article for edit-warring this exact material into the infobox. There is not yet consensus at the DT article about whether to put Biden in the succession box or not, but the status quo has been judged as leave it out, and it will need consensus to add it. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The folks over at the Trump article who are pushing for exclusion, should've brought up this topic months ago. Doing so right now, between the 2020 election & 2021 inauguration, is messy. GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I've already tried bringing up the argument of making the articles consistent. Despite the template being clear, it's apparently still up for debate. The edit war started before I got involved, and because Trump's article is now under Full protection, I made the call to lock down Pence's article for partially the same reasons. We'll have to wait and see what consensus there says. -- Tytrox (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Remove per precedent: Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_81#Should_Trump_be_listed_in_the_Infobox_as_Obama's_successor?, as well as the infobox's documentation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Remove (expected) successor and term end date per the infobox guidance and standard Wikipedia practice. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Include based on decades-old Wikipedia precedent (to include the elect in the successor field) and reliable sources. "Succeeded by" in this context means "to be" or "scheduled to be" succeeded by. The Wikipedia precedent to include the successor-elect with the qualification "elect" is massive and that takes precedence over an obscure comment in the template that has been widely ignored throughout its existence, and that isn't policy or anything like that, merely one user's edit to that template (and that should be corrected based on precedent, i.e. how the template is actually used). --Tataral (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Note I've removed Harris from the infobox, pending the consensus reached concerning Biden, at Trump's infobox. Best we go with consistency on this matter, for the top offices in the US government. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Succeeded By

For Vice President, Pence is succeeded by Kamala Harris and it should say so on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:4381:E60:A410:490:3018:C225 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

He is not succeeded until succession occurs, which is planned in another two weeks. —ADavidB 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Rioters wanted to hang him

The article currently says Trump criticized Pence as lacking "courage", while pro-Trump lawyer L. Lin Wood called for Pence's "execution by firing squad" for "treason"., but given that Trump and people in his "camp" have always used pretty appalling rhetoric on social media, readers who are aware of this broader context but unaware of the specific events of Wednesday are unlikely to get an accurate picture from the current wording of our article: sources both reliable and unreliable are reporting that the rioters were chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" and they built a gallows.[1][2][3][4][5] Given how unprecedented and unstable this whole affair is, I'm reluctant to add the information myself without prior consensus, but what do other people think? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the Succeeded by discussion.

If we put Kamala Harris as elect and on her page has "Kamala Harris (elect) as successor for Pence, why not here? I get there are Trump supporters who don't want to see it but even Pence declared it. There's a reason we put (elect) for people who were elected—they arent it yet, but are elected to take over. Every other congress member who lost has their successor elect listed. Why not Pence? We keep it up not to be controversial, but because its true. 1Luca2 (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. How the Kamala article's editors choose to present things is a matter for them; this article's editors have decided otherwise (you can see the discussions above and in the archives). Also please remember to assume good faith; the decision not to change this article isn't because out of love for Trump. — Czello 22:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but I still dont find it clear why only Pence's page doesn't have who is succeeding him. Everyone else does. Regardless, im not here to question the integrity of Wikipedia and its editors, so I renounce my argument. 1Luca2 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete Word

[...] telling reporters that increases in new cases were a "a reflection of a great success in expanding testing across the country" The "a" before the quote is superfluous and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:A2B3:AC00:7829:2EE0:E0A4:4930 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The duplicate 'a' is removed. —ADavidB 16:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Should Pence's chairmanships of the Republican Study Committee and the House Republican Conference be included in the infobox? Some offices might be deemed not notable enough to be included in the main body of the infobox, so they are instead located at the footnotes section. The senate chairmanships of Joe Biden are a good example. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Chairman of the White House Coronavirus Task Force

Should Mike Pence's chairmanship of the White House Coronavirus Task Force be included in the infobox? I can't see any indication (for example in [6], [7] or [8]) that this was a task beyond those that Vice Presidents have been granted in the past, like Kamala Harris and controlling immigration at the US-Mexico border, Joe Biden and curing cancer and Biden and Iraq and none of these are included in the relevant infoboxes. It is already noted on Wikipedia that Presidents often delegate authority on significant issues to their Vice Presidents and the examples of Biden and Iraq and Pence and COVID-19 (albeit in an unreferenced fashion) are both used, on seemingly equal footing. I am by no means advocating the removal of the chairmanship from the body of the article, I'm just wondering whether the infobox is well suited for this information or whether it is inconsistent, cluttered and perhaps an example of recentism. What are people's thoughts on this? It would be really useful if somebody could link to any relevant Wikipedia policies on this, as I can't seem to find anything! Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I think it should be removed from the infobox. It's just one of many assignments he was given as part of his role as vice president. And the task force itself was in existence for less than a year; it's not as if it was a cabinet department or some such. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! As it's been over a week and I haven't received any more replies, I'm going to go ahead and remove Chairman of the White House Coronavirus Task Force from the infobox. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm also going to make edits to Vice President of the United States based on my above comment. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021

Please add the following political party succession boxes to the bottom of the article for consistency with articles for other Governors and Vice Presidents/vice presidential nominees, as seen at the bottom of articles for individuals such as Edmund Muskie, Earl Warren, Spiro Agnew, Thomas R. Marshall, and Adlai Stevenson I, among others.

67.173.23.66 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Does not seem there is a consensus for the inclusion of this table. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, these were previously on the page, but removed earlier this year. He seems to be the only VP who doesn't have such boxes. 2601:241:300:B610:A51B:EB34:9553:573A (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines includes amongst its standard rules, Template:S-ppo, which includes "Party leaders/chairmen, Whips, Party candidates for the Presidency of the United States, France, etc., Chairpersons of the Democratic and Republican National Committees (United States)". I respectfully reactivate the request citing the page.67.173.23.66 (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Remember to use an edit request in the future; it makes it easier for editors to see your request.Grayson Indica (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2021

Regarding the previous request, please move those boxes to the bottom, so that they're combined with the other boxes like this:

67.173.23.66 (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This is done. Y Thanks for pointing out the need. —ADavidB 23:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"Polls of Republicans regarding their preferred presidential candidate in 2024 show Pence attracting minimal support."

So, in the 4th paragraph of the post-vice presidency section, it's stated as follows: 'Polls of Republicans regarding their preferred presidential candidate in 2024 show Pence attracting minimal support. According to political journalist David Siders, the prevailing view at the GOP grassroots and among the Republican leaders is that, "Pence is dead in the early waters of 2024.' The only problem is that these statements don't correlate with the actual polling numbers that've been published, viewable on 2024 United States presidential election, as they show that Vice President Pence consistently polls in 2nd or 3rd place in polls featuring former President Trump, with the exception of a singular poll that saw Pence place 4th behind Trump, Ron DeSantis, & Nikki Haley, & in 1st or 2nd place in polls that don't feature former President Trump, with the exception of a singular poll featuring Donald Trump Jr. that saw Pence place 3rd behind DeSantis. This isn't exactly "minimal support," especially when he's clearly consistently polling well above what usually qualifies as "minimal support" - 1% or less. Shouldn't these sentences & the sourcing thereof be changed to more accurately reflect the political reality at hand? Brucejoel99 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

As additional reliable sources support greater than minimal support, then the article should be updated. Two possibile sources include [9] and [10]. A big factor seems to be whether Trump is also in the running, per this source, though it's dated in March. —ADavidB 15:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Updated! Brucejoel99 (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. You brought the information together very well, IMO. —ADavidB 04:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Another portrait?

So, this portrait of VP Pence was also in the Department of State official website. I'm just pointing out that there's another photo of him as Vice President. To me, this one looks more decent with the national and vice president flag behind him. But the current portrait is good enough in my opinion, so to me I don't mind if the current photo is still in use. I'm actually here to ask if this image could be featured in any part of VP Pence's article.

another portrait

DelawareMatt (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I added the image to the Political positions / Immigration subsection. —ADavidB 05:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

I request that the final paragraph of Mike Pence’s page be edited so that it ends as:

“Pence and Trump lost their bid for re-election in the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.”

The following information in the paragraph after this sentence is not relevant to Mike Pence personally, especially the election fraud claim on behalf of Trump. The statement that it is a false claim without evidence is not certifiably true. Joe Biden as well has recently made the claim that the USA elections are fraudulent or fixed.

I feel that the page itself was very well written, unbiased and factual up until that point. 207.148.176.26 (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the text is ok as it stands. Trump as president claimed that he and Pence were reelected--and Pence officially rejected that claim and certified Biden-Harris. Trump --still president--then denounced Pence. That's a big deal. Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should keep it as is. But, I don’t like the phrasing of “although they refused to concede.” It makes it seem like there is some merit to not conceding when RS says otherwise. Can we change it to two different sentences? So that the second one starts, “Despite losing the election,…” and then keep the rest the same. Tyrone (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing some of the Covid-19 section

I intend on removing some of the Covid-19 section for the following reasons:

• The paragraph starting with "After it was announced a staff member..." This all seems too detailed and not closely related to him personally.
• "In late June 2020...states were opening up" This is because there is a link to an article with graphs under (Statistics here). The current makeup of the graphs seems to undercut the New York Times and Politico sources which criticize Pence. Not that the sources tried to get it wrong, but that they had limited information available at the time. Until there is a good explanation for the discrepancies, it isn't worth having this part of the paragraph in the article.
• The remaining part "In private meetings with..." is okay except for the part about the 3% vs. 5%. The problem with the 3% vs. 5% part is that there are different ways to count cases. The source does not make a claim so strongly as the wikipedia article does. Unless the reason for the difference can be explained, it isn't worth keeping.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I will make the changes above on the basis of WP:SILENT.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can second-guess the sources using a graph the way you did with your second point; that's WP:OR. I'm restoring that bit. --Aquillion (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of....

the January 6 refusal of Pence to follow his Secret Service instructions to get in the car? Of all the drama of that happened, his comment of “I’m not getting in the car, Tim", is the most chilling communication. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Well done Valjean but a little more whittling is required. The WashPo source gives very little credence to Pence's safety as the reason for the "get in the car' request. I suggest we remove "for his safety" which will negate any conjecture. ―Buster7 ☎ 19:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done --―Buster7 ☎ 14:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023

Mike Pence stole classified documents. 184.105.1.53 (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

While yes, some classified documents were found in his posession, I don't think "stole" is a neutral term to describe them. That said, the classified documents incident is addressed in the article, so it's not clear what changes you want made. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mike Pence classified documents incident which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

In "Pence and the Trump impeachment inquiry": add a wiki link to corruption in Ukraine. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting any new content, only a wiki link in the last sentence of the first paragraph of that section. I don't need consensus for that. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Not sure why FlightTime didn't carry out this minor change... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"Jesus ain't say that" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jesus ain't say that has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 7 § Jesus ain't say that until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose merging Mike Pence 2024 presidential campaign into Mike Pence and leaving behind a redirect. I think that the content in the campaign can easily be explained within the biographical article for the foreseeable future, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the candidate’s main article. It is not clear whether the campaign will obtain enough note down the road to warrant its own article, but it is not useful to have a stub article at this moment. I am not opposed to a future spinning-off/re-creation of the campaign article if there later becomes sufficiently more to write about the campaign, but for now I believe the stub-article on the campaign serves no use and there is not enough to expand the article beyond what is now contained in it. I am in the process of making similar requests for some other 2024 campaign articles. SecretName101 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Pence being the former running mate of the candidate who currently leads in polling for the 2024 GOP primary entails that there will be more significant coverage to be included in this article, which would justify this page being separate from the Mike Pence page. BlueShirtz (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Being a former VP or running mate does not mean your campaign is notable.

  A footnote run by a former VP or running mate would not, and Pence has yet to show he will rise above a footnote.

  for the same rationale, we never created (or at least don’t currently have) an article on former VP Dan Quayle's 2000 Republican run or 1972 Democratic VP nominee Sargent Shriver's 1976 campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There is an article on the former, Dan Quayle 2000 presidential campaign. But I do see your point, but right now it's too early to see if he does or does not rise in the polls, but I'd say we should hold off on any merge talk until at least 2024 when the primaries begin. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I say the opposite. We should hold off on creation until l his campaign activities can provide enough encyclopedic material to justify an article before having one for his campaign, rather than waiting until the primaries.

Didn’t remember there being a Quayle article though.

I think it is just two early at this stage for him and a lot of others to need separate campaign articles. Maybe in two months time it’ll be different. I’m just against creating campaign articles before there is a need and simply waiting to see if one will arise. SecretName101 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, another deletion request? Pence, the former American vice-president, has and continues to receive sustained media coverage and reputably sourced support. Candidate pages for credible major party candidates are the rule rather than the exception for Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  His being a Vice President is an argument for him warranting his own article. Not every venture of his necessitating a solo article. This very well has good chances of ultimately needing one, but at the moment it is too early for one to be needed SecretName101 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and keep as a separate article. The campaign, as an entity, is already separately and inherently notable. There should be more coverage of these topics on Wikipedia, not less. BD2412 T 17:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support, this would follow similar precedents set by Michael Bennet 2020 presidential campaign, John Hickenlooper 2020 presidential campaign, and Tim Ryan 2020 presidential campaign with the option of de-merging the article should it become necessary later down the road. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think it's a little too early (he's only been running for a week now) to tell if Pence won't generate significant coverage as a presidential candidate. I'd prefer to keep the article around until voting starts. Informant16 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, as I would wait until the primaries start or if Pence chooses to suspend his campaign to merge the two articles. If Pence does poorly in the primaries or suspends his campaign, then the article about his 2024 campaign would be short enough to merge with his biographical article in my opinion.

  Pence is a former VP (significant public office) and has received significant media coverage in his 2024 campaign, so his campaign merits its own article for now. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe it's too early to consider a merge and it's only fair to consider merging once the primary season starts or when the campaign has been suspended. --2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Wait until the primaries begin or when he drops out. The article looks good enough to merit its own article in the meantime. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with the nom; size and WP:UNDUE concerns do support having a spin-off article for the presidential campaign. If he ends up dropping out early, we can reconsider then. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not really. We don't create articles on campaigns just because they exist. We create articles on campaigns because there is a need for a dedicated article in order to cover the subject (not the case at the moment). Campaigns are not automatically entitled to articles. SecretName101 (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the campaign is notable, there are large numbers of reliable sources that talk about it and his candidacy is routinely included in virtually every poll taken regarding the primary since he announced his candidacy.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Being covered reliably is reason to include coverage on wikipedia. It, however, is not always enough to necessitate a separate article. SecretName101 (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support.Oppose. Really? The events of January 6 and the fallout from it and the ongoing effects on the Republican Party makes this campaign highly significant, regardless of how well Pence ends up doing. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Wasted Time R The January 6 attack has many articles outlining it. How does an event already covered in great depth elsewhere relate to this particular subject needing to be seperate from the main subject's biography? SecretName101 (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. He announced his candidacy less than three weeks ago. If the article doesn’t grow dramatically by the end of summer, I will be extremely surprised, so give it a little time. I’m sure WTR could find a lot of interesting stuff to add right now if he wanted to waste some time at it. I suggest we add a section on “campaign highlights” (as per Tim Scott 2024 presidential campaign) and get to work on it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately, I'm retired from these kinds of articles. And a counterargument to what I wrote is that few people read campaign articles – consider this comparison for Nikki Haley, for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant we are now a month later (and past the midpoint of the summer). The article has literally grown less than 400 bytes in the time since you said this. Does that persuade you that this article is not poised to grow at the moment, and that it can be merged without prejudice of later re-creation? SecretName101 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@SecretName101: What could have been added to the article is that Pence revealed some awful fundraising numbers last week, see this NYT story or this ABC News piece as examples of coverage, and is in danger of not meeting the number-of-donors criteria for the first Republican debate next month. What also could have been added is Pence's appearance at the The Family Leadership Summit in Iowa, an appearance that didn't go as well as he could have hoped, see this ABC News account or this Financial Times story for instance. Nor does he seem to be getting anywhere in New Hampshire, as this AP filing from yesterday relates. And the headline of this WaPo story from yesterday – "Mike Pence moves from vice president to struggling 2024 longshot bid" – sums up the situation. Pence continues to be on the wrong side of January 6 compared to much of the GOP base, not to mention being on the wrong side of Tucker Carlson, and also looks to be on the wrong side of Ukraine. In many ways, the failure of Pence's campaign to gain much traction is Exhibit A of how much the base of the Republican Party has changed from 2015 to now. So this campaign article could cover all of this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R Some of that is WP:NEWS (such as the leadership summit). The rest can be summarized in two or so sentences that essentially say that, in large part due to Republican sentiment towards Pence regarding January 6 and being out of step with the party on some other matters, Pence's campaign is floundering, being met with varying degrees of indifference and outright hostility from most Republican voters. SecretName101 (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, on the grounds that WP would be better off with concise, well-written top-level articles rather than sprawling subarticles that nobody works on after initial creation, I've switched my !vote to support. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. A merger would prevent details and nuances of the 2024 campaign to be known and seen by the public. To suggest the deletion of this page seems antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. Many examples of candidates with far less name recognition, polling, and note-worthiness have pages. If I had my way, there would be very little limitations of the creation of pages. I cannot stand the Wiki-Gatekeepers that use their extensive Wiki knowledge to enforce their political ideology. Any good faith person would want Wikipedia to contain as much information as possible. I cannot fathom entertaining this idea in the slightest. Pointless squabbles with hopes to limit speech is gross. I am nowhere near a fan of Mike Pence or his candidacy but to suggest that a former Vice President's presidential campaign against his former running mate and President is foolish. I feel as if this is a political attempt to undermine Pence and his campaign, which I am not a supporter of. This discussion is utterly ridiculous. KEEP THE PAGE! MrJRSmith (talk) 6:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrJRSmith: If you looked at the actual article we are discussing, you'd see that your concerns are misplaced. There is not content that would be lost. There is hardly any content in this article at all, in fact, hence why it is un-necessitated right now. I have no prejudice against later creating a spun-off article, but none is required right now. Please get off your soapbox and stop assigning motives to this nomination that are not present. Thank you.

• Oppose - AFAIK, Pence is the first former US vice president to run for his party's presidential nomination, against the former US president he served under. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  A fun fact that does not evidence a current need for an article separate from Pence’s SecretName101 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think it is too early to merge at this moment. It is early into his campaign and as of right now it is notable and should be left alone. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think you're premature with this proposal. You're assuming the campaign article will not expand because Pence has no chance to become President, but what if he makes up with Trump? In that case, the merge would be into a second Trump/Pence campaign article. This comment won't make much difference, since the vote was almost unanimously oppose, but I want to add that when editing politics it's never "If A, then B". There are always nonlinear outcomes possible. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sleyece If the campaign requires more room for coverage, an article can always be created later. Articles should not be created on speculation of future need. If something needs to be spun-off, it can be spun-off. But if there is no need, there's no need.

  There is no prejudice against re-creation if a spun-off article becomes required later.

  However, we should only spin-off an article on this campaign if it is justified to have a separate article. SecretName101 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel this proposal is a bit premature. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:43, 19 July 2023 (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.

Chair of the House Republican Confrence

I know that from 2009-2011 he was the Chair of the HRC, and I wanted to add it but I can’t, in case this is seen by Wikimedia the ingormation is his Vice Chair was Cathy McMorris Rodgers he was preceded by Adam Putnam, and he was succeded by Jeb Hensarling 2600:6C4E:F7F:4AA:3D9E:C6A8:FEFF:BD6E (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)