Talk:Mike Pence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Illinois Family Institute

• Why is there no mention on this page of Governor Pence's board membership in the anti-gay organization Illinois Family Institute (IFI), which says it dedicates itself to issues surrounding “marriage, family, life and liberty,” is heavily focused on attacking gay people and homosexuality in general. It maintains “working partnerships” with other hard-line groups including the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal center based in Phoenix. In early 2010, it launched Illinois Family Action as a political-action sister organization. [1]. Glendale1 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have an RS saying he's on the board? Get an exact quote. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015

I am a registered user, but for some reason cannot edit this page. There is a line in the early life section that is not correct. "Pence is a declared Christian and attends Community Church of Greenwood in Greenwood, Indiana, an evangelical Christian Church." Pence did attend Community Church of Greenwood YEARS ago but has not in a long time. I attend and am close with many staff members there who verified this. It hasn't been a problem to be incorrect until the church started receiving backlash due to the recent controversy! If no one knows where he currently attends, the text should be changed to "Pence is a declared Evangelical Christian" Baynai (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Baynai This page requires you to have made ten edits and have been registered for 4 days to edit (to prevent new accounts damaging the article) [2]link to church website advising he does not worship there with reference to above edit request. Amortias (T)(C) 20:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

2012 election results "Change"

What do the numbers recorded as "change" in the Governor's 2012 election represent? Also, the voting results don't match what the cited web page lists as election results. The cited source also does not give percentages. SesquiZed (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Mike Pence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061114010833/http://mikepence.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=52427 to http://mikepence.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=52427
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061227195601/http://mikepence.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=52427 to http://mikepence.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=52427
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150129081041/http://www.indystar.com/article/20081119/NEWS05/811190387 to http://www.indystar.com/article/20081119/NEWS05/811190387
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060601024327/http://mikepence.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=2146 to http://mikepence.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=2146

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2016

Under LGBT rights, "discreet" should have a [sic] next to it, because in this context the word should be "discrete." 75.112.240.121 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. In that context, "discrete" makes sense because it means "individuated" while "discreet" means "secretive." He couldn't have meant secretive since if someone's being secretive about their sexuality, they usually won't qualify for protection from discrimination. RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Political positions section

I think it's strange to have information about Pence's political positions in two sections in this article. Currently they are split between his time as a congressman and as a governor. I would like to propose moving them all to a separate section. As time goes on and the list grows (particularly if the reports about Trump's VP selection are true) then it might grow large enough to be split into its own article.

Any thoughts? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd support leaving this as is; in fact, once there is a Vice Presidential candidate section, I think it would be appropriate to add information there about any of Pence's political positions that become issues during the campaign. (Otherwise, what a VP President says he/she is in favor of isn't, quite frankly, newsworthy; he/she is generally expected to support whatever the Presidential candidate on the ticket is in favor of.

More generally: what is described in the Congressional and governor sections is what Pence did related to specific issues that arose during the specific years - a bill that Pence co-sponsored, or what he did as governor. These are essentially history; they're relevant in trying to understand what Pence did in those two very different positions. By contrast, Political positions of Donald Trump is about current positions, based on what Donald Trump is saying, and covering a wide range of (generally) current topics. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

To add

Pence's war on Planned Parenthood, Politico – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Tea Party?

Given this removal, I took a quick glance through some sources to see how "Tea Party affiliated" he actually is. He's spoken at Tea Party rallies, and there's this quote from an aide: "Mike was one of the earliest advocates for the Tea Party and his votes reflected frustration in 2010." There may be more, but I don't have that much time to be Googling these things. The next few days/weeks might clear this up anyway with further coverage. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it, with far better sources, specifically:

1. Amber Phillips, 10 things you should know about Mike Pence, Donald Trump’s likely running mate, Washington Post (July 14, 2016) ("He was an early advocate for the tea party movement. One of Pence's former advisers told NBC that even before the 2010 summer of discontent between conservatives and the establishment, Pence was tuned into the populist strain of the party.")
2. Michael Muskal, Mike Pence to run for Indiana governor, Los Angeles Times (May 5, 2011): "Pence, a darling of his the conservative wing of his party of the "tea party" movement, will try to succeed Gov. Mitch Daniels..."

Pence was also a member of the official House House Tea Party Caucus (see here). Neutrality^talk 21:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes indeed he was. I forgot about that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If National Review is an acceptable source, there's this (by "The Editors"): "He is, in a word, a tea partier who predated the Tea Party." Fishlandia (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Videos here if anyone wants to migrate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBDXHdPY7lw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF0p3G3IkL8

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorokin

I'm not sure about the sentence He has referred to Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin's findings that throughout history, societal collapse was brought about by the deterioration of marriage and family. It's a primary source being used to summarize Sorokin's work in Wikivoice, which is something a secondary source should do instead. The fact that Pence has suggested gay marriage could contribute to societal collapse is informative, but I can't find a secondary source to clarify the applicability or current level of acceptance of these early 20th-century "findings" (except by WP:SYNTH). I think it should be removed per WP:PRIMARY unless better sourcing is found. FourViolas (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Changed; a TIME story today gave context for Pence's quote, and left out Sorokin. Adjusted article to match. FourViolas (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

References

"Tobacco doesn't kill"

Mike Pence, Cigarette Truther Well-sourced information. Fishlandia (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2015

Potentially libellous content removed. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC))

174.24.11.65 (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that the above statement about the governor, be deleted even from the talk page as derogatory and false about a living person. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC))

What Is the Religion of Mike Pence?

The article as it stands seems to indicate that there is a mutually exclusive dichotomy between Roman Catholic and born again Christian, whereas I believe that a number of Roman Catholics call themselves born again. I am genuinely curious as to where he goes to church, if in regular attendance. It reminds me of Marco Rubio, who I think is a hybrid evangelical & Roman Catholic, having frequented both types of local church. I came across this internet claim: 'He now describes himself as, “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican,” in that order, and he’s also called himself, “a born-again, evangelical Catholic,” a phrase met with consternation by some on social media.' < http://americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/mike-pences-relationship-catholic-church-iscomplicated -- IMHO it would be best to quote Pence on what he says his religion is, only that might be the dreaded forbidden Primary Source! I am thinking that if members of Pence's alleged church come on the talk page here & deny that he is a member, that could indicate that the secondary source relied on is unreliable, & it might be better to delete the assertion about a local church affiliation for that reason, especially if the cited secondary source does not site primary sources for itself. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC))

• • I've expanded to make the chronology and self-descriptions a bit more clear, see here. (Your Rubio comparison was actually made by the Washington Post, see here). Neutrality^talk 02:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much for improving the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC))

TOBACCO AFFILIATION AND BACKGROUND

In 2004, the Kiel Bros Oil company, also known as KB Oil and Tobacco Road convenience stores, filed for bankruptcy. Kiel Bros was a Sub-S family business, according to financial disclosure statements filed by Congressman Mike Pence.

REF 2: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/07/14/3798417/mike-pence-tobacco-money/

Waiting for consensus to add to page. unsigned comment left by User:Qwkredfox.

References

I think we're going to wait on this until we get some more firm reporting. Also, you don't have to use all caps in talk-page headers; it's viewed by some editors as shouting. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Neutrality^talk 21:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

To do: Tax section under gubernatorial term

FYI -- the "tax" section under the "Governor of Indiana" section needs some work (expansion and reworking—the current version has a two whole paragraphs on the 2013 local tax issue - this can be condensed, and other broader text added). Some sources to get started:

• Richard C. Auxier, Trump's choice for VP, Mike Pence, is an experienced tax cutter, TaxVox, Tax Policy Center (Urban Institute/Brookings Institution) (July 15, 2016) (republished at the Urban Institute).
• Tami Luhby, Mike Pence and Trump share this view on taxes: Cut, cut, cut, CNN Money (July 15, 2016).
• Richard Phillips, VP Nominee Mike Pence is a Long Time Advocate of Supply-Side Tax Cuts, Tax Justice Blog (Citizens for Tax Justice/Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy) (July 15, 2016)
• Chris Edwards, Mike Pence a Solid Fiscal Conservative, Cato at Liberty (Cato Institute) (July 14, 2016).

The first two are straightforward, generally neutral accounts; Phillips takes a critical approach and Edwards takes a supportive approach. These can all be integrated in the article by somehow. If someone wants to take a crack at it, they're welcome to it... Neutrality^talk 22:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ontheissues

I removed some content that was source to "Ontheissues.org". Since this is a WP:BLP, we should use better sourcing for content.CFredkin (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Every OntheIssues link that I posted contained sources (as far as I remember), many of them linking to votes on legislation. I don't recall reliability problems with OntheIssues. For congressmen, OntheIssues is a key source in terms of reliability and comprehensiveness for their positions on issues. The Washington Post, the New York Times and other major news outlets are simply not going to have coverage on each congressman's voting (which makes your [, and your only?] standards of WaPo-type sources unnecessarily burdensome). All the positions that I mentioned were highly salient. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ontheissues is just an aggregator of content on politicians. It's not clear what (if any) editorial control is maintained on the site. Consequently it's not possible for us to know how reliable or notable the content is. Also, as a biography, the article isn't intended to reflect how Pence voted on very issue. If it hasn't been mentioned in a reliable, secondary source, then I think it's questionable how important it is.CFredkin (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not list his vote on every issue. I chose key issues that would merit inclusion on the page of every congressman and political candidate. I'm sure reliable, secondary sources covered these votes at the time, but I'm frankly not willing or probably capable of looking up 10-15 year old stories on the Indy Star. If these votes were on major issues and major legislation covered by secondary sources, surely those warrant inclusion even though the Washington Post didn't run a "random congressman X voted for/against legislation Y" story ten years ago? I have not encountered any reliability problems with Ontheissues. If you believe the website is unreliable, you could start by following the sources that it provides and if they don't pan out, you might have a case. I also completely disagree with your standard (has anyone else endorsed it?) that only things explicitly covered by a notable secondary source should be allowed onto wiki pages. It means that interviews, official statements, and other highly pertinent information might be excluded because you don't trust editors to simply use common sense in determining whether content is salient enough. If Trump or Clinton's positions on renewable energy, offshore drilling warrant inclusion, stem cell research and so on warrant inclusion, then surely the new VP's does so as well even though WaPo has yet to do a story on it specifically? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

# of citations to Ontheissues at Hillary Clinton = 0; # of citations to OntheIssues at Barack Obama = 0. Pence is now a national political figure and we should apply the same standard for quality of sources as at similar articles. I disagree with the notion that every issue you personally believe is important qualifies for inclusion in the article. I also believe that mention in a reliable, secondary source is a reasonable bar for indicating the significance of content (especially at BLP's).CFredkin (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely cite long, in-depth news articles when we can. In the case of politicians like Clinton, Trump or Obama whose histories have been analyzed in depth by every possible media outlet, we can cite those WaPo or NYT pieces (less so for Trump who has only been a serious political candidate for the last 18 months). For a congressman who has only been a VP candidate for two days, we can't. That's why a source like Ontheissues, which does look at congresspeople, is key for a comprehensive look at a candidate's voting history and stances. My position has never been "every issue you personally believe is important qualifies for inclusion in the article", it's simply that the same common sense and editor dialogue that determines the inclusion of any material should be used on politicians' pages (just as every news story about a candidate does not warrant inclusion, the same applies to every official statement released by a candidate or interview). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

# of citations to Ontheissues at Donald Trump = 1. I reverted 5 references to Ontheissues here. Pence was a leading figure in the House and has been governor of a state. If there isn't a reliable secondary source available to reflect his stance on an issue, then you have to wonder why.CFredkin (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you're way overestimating the media's interest in the spectrum of Pence's political views and legislative accomplishments over the last 15 years (barring the last week). Have you ever tried to find a congressperson's (even notable ones) specific positions on all kinds of important issues? It's a pain in the ass without OntheIssues. On a side-note, I used OntheIssues a lot for material to be included on HRC and Trump's pages, and dug up in-depth news articles on that basis, so the site was 100% reliable for me and those wiki pages are definitely partly colored by OntheIssues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any edits for you on Trump's page and only one on Hillary's, and that didn't relate to Onetheissues.CFredkin (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about the "pol posititions of X" pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ontheissues is an excellent neutral source. I believe it is quite reliable and you should not remove the content completely unless you believe it is incorrect or not neutral. These actions seem to be plenty relevant for explaining his positions. Reywas92^Talk 18:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

---

I've managed to find sources (the great majority of which are secondary sources) to replace what was formerly cited to OntheIssues aggregator; see omnibus edit here. In general, I agree that (1) OntheIssues is a useful place to look but sources, but (2) should not be cited itself, as we should cite directly to a source, whether secondary (preferably) or primary (in some cases).

I do want to note that policy does not support the idea that we should absolutely eschew all primary sources. WP:PRIMARY says that we may use primary sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" so long as we do not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize" such sources.So some reliance on primary sources of unquestioned authenticity (roll-call votes, C-SPAN clips, official biographies, transcripts of speeches such as "State of the State" addresses, etc.) is OK. Neutrality^talk 21:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that primary sources can be reliable. However politicians cast many votes and make many public statements. The fact that I can find a roll call vote to name a post office or a statement on C-Span opining on the state bird doesn't make it notable. And different editors have different opinions about what's important. So when it comes to determining whether content is significant enough to warrant inclusion, I believe that the ability to find it in a reliable secondary source is a reasonable bar (particularly for BLPs). It helps prevent BLP's from being treated like WP:coatracks.CFredkin (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Typo?

"Pence opposed voting against the act that created Medicare Part D . . ." Meaning he was in favor of it? Or was this supposed to say he voted against it? Eperotao (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this was a typo and is now fixed. Neutrality^talk 15:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Labor issues

Should the wikilink Right to work in Labor issues point Right-to-work law instead? 80.221.249.104 (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That's correct - I made the change. Thank you for pointing this out. Neutrality^talk 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Karen Pence

Now has an article, Karen Pence. Just fyi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Se seems to go by Pence, so I'm putting that name back into infobox, where someone has recently replace it with maiden name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Portrait image

I've restored this version] of the portrait image for the article. The previous version had Pence looking to the side in a way that isn't flattering.CFredkin (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The current portrait looks less flattering, as if he is angry and squinting at the same time. The previous photo had a neutral expression, and was not at all unflattering. Calibrador (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've replaced the Gage Skidmore portrait-like photo with the same photo, just a little more cropped and the coloring/lighting corrected. The original version was way too light and his skin freakishly pink, not at all like his real skin tone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Stemoc, why did you replace the photo that has Pence's skin tone unnaturally washed out and looking not like his true skin tone? (diff here [3]) As you can see above, I made note of inserting the improved image - same photo, cropped slightly closer, and the lighting improved so that he looks like himself rather than someone who is anemic. Please comment here on the image so we can discuss. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the Congressional portrait in the article would make a better infobox image than either of those. Jonathunder (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Typically, I'm all for the official government photos. I'm going to disagree in this case only because the current image is only a year old and the congressional portrait is more than three years old. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The image you added makes him look very "red" (almost tanned) and the background looks odd especially around his right ear and a green blotch on top of his head..I fixed my original crop..I think your PC does not balance color well so it seems normal to you but would look odd to others on different graphic cards (and androids)....Mike is Pale (and serious botox too), he is definitely not 'red', compare your version with the fixed version of mine and see the difference, I have been fixing images for years on commons, i know a thing or two about balancing colors and making sure people are actually shown in the right color instead......--Stemoc 02:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at the photo I edited and uploaded on three different devices and can now see what you noted about the green blotches. Not sure how those happened, but I have corrected that. I will work on the redness you see, however, the photo that was there is not a good one to keep, neither is the one you added as his skin is anemic in the image, but not in real life. I just looked at several photos of him online as well as a live shot of him at the convention just a few minutes ago, and he's nowhere near as pale as the other photo or the one you cropped. How about we have comparisons here and then see what they look like side-by-side? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

sure, why not, remember wikipedia/commons does not cache well so some people my see previous version of the image instead of the current one...has happened many times before..once it was broken for a month last year...--Stemoc 03:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Images to compare for infobox:

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

Infobox images to choose from

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

#4 portrays the subject in the best light. The first three make it look like he is squinting. Jonathunder (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support #5 #4 is good, but I don't like that it's so closely cropped, to be honest. If we are going to go with an official government photo, #5 is the better of those two. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• #5 looks best - it is the most recent official government photo. I'd also be OK on #4, which is also an official government photo. I'm not a fan of #1-3 - he looks like an albino in #3. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• I'd prefer any of 1-5, rather than the version currently in the article (from an angle).CFredkin (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  The 'from an angle' is just Gage Skidmore (Calibrador) pushing for his image with his byline (his name in title of images) to be used on all politicians page so he can use wikipedia to "self promote" his interests..the faster its replaced, the better..--Stemoc 22:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that Calibrador is actually Gage Skidmore. Forgot about that. Yes, much self-promotion going on with that one, Stemoc. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Any objections to me switching the portrait image back to the previous version (#3) until there's consensus here on one of the options above?CFredkin (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Not from me, CFredkin. It shouldn't have been changed while this discussion is ongoing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not add the photo with the byline. And all the CPAC photos, including the current one that I thought looked angry, are by me, so your point made earlier is irrelevant. Calibrador (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The hell you didn't re-add it: So this wasn't you, but someone else? [4]. And, you just it wasn't you who added it here for consideration? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

ofcourse you don't want images which you deem 'poor' to carry your byline Calibrador, but you will move images that were added by someone else from your flickr feed to your byline (by Gage Skidmore) without their permission, btw, you were reverted by 2 admins on those 2 file moves, do it again and you will lose your 'move' rights on commons...--Stemoc 02:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Mike Pence crop.jpg does not have a byline in the title, that is what I was accused of and responded to. Calibrador (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I uploaded a very similar version of the same photo several days prior to the one I added above for consideration. Calibrador (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Mother Jones a Reliable 2ndary Source for Science?

The article says, 'In 2001, Pence wrote "Global warming is a myth,"[70] saying, incorrectly, that "the earth is actually cooler today than it was about 50 years ago".[71]' The word incorrectly is also a quote (without quote marks) from Mother Jones , Natalie Schreyer, who apparently is a journalist giving her opinion, not a scientist -- neither is Mother Jones a scientific journal. The word "incorrectly" should be deleted from the article until two reliable scientific sources can be found to support it with no serious scientific opposition to the claim. The incorrectly statement, as it stands, constitutes a negative statement about a living person. Thus it needs irrefutable support to stand in the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC))

I would be fine with removing "incorrectly" and instead starting Pence's climate change section with: "Pence rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" and hyperlink to the "scientific opinion on climate change" wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change). Stating that Pence goes against the scientific consensus and linking to the wiki page should be sufficient. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia itself a reliable source on science? Is it proper to quote the Wikipedia article as proof of a statement in a different article? Is there a scientific consensus on the temperature of the earth 50 years ago? And what does that mean? Are we talking about the average temperature of the air, the average temperature of the air near earth's surface, or the average temperature of the earth's crust or throughout the sphere internally? Can we find two reliable sources for it and an absence of contrary opinion? And is it worth the effort? And which of the 4 measurements was Pence referring to (& how do we know which he meant?) At any rate IMHO, it is better just to cite Pence's opinion and refrain from commenting on whether we agree with it or not, and to refrain from trying to put down a living person in an oblique way. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC))

Let me quote the "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change" wiki page: "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans." I'm not a climate scientist, I'm not going to debate the specifics of the science. If Pence was referring to the temperature of the crust and the crust happens not to have increased in temperature, you can add that context if you want to and can back it up with quotes from Pence and reliable scientific sources. Until then, I think we should start the section with: "Pence rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" and hyperlink to the "scientific opinion on climate change" wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that it is abundantly unclear what the objective truth is regarding the ultimate driving factors for climate change, and what the true short and long term trends will be. Wikipedia should not be a political platform, but should provide neutral, accurate and comprehensive information about whatever or whomever is being looked up. There are news articles, and scientists who make claims about global warming, and others that claim the opposite. http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/ for example (along with associated data) show scientifically that the earth's temperature has not been warming. News sources are inherently biased, and should not be used as substantiation for drawing a personal conclusion about the correctness of a persons statements. A Mother Jones article has no legitimate scientific basis for drawing a scientific conclusion. There is only one (generally speaking) source which could legitimately used to state that Pence's statement was inaccurate: the unedited raw data from NOAA or other equivalent primary source government agency. Not the New York Times, not Mother Jones, or any other news source. Also, NASA does not have data that refutes this. If NASA's data did refute it, that data should be listed as the reference. The reference to the National Academy of the Sciences is also not data. This is a position statement, and no data is included. Wikipedia should be above this. Wikipedia should be a neutral source. In this case, it is anything but. The only way to make Pence's statement neutral is to remove the work "Inaccurately". I conceded that in the context of neutrality, perhaps the word "Accurately" may not be appropriate (since the topic is not settled among knowledgeable scientists). I urge that the word "Inaccurately" be removed. Otherwise, the neutrality of Wikipedia becomes endangered. Hawaii596 (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)hawaii596

A source does not have to be a scientific journal to give a reliable general statement about science. It is not seriously contested in the scientific community that the world is, in fact, warmer today than it was 50 years ago. Neutrality^talk 01:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What leads anyone to suppose that quoting a Wikipedia article constitutes providing a reliable source for another Wikipedia article? What is your proof that a non-sci journal, like Mother Jones, is reliable on science? What is your proof that the statement about the world being warmer is sufficiently definite, without parsing it & specifying 1) atmosphere near the earth, 2) total atmosphere, 3) earth crust, 4) total earth? I suggest that instead of trying to hang a negative on Pence over global-warming, the article might say that Pence agrees with the minority of climate-scientists who reject the global-warming theory. But I think that this article should confine itself to stating Pence' position on global-warming, without criticizing him one way or the other on the topic or affirming or denying the validity of the theory or endorsing political party talking-points (NPOV). (PeacePeace (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)).

There are so many credible sources that could refute this. How about NASA? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php The US National Academy of Sciences? http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf The New York Times?

Eperotao (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• The question about one Wikipedia referencing another is moot: this is about reliable secondary sourcing. Neutrality is correct, and this entire conversation is a non-starter of the forum variety. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

“We’ll see Roe vs. Wade consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs”

Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Donald Trump wins, Mike Pence says Fishlandia (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Employment, labor and minimum wage

CFredkin: (of course a vote against something is a vote against its success)) No, one can vote against a bill that was either successful or unsuccessful. In this case, Pence voted against a bill that was successfully passed. This edit removes information. Joalkap (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

User slips in an edit on Pence's evolution section. I can't revert.

See this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Pence&type=revision&diff=735730861&oldid=735730570) where the user misrepresents the question being asked of Pence and misquotes him on intelligent design. This edit happened just as I was reverting his edit on climate change, so it may have passed you by. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted it. clpo13_(talk) 19:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015

Please change "Pence is a declared Christian and attends Community Church of Greenwood in Greenwood, Indiana, an evangelical Christian Church." to "Pence is a declared Christian." 75.149.65.249 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done you have asked for something to be removed and provided a source to show that, what you want removed, is true. - Arjayay (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests"

-- Aronzak (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

One way to handle this could be to change the tense from "attends" to "attended." As so often with Wikipedia articles, time tense is problematic. Even if the source was reliable & reported that "Pence attends . . ." there is no way to confirm the current reliability of that statement, since by the time it is posted here it is past time. So when the reader reads the Wikipedia article, it is not a reliable statement to say that Pence attends some church. All that could be confirmed is that he "attended" some church in the past. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC))

I have always thought this about WP articles. Past tense for facts that might change. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of run-off vote

There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page those involved in editing this article might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Headers

I've alphabetized the headers to avoid controversy over which item is more important than the others. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)