Talk:Mike Pence classified documents incident

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Espionage Low‑importance

	Mike Pence classified documents incident is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open Access Low‑importance

Mike Pence classified documents incident is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Military history: Intelligence / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

United States: Indiana / Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Indiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that an image or photograph of Mike Pence classified documents incident be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Indiana may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

On 25 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Pence classified documents incident. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article! Hopefully you will write more articles! Have a good day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 January 2023

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 21:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pence classified documents incident → Pence classified documents incident – There is no need to specify which Biden, there is only one such incident. Often scandals and events only utilize last names when involving political figures of such a high profile, such as the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Obama tan suit controversy, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, particularly when there is no other figure with that last name sharing the same stature (which is the case for Pence, who is by far the most notable individual with their surname) SecretName101 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Pence is currently WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to penny, so it seems like we shouldn't be using that on its own in an article title referring to a person. Also, Greg Pence is an active politician, too, which is probably why we use the fullnames in Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, because on their own they could plausibly refer to other family members if you don't know the event. --Quiz shows 20:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is mistaking this article for having to to do with fiscal Currency. And a singular Pence has had a classified documents scandal. Until Greg Pence (who little known to most people compared to Mike Pence) does, disambiguating which Pence is unnecessary. SecretName101 (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is per this reason that there is no need to disambiguate articles such as Bush White House email controversy. There were two Bush White Houses, but only one had an email controversy, warranting no need for disambiguation. SecretName101 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as creator: for context, when I created this, I based the title, on Joe Biden classified documents incident. What Quiz shows pointed out-that Pence redirects to penny and that there are other Pences in politics-is completely on point. Meanwhile, Clinton-Lewinsky scandal refers to a very specific event in which Hillary or Chelsea Clinton were not involved; Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations was necessary because people might think it was one of the other Clintons. Heavy Water (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have also requested a name change to that article.

This article also refers to a specific event, so the comparison to Clinton-Lewinsky scandal is far more apt than your counter-comparison SecretName101 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Too vague in my opinion. The full name "Mike Pence" is more of a recognizable common name for this individual. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Article should be merged to Mike Pence instead. --Wow (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC); modified 11:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wow Your desire to merge the article is a matter apart from what the article should be titled if not merged. SecretName101 (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; far too vague. I didn't know Mike Pence had a "classified documents incident" until seconds ago, and wouldn't have guessed it was about Mike Pence if the title was as proposed. I don't see this as disambiguation, but rather as an issue of both recognizability and precision (WP:CRITERIA). DFlhb (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Draftified "Reactions" section

I am draftifying this until someone can develop it to be a more neutral. Currently it's entirely republican commentary.

Jacobs stated that Pence was unaware of the existence of the classified documents at his residence.^[1]

House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer (R-KY) said that Pence agreed to fully cooperate with congressional oversight. Comer claimed that Pence's transparency has differed from the Biden administration's efforts, which he suggested involved an intentional effort to withhold information from Congress and the public.^[2] Mike Turner (R-OH), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, has stated that he plans to request an intelligence review and damage assessment on records found in Pence's home, as he had asked for the documents found at Biden's home.^[2]

Soon after news broke, former President Donald Trump defended Pence, stating that Pence is innocent and wouldn't do anything "knowingly dishonest in his life." Pence had served as vice president under Trump.^[3] The void century (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Perez, Jamie Gangel,Jeremy Herb,Evan (2023-01-24). "First on CNN: Classified documents found at Pence's Indiana home | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-01-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ ^a ^b "Documents marked classified found at Pence's Indiana home, lawyer says". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2023-01-25.
^ Holmes, Kaitlan Collins,MJ Lee,Zachary Cohen,Phil Mattingly,Kristen (2023-01-25). "Trump and Biden teams both jump on Pence disclosure as a classified documents defense | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-01-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Merge or delete this article

This article is not needed. This can be summarized and merged into Mike Pence. If we keep this, the will be the only side article about Mike Pence we have at all. This is no where near as high profile as Trump or Biden's document incidents. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, merge it into the Pence bio page. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Wow (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now* Notability isn't decided by comparing an article to other articles. It's decided by whether there are reliable sources talking about the topic. There are certainly enough sources talking about Pence's documents. And yes, there aren't any other side articles about Pence, probably because he hasn't done anything else notable enough to garner this much national media attention. The void century (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are half-correct. I will note, that reliable sources talking about a topic does not inherently warrant giving it an article. SecretName101 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WTF, no, take this article to WP:AFD if you want to delete or merge it, don't start a little side convo on the talk page. Red Slash 20:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers As I wrote on your user talk page, it was really incorrect of you to have, without building consensus or making a formal proposal, turned this article into a redirect earlier today.

In the hours before your move to redirect was reverted, you made no subsequent edit to Mike Pence's primary article that even remotely provided sufficient coverage of the content contained you removed by eliminating this page.
Your talk page proposal to merge had already seen two users object to the idea. It was therefore clearly evidenced that this would be a controversial change, and therefore warranted discussion to build a consensus.
The page was being regularly edited by a number of editors, none of whose opinions you sought out before making this change.
You were urged to open an AFD discussion if you wanted to do this. You did not.

Judging from earlier threads on your talk page, there appears to be a pattern of you undertaking bold changes even after objections have been raised to them and no consensus has been built in your favor. Please halt this pattern of behavior.

I will add that I also object to merging or deleting this. SecretName101 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that this is not the only article on Pence-related subjects other than his main article, despite Checkers' assertion. Category:Mike Pence exists to sort articles related to him. His family's late pet rabbit even has an article (Rest In Peace Marlon Bundo). SecretName101 (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101, I’m the one who initially added the documents scandal to Pences main page, and I was hoping that a merge would be a good jumpstart to expand it more because it did, and still does, need to be expanded significantly. As to the AfD thing, AfD is not for merge proposals. So, no I want be starting an AfD. Your talk page proposal to merge had already seen two users object to the idea Um, not quite. The merge was a BOLD edit that hadn’t been discussed or objected too when I redirected the page. Everything that has happened here is accordiance with policy and guideline, see WP:BRD. Putting his little pet aside (if you even want to count that), there are no WP:CFORK articles of this nature about Pence like the numerous ones about Trump or Biden. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This event being minor is exactly the reason why the pertinent section at Mike Pence shouldn't be expanded any further. Having 8 paragraphs on this in his BLP would post major due weight issues. So the alternatives, to me, are either keeping this article, or deleting it without merging (unless we merely merge a few sentences, which would be fine). I agree that AfD is the proper place for that. DFlhb (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[:2-1] Perez, Jamie Gangel,Jeremy Herb,Evan (2023-01-24). "First on CNN: Classified documents found at Pence's Indiana home | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-01-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[:1-2] "Documents marked classified found at Pence's Indiana home, lawyer says". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2023-01-25.

[3] Holmes, Kaitlan Collins,MJ Lee,Zachary Cohen,Phil Mattingly,Kristen (2023-01-25). "Trump and Biden teams both jump on Pence disclosure as a classified documents defense | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-01-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]