The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
This is an archive of past discussions about Mike Pence. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
(nac) The consensus is for image A. The main arguments in favor of image A are that it is higher quality in terms of resolution than other images, that it is more recent, and (although left unsaid) that it therefore best illustrates the subject per WP:IRELEV). Some editors who supported other images expressed concern about the file name or the identity of the photographer, but those considerations are irrelevant to the question of which photograph best illustrates the subject of the article. Much of the rest of the discussion included personal attacks and comments on the motives of other editors, all of which I have disregarded. The other considerations raised, such as which image is more professional, are matters of personal opinion and taste, not objective criteria or Wikipedia policies. agtx02:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
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.
A August 31, 2016
B August 2, 2016
C February 2015
D June 2010
E November 2013
Support A A is looking straight towards the camera, with no microphone and an unscrunched face, which are present in B and C, respectively, and D is very old. Calibrador (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Given that you have just suddenly introduced some random, horrible photo that you uploaded, it seems fairly obvious now that your goal is to simply get your photo added to the article, and not to foster a consensus as claimed. The previous photo was uncontroversial, and existed in the article without issue. I restored it given that most have already supported it over at the 2016 election article as well. Calibrador (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The photo needs to stay as it was when this discussion commenced as consensus hasn't been reached. Achieving consensus can take time, certainly more than 24 hours and three !votes. What's more, the photo you are pushing was added by you with a dishonest edit summary - you claimed there was consensus for it, there never was. Please stop behaving in a disruptive manner. -- WV ● ✉✓04:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The photo was present in the article for nearly a week before you started your campaign for what seems to be an attempt to have your own upload inserted into the article, and nothing more than that. If you were truly seeking to get a consensus you'd be responding as to why A is not sufficient, instead of only adding photos you uploaded and then voting for it. There does not need to be consensus for uncontroversial changes, and especially since there was no consensus for either of the previous images, it was simply the only image available at the time. Calibrador (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been noticing especially from the above section that some users seem to have an agenda against any photo that is taken by Gage Skidmore. Yes, some of his photo suggestions are not that great, but that doesn't mean you should oppose any photo taken by him no matter what. That's ridiculous. Judge based on individual photo not who took the picture. I also find it funny that the same people who were opposing photo C two months ago taken by the same person, now won't let him replace it. TL565 (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You couldn't be more wrong on every point, TL565. For one example of your incorrect impressions, if what you are very saying is true, why is the photo I am advocating a photo taken by Skidmore/Calibrador? Every time I've added a photo to the selections presented, it has been only to give editors more choices from other sources, nothing more. Am I concerned that Skidmore/Calibrador is trying to force his photos on Wikipedia and editors? Yes, I am. Am I concerned that doing so is along the same lines as WP:COI and WP:OWN? Yes, I am. Am I trying to keep things fair, balanced, and unbiased and in line with policy and guidelines? Yes, I am. So, there you go - the actual - not imagined - motivation behind what I am trying to accomplish in the way of photos in the political articles. I suggest you try some WP:AGF from here on out. -- WV ● ✉✓19:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Show me where that photo you suggested was taken by Gage. You've been on every picture thread talking about consensus but adding nothing constructive to the process except add your photos and voting for them without any reasoning. You have been WP:Hounding a single user for an entire week making sure he doesn't add his photos on other pages and sending him bs warnings on his talk page. You just admitted you are "concerned" he is forcing his photos on Wikipedia, which shows your own bias. Again, you don't actually care about consensus building so stop trying to act like you're some guardian about what is fair and balanced. You are the one who needs WP:AGF when you are constantly hounding someone and gaming the system against them. TL565 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
"Show me where that photo you suggested was taken by Gage" You consider yourself a Wikipedia editor? Then do your own research. No one here is required to show you anything. -- WV ● ✉✓21:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If you are unable to do something as simple as find the very obvious evidence that "Gage"(interesting how you are so familiar with him) took the photo, then in my personal opinion, you have no business commenting here. From what I can tell of your comments here, and the other pages where you are working very hard to disparage me and support your friend "Gage", as well as your time spent in various noticeboards over the last couple of years, you like to stir up dust. That's hardly productive or beneficial toward building an encyclopedia. Are we done, now? -- WV ● ✉✓21:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
We're talking about photo E genius, which is what you were advocating. Now you are whining about me being "friends" with him. Since you are so interested in my history, I opposed some of his photos in the past and supported the current Trump picture in particular. It doesn't take a genius to know what you were doing the past few days. I didn't even name anybody in my post above. At the time, I was just noticing that it seemed like people just didn't want to support any photos taken by him, yet you responded to my post all defensively. Why is that? I don't even know the guy but you clearly had a vendetta against him. TL565 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, he uploaded, added, and supported photo E and did not support photo C until he sneakily edited it recently. Obvious backtracking. Lol, he complains about me stirring up dust. I wasn't even planning on arguing with him today until he responded to my post from almost two days ago. TL565 (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Clpo, I do understand where he may have been confused however I do not understand why he is choosing to be so hostile, suspicious, and is not forwarding good faith. Contrary to what he obviously believes, there's nothing sneaky going on at all. All along, I thought that I had already stated what I added today. When I read back through what I had written previously in regard to what photo I was supporting, I noted that I left out my comments regarding photo C. Since no one had responded to my comment, I saw no harm in adding what I always thought was there. In this manner, I was not refactoring my comments, merely clarifying what I thought I had already made clear but did not. -- WV ● ✉✓23:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Playing victim now are we? You knew damn well I knew photo C was taken by Gage. You can see it in my original post above! You clearly knew which photo I was talking about and was playing games. Don't accuse me of being hostile when you go on some rant saying I'm buddies with someone I don't even know and tell me I shouldn't be posting on Wikipedia. Give me a break. TL565 (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Conditional Support of A, providing the image name is changed. I believe it is the best and most recent image of the group but, while I'm not aware of any policy/guideline prohibiting such file names, I believe the current name reeks of self-promotion and is in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. The "...by (photographer's name)" should be removed from the image title. That sort of information is what the image description pages are for. If the file name is not changed accordingly then I would instead Support E.--William ThweattTalkContribs05:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Support A As I originally suggested it from a group of new photos. It's newer and has a much better expression than the older photo which looks like he's looking at the sun or smelled something bad. The American flag in the background is also a nice touch. I don't know where E came out of all of a sudden, but why have a three year old photo when there are much newer ones? TL565 (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Don't quite understand your reasoning, all three of the first photos are from public speaking events, the first two of which are from an actual campaign. C is from prior to any sort of campaign, and D isn't a public speaking event at all. Calibrador (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Prior to this week, I'd never, ever heard the American flag be a criticism for a photo, especially of a politician running to represent said country. If anything that should be seen as an enhancement. Official portraits of politicians regularly utilize American flags, and do not distract from the photo subject, they enhance it, as is the case with A. E fairly obviously used a flash to take the photo, and as a result made the subject appear more orange and blown out than a photo not taken with flash, and lit with proper lighting. E is obviously the worst of the bunch. Calibrador (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment The point of discussion is to discuss, and to come to a consensus, something that you apparently are a big proponent of despite your refusal to attempt to come to one. Calibrador (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The point of consensus is that it's something to work toward, not something you can use to bash others over the head. In other words, act like a mature adult and allow others to have an opinion that differs from yours rather than confronting them in each of those instances where they aren't saying the photo you like or the one you took looks the best to them. Like I said, you are now bludgeoning everyone who doesn't see things your way. That's not acceptable behavior in a consensus-seeking discussion. -- WV ● ✉✓23:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Calibrador: I actually quite agree with WV. Every time someone posts their opposition to something you comment underneath and nitpick their reasons, which is unaccpetable behavior according to WP:BLUDGEON.
"Participating fully isn't a bad thing: dominating and nit-picking other's comments is."
also "We're all volunteers here, and discussions are a consensus formation process, not a lawsuit. Not every rationale has to be explained, in excruciating detail, on-demand. The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mandate that others (or anyone in particular) address it."
also "It is not your job to police others' viewpoints or expressions of them.".
Jesus, does this discussion really have to be had a little over a month after the last one? What's wrong with the current picture (C, that is)? clpo13(talk)19:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It was the only picture that was available at the time. Much better photos have been taken since then. You're right, we really don't need to have this discussion, but someone in particular wants to make things difficult. TL565 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Clpo13 is saying that we already had consensus with the current photo, why is consensus for a new photo being sought when the one we have had for the last month works fine? In other words: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- WV ● ✉✓21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no consensus, please link to this consensus you speak of. All I can see is a number of people reverting without discussion until they got their way. Calibrador (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
E looks more professional IMHO, that and because Skidmore's trying to promote his name across the entire project, Perhaps he should try Flickr or one of the pay-to-use sites like Getty or whatever ..... Anyway E looks better. –Davey2010Talk14:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree Gage, Despite my rant your name isn't the only reason, I did say it looks more profession which is my honest opinion. –Davey2010Talk00:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The only ones where he doesn't appear to be squinting are D&E, and of those E is newer and has the further advantage of an uncluttered background. I evaluated the photos without looking for the name of the photographer as that is completely irrelevant. Jonathunder (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
He may look like he's squinting in picture A from the thumbnail, but it doesn't look like he's squinting at all when you look at a bigger picture of it. TL565 (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Jonathunder - As I said on another discussion I have no issue with Gage but I do have a big issue with his name in every single image title and my opinion would be the exact same for any photographer constantly using their name, Nothing against Gage at all ... just the image titles. –Davey2010Talk00:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
What in your opinion makes C, which is older and badly photoshopped, better than A, which is quite recent and has no botched photoshop work? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's not the impression that I got from A, but Pence is making kind of similar facial expressions in both A and C. So, even if he has a slightly awkward facial expression in A, I still think that it beats C, especially because of the more recent date in A and the botched photoshop of C. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait, oh my. Why are we using the one that has the green crap on the photo? That is not the version of that photo I support. I am not sure why that was ever changed to that one.Option 2 from above is the one that was suppose to be on the page. Chase (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: It has been 11 days since someone last commented here. Due to the lack of discussion, I changed the infobox photo to A, because it is more recent than C, and there is nothing about C, at least in my view, that is better than A. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Just because there is a lack of discussion going on doesn't mean a new consensus is decided, it actually means the exact opposite, that no new consensus can be decided. Chase (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2016 (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.
Hello, CF. Sorry it's taken me so long; I have not been here much. Anyway, I didn't think it was germane because it was more about state politics than about Mike Pence himself. (You might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, if you've not already done so.) Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Organization
This is a poorly organized article. Policy positions should not be weaved into his terms as Congressman and Governor. Instead it should be a separate main section for his political positions. Then there should be separate main sections for his tenure as Congressman and Governor which weave in, where it makes sense and was addressed, matters of policy. This is how other candidate pages are frequently handled.--YHoshua (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is THAT bad, considering it has been put together by a committee. Anyway, to attempt a mass change right now would probably be a but much. Maybe you could make a shift or two and see if others except it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I think we have a disagreement over the definition of "lifelong." The one I use is at https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+lifelong&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN. Admittedly, the source does say "lifelong," but that cannot literally be true, so I've removed it from the article because its use makes WP look silly. The meaning and the force of the sentence remains the same. If we leave it, we should credit the NYT within the sentence for misusing the word in that way. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
He was undoubtedly a Republican before he went into politics. Maybe somebody can find a better source for the length of his Repuplicanness? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Mike Pence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
Acknowledging that there is consensus for the current infobox image, I'd like to propose that the image be updated with the same photo, just better coloring and lighting reflecting Pence's true skin tone. He's really more pale than the rendering of the current photo shows. The proposed image is a closer crop, as well. I'm providing examples of each (current and proposed) side-by-side here:
I agree that, of course, we will be putting up the official photo after it's published. Even so, I see no reason why we need to wait 2 1/2 months to get that photo when there's a more accurate version of the consensus photo available. But that's me. -- WV ● ✉✓01:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The Section attributes this quote to Pence: "has been a longtime, aggressive advocate of trade deals". But if you look at the source he said no such thing. This, in fact, is the original quote, which comes from Trump, not Pence: "Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization, moving our jobs, our wealth, and our factories to Mexico and overseas," Trump said in a speech in Pittsburgh last month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.28.173 (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Error in the introduction (lede)
This should be corrected. The currently appearing text is:
On November 8, 2016, Pence was elected the Vice President-elect, after he dropped out of his gubernatorial re-election campaign in July to become the vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who went on to win the presidential election.
This is wrong because Pence was not elected Vice-President-elect. This is also wrong because the electoral college has not met yet.
Possible changes could be:
On November 8, 2016, Pence was presumably elected the Vice President (based on expected electoral college certification), after he dropped out of his gubernatorial re-election campaign in July to become the vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who went on to win the presidential election.
On November 8, 2016, Pence was presumably elected to be Vice President in January 2017 (assuming the electoral college votes according to the election results as it has by tradition), after he dropped out of his gubernatorial re-election campaign in July to become the vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who went on to win the presidential election.
On November 8, 2016, Pence won enough states in the election that the electoral college will confirm his election as the Vice President effective January 20, 2017, after he dropped out of his gubernatorial re-election campaign in July to become the vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who went on to win the presidential election.
Help, someone! How can we make this accurate? Maybe leave it alone and have a footnote that could read (In the United States, the Vice President is selected by the electoral college which meets in December and traditionally has voted as their state did in the November election). Lakeshake (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Lecture from Hamilton actor controversy
Why is there currently only one point of view expressed in this section (criticism of Trump's reaction), and other points of view omitted? Many people criticized the lecture as rude, out of place, and tremendously inappropriate. Both sides should be present, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Both provided sources use "megachurch" to describe it; another reliable source would be needed saying it was otherwise at the time of Pence's attendance, for an editor to include here that the term is in question. —ADavidB03:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Archival
I've changed the minthreadsleft parameter in the automatic archive notice to 4; this will prevent the page from being harvested completely. MB298 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Font size
Howdy folks. It's no concern to me, what font size we use - (elect) or (elect) - in the infobox. Just please, make sure it matches with the font size used at Donald Trump article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017
This edit request to Mike Pence has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Mike Pence hosted a weekend talk show on WNDE 1260 AM in Indianapolis beginning in April 1993 after his stint on a Rushville station and before Network Indiana/WIBC. Electriclady (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
We may have to protect this article until Noon EST, 20 January 2017. Many may not realize that that's when Pence succeeds Biden. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What exactly is the legal maiden name of Mike Pence's wife Karen Pence? It says on his wife's article that her last birth name was "Batten", but when she divorced her first husband, she had changed her last name legally as "Whitaker". The reason I'm asking this is because per infobox standards, a spouse's maiden name should be left in infobox. Bluesphere05:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
To what specific "infobox standards" are you referring? (Where is the standard described or documented?) WP:NAMES includes "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name. ... But if her most commonly used name does include her husband's surname, and you're discussing a period of her life before her marriage, it is often best to refer to her by her maiden name." —ADavidB13:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Adavidb: Take a look at the articles of previous VPs, the names of their spouses in infobox have their maiden names left there. I was just under the impression that there's an infobox rule experienced editors have been following, hence what I called "infobox standards". Don't you think Mike Pence's article should follow suit? Bluesphere14:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
In following the Biden example, the spouse's first-used name is applied (Jill Jacobs, in that case, rather than Jill Stevenson). I've gone ahead and adjusted the Pence link to "Karen Batten", accordingly. —ADavidB15:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If I remembered correctly, the "Karen Batten" was already placed there, but when I went to the article again this morning it was changed, mainly the reason I started this discussion. I already buried a hidden note beside that marriage template before another editor change it. CiaoBluesphere15:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The "Religion and LGBT" part of the "Controversy" section starts with a weirdly apologetic tone.
Currently, there is a section called "Controversy," with a sub-section called "Religion and LGBT Rights." For some reason, it currently begins with the following sentence, "Despite several successful policy initiatives, Pence found himself in several high-profile controversies, including some that brought national attention." In my opinion, the first clause of this sentence is more appropriate for a section on "successful initiatives" than for a section on "Controversy," and the rest of the sentence is more suited as a general introduction to the "Controversy" section (which currently has none). Unless someone makes a counter-argument, I will make those changes.
NikolaiSmith (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
NikolaiSmith: Even worse, the introduction is pretty much a promotion for him now, including his LGBT stance. I'll give the following absurd paragraph as evidence:
Upon becoming Governor of Indiana in January 2013, Pence initiated the largest tax cut in Indiana's history, pushed for more funding for education initiatives, and continued to increase the state's budget surplus. Pence signed bills intended to restrict abortions, including one that prohibited abortions if the reason for the procedure was the fetus's race, gender, or disability.[5] Pence stirred several high-profile controversies, including with his signature of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, for which he encountered fierce resistance from moderate members of his party, the business community, and LGBT advocates. He later signed an additional bill acting as an amendment intended to protect LGBT people.[6]
This is top-tier populist puffery, starting off with a tax cut program. And not just that, all that's said about him and LGBT people is that he "stirred a high-profile controversy" which had resistance from the evil bankers and also incidentally LGBT advocates, but that he then signed a bill to protect them and therefore it was all good. So I guess the countless sources citing him opposing gay rights in numerous bills and laws don't matter? This article needs a lot of work. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Some proper LGBT criticism found on him so far:
In 2015, Pence helped pass one of the nation’s harshest “religious freedom” laws that would have protected businesses who wanted to refuse service to LGBT people if they cited religious objections. After businesses pulled out of expansion plans into the state, Pence signed an amended version of the law that was nominally intended to provide protection for sexual orientation and gender identity. As a congressman, he opposed federal funding that would support treatment for people suffering from H.I.V. and AIDS, unless the government simultaneously invested in programs to discourage people from engaging in same-sex relationships. He has resisted changes to hate-crime laws that would have included acts against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. And he was against the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a Clinton administration policy that allowed gays to serve in the military. He has said publicly, “I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of history.”[1]
One month after Arizona’s governor vetoed a measure that would have permitted businesses to deny services to LGBT customers, Pence signed a similar bill in Indiana, calling it “a measure that frankly, Indiana should have enacted many years ago.” He only signed a revised version of the law after a national outcry against it. Pence has also been involved in an anti-LGBT organization in his state: “In the early 1990s, Pence was a board member for the Indiana Family Institute, a conservative advocacy group that has long opposed gay rights. At the time, the organization was led by Bill Smith, who would later become Pence’s chief of staff in Congress and during his first two years as governor. Smith is now a Pence campaign consultant.” In the 1990s, as an editor of a conservative journal, he published works on “gaydom” and phony ties between homosexuality and pedophilia. In Congress, Pence opposed a 2007 “bill to protect gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination,” the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the 2009 Shepard-Byrd legislation “to expand the definition of a hate crime to include the victim’s sexual orientation.” He has also called for both a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and a similar state constitutional amendment. In 2006, he urged Congress to “say ‘no’ to activist courts bent on redefining” marriage, arguing that the Constitution should prevent same-sex couples from marrying because “societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family.”[2]
A recent change to the article indicated that Pence was the second vice-president to break a tie on a confirmation vote, and that Harry S. Truman was the first broke a tie to confirm Henry Wallace as Secretary of Commerce in 1945.
Notwithstanding the Miller Center of Public Affairs website's statement, this doesn't appear to be correct:
A biography of Wallace, John C. Culver & John Hyde, American Dreamer: The Life and Times of Henry A. Wallace (W. W. Norton & Company, 2000), p. 384, doesn't say anything at all about a tie-breaking vote: it says that Wallace was confirmed by a 56-32 vote (see here).
The 56-32 confirmation vote for Wallace as Secretary of Commerce is also cited in Leonard Dinnerstein, "The Senate's Rejection of Aubrey Williams as Rural Electrification Administration" in From Civil War to Civil Rights, Alabama 1860–1960: An Anthology from The Alabama Review (ed. Sarah Woolfolk Wiggins: University of Alabama Press, 1987), p. 439 (see here (citing Congressional Record).
Moreover, the Senate Historical Office indicates that there were only seven times before 2017 that a Vice President has cast a tie-breaking vote related to a confirmation vote, and only a few additional "vice presidential tie-breakers on non-confirmation votes related to nominees (motions on postponements or motions to proceed, for example)" — but never for a Cabinet nominee. See here for a summary table, and here for the complete list from the Senate Historical Office. The complete list indicates only one ocassion on which Truman broke a tie, April 10, 1945. That was after Wallace had already been sworn in as Secretary of Commerce (March 2, 1945).
Truman biographies state that: "On only one occasion did [Truman] break a tie, and this was when his negative vote defeated a Taft amendment to the Lend-Lease Act which would have prevented postwar delivery of lend-lease goods contracted for during the war." See Harold Foote Gosnell, Truman's Crises: A Political Biography of Harry S. Truman (Greenwood Press, 1980), p. 212. Same thing elsewhere: "In his eighty-two days as vice president, he had the opportunity to vote only once--on an amendment to limit the Lend-Lease extension bill. The vote was tied, and Truman voted no, which, in a sense, was unnecessary since the bill would have died even without his vote." Robert C. Byrd, Senate, 1789-1989, Vol. 1: Addresses on the History of the United States Senate (Government Printing Office, 1988), p. 534 (see here).
I suspect the cause of the confusion is: In the run-up to the confirmation, some Senate Democrats (who opposed the nomination) raised a motion to bring the matter to a speedy vote, thinking that he would then lose. However, this motion (to bring Wallace's nomination to the floor) got a tie vote, 42-42, and failed--and apparently Truman didn't vote on that motion. When the nomination did finally come to the floor, he won, 56-31. (See: Henry A. Wallace#Appointment and confirmation) — Narsil (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm the one who added that content to the Wallace article. ;-) I suspect that you're right, and that was the cause of the confusion. Neutralitytalk03:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If Truman did not vote on the motion how could that be a cause of confusion? I under that 42-42 is a tie, but if it is not broken then how did this spread? Furthermore you mention the results as "56-32", "56-41", and, "56-31". I presume that these are just typos as I can't seem to find this in the source material, but if their is disagreement amongst the sources I question their reliability.
In the biography I can only see it saying that he was confirmed, but not any results, 56-32 or otherwise.
In the civil rights book it says 56-32, citing the Congressional record. I have not been able to access the Congressional record.
The Senate Historical Office does have the disclaimer This list is a compilation from a number of sources (see list at end) and may not include every occasion on which a vice president has voted to break a tie. as a footnote. This could suggest that it is not complete. Furthermore it clarifies Senate votes decided by one vote or less. This could mean the vote was filibustered and the President of the Senate (i.e. Vice President Truman) could have gone nuclear and overruled it. This would effectively be a tie-breaker even if it was not 50-50. I do however recognise that this is extremely unlikely, but after discussing with some people they believe it is technically possible.
Robert C. Byrd writes Truman voted no, which, in a sense, was unnecessary since the bill would have died even without his vote. This could be loosely interpreted as not a deciding vote then, and therefore his actual tie break could have been in confirming Wallace.
Update On page 288 of Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman a book published by the Oxford University Press it says He had to cast two tie-breaking votes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. Does the book identify what the second one was, other than the Lend-Lease extension? I assume if it was for a Cabinet appointee that would be a very big deal reflected in the historical record. Neutralitytalk09:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have access to the book physically but I was looking at it via Google Books. I do however accept that if it was for a Cabinet appointee that it probably would have been a big deal. I will do so more investigating. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree. This one isn't really bringing anything new to the table. It's just cropped to be a headshot (as far as I can tell, all other VP articles use full portraits) and is of poorer quality. As far as I can tell there's no benefit to that one, so I reinserted the old one based on this discussion. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
BIAS
In reading this I found several instances of liberal bias. For example on the onset of the section about abortion, why isn't the first sentence "The Vice President is Pro-Life"? --75.130.91.73 (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Pence's father was a veteran of the Korean War, so somebody should add that. I'm a political moderate, not a liberal Democrat, so I never edit Wikipedia. Editing is reserved exclusively for liberal Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Why is his FATHER'S service germane? I think it's included to confuse epoeple into thinking he served in the military, which he did not. What he did during the VIETNAM war would be would be appropriate, not claiming credit for someone elses service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.143.123 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The Star Tribune/Associated Press source from which the info is taken includes his FATHER's service among Pence's ties to Asia. I've added additional info from the source about Pence displaying his FATHER's medal, letter, and photograph in his office. I don't see any credit claim for someone else's service. Born in 1959, Pence was too young to have served in the VIETNAM war. —ADavidB00:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Asia trip notability
There have been daily updates in the article regarding Pence's trip to Asia. It seems to me that this is more news reporting than encyclopedic in nature. Trips like this are typical for office holders at this level, so I question whether notability has been established. Indyguy (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the trip should be summarized more, such as:
Pence began a tour of Asia on April 16, 2017 with a visit to acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn in South Korea, where he acknowledged that day's missile test by North Korea as a "provocation".[sources] Stopping at Camp Bonifas and the Korean Demilitarized Zone the next day, he encouraged China to pressue North Korea to abandon its weapons and declared "the era of strategic patience is over".[sources] On April 18, Pence met with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Japan, where he repeated his comments regarding an end of strategic patience and a determination to work with area nations for "a peaceable resolution and the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula".[source] While aboard the USS Ronald Reagan at Yokosuka Naval Base on April 19, Pence again reiterated the goal of peace in the region while noting, "the shield stands guard and the sword stands ready".[source]
Either solution sound like it would work. You would have to imagine this article will only continue to grow, so it might be best for a new article. Classicwiki (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and applied the {{Hidden}} template to each of the two subsections. If someone else wants to move the election results to a separate article, you have my support. —ADavidB01:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Pence's falsehoods about the dismissal of Comey
"Pence said seven times on Capitol Hill Wednesday that Trump acted only after receiving the recommendation to fire Comey from Rosenstein". This was as we know proven to be a falsehood, as Trump himself later stated the exact opposite.[3] I think we should include something about Pence's proven falsehood somewhere in the article. --Tataral (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017
This edit request to Mike Pence has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This section needs a bit of editing. Right now it looks like it's 60%+ quotes just dropped in everywhere. A nicer and cleaner summary of the diplomatic tour would more than suffice, in my mind. Cheef117 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I'm also in doubt on whether to add this image due to the current restrictions set on this article. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you change the photo of Mike Pence with President Barack Obama at the White House to the gubernatorial portrait of Mike Pence? This article's been relatively peaceful as far as I can see, its just a photo anyways. RodneyRockwell19 (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Partly done: In my eyes, replacement is not possible as the image is relevant, so I just added the image directly below it. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but what I find odd is how Pence's twitter uses a neutral expression yet this photo has him smiling. Anybody know where we can get that neutral expression with this full image? 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
You guys do realise that both images belong to the same photographer right? he only took one image of Trump but 2 variations for Pence, the one currently being used and the other linked above.--Stemoc04:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
We have a Star Chamber who can/will not release the info on that, unfortunately. This is is truly the realm of Dr. Strangelove, where a mysterious requester can issue a takedown of official portraits despite the clear CC licensing at whitehouse.gov, the source of the images. TheValeyard (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@MB298: incompetence, that is the answer, Trump hired incompetent people just like him as his staff and 'crew' ..they basically ignored the Whitehouse flickr page after he became POTUS and only used twitter and sometimes facebook to add images (and even then in shit quality)..They only started adding a few images around april and even then, under the wrong licence (Public domain is not an accepted licence unless accompanies by a release), i'm sure one of those incompetent staff member(s) did not clear the image with the photographer before releasing it and even then, in the first month or so, High Quality was not available (black and white version for the first few weeks)....lol.--Stemoc23:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment – I've nominated the picture above for deletion for no permission. If the one currently used in the article "doesn't have permission" (which I happen to disagree with), then this one doesn't either. There is no proof that the author is the "author" of the image in the article and smugmug.com doesn't list "Doug"'s name. This is my final comment not his matter. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Time to change to official portraits- I know this has been discussed, so forgive me, but I've tried to restore the official image to the one on the White House website, which contains the official portraits for both Trump & Pence. Lord knows I don't support either one of them, but we should have their official portraits up. We have them for all cabinet members. For some reason, the picture isn't showing up. I haven't edited from my phone before. Any help would be great. Thanks! Cubslakersfan (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Re: Thanks for response! I undertsand the confusion about whether Trump's photo is public domain, even though it's been released by White House and is used in federal buildings. It's because it was snapped before Trump took office & therefore there's an argument it's not public domain. However, Pence's second portrait, the one on whitehouse.gov, was released the same time as Karen Pence & Melania Trump. That was taken as a governmental portrait. Pence's second photo should be public domain? Thanks again! Cubslakersfan (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Pence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
The article says "Pence is a lifelong fan of the Chicago Cubs and the Indianapolis Colts".
He probably isn't a "lifelong" fan of the Indianapolis Colts, because they only moved to Indianapolis in 1984 when he was 25.U
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumbr (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The "lifelong" status is from the source for his Cubs fandom. I reworded the sentence to clarify it doesn't apply to his also being a fan of the Colts. —ADavidB18:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
2020 Candidacy
"Speculations have flourished about a candidacy for the presidency in 2020, after Pence registered the Great America Committee for campaign donations."
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Inclusion of Pence's walkout of the NFL football game between the Colts and 49ers as to bring context to the photo of the situation currently on the page. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
On October 8, 2017, Pence left a game between the NFL's Indianapolis Colts and San Francisco 49ers, after members of the 49ers knelt during the national anthem.[1] In a statement issued via Twitter, Pence said, "I left today’s Colts game because President Trump and I will not dignify any event that disrespects our soldiers, our flag, or our national anthem.” This was following Trump's criticism of national anthem protests within the NFL during a rally in September.[2]
Response from the semiprotecting admin: Any registered editor who becomes convinced that this change has consensus may act on this request. The photo being referred to is in the article just before the first mention of 'Asia-Pacific'. The main question could be if the issue is sufficently important to deserve inclusion here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the article, it describes him as a "principled conservative". I do not this this is appropriate, "principled" seems very positive. Maybe "very conservative" or "ardent conservative" is more appropriate CalorusRex (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The description was seemingly a GOP talking point upon his selection as the vice presidential candidate, though the article doesn't say he is a "principled conservative", just it's how he positioned himself. I put the term in quotation marks and added another source citation. —ADavidB04:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Mike Pence Google page
Mike Pence - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence
Michael Richard Pence (born June 7, 1959) is an American political lawyer and bigot serving as the 48th and current Vice President of the United States, in ...
The article lists all of the family pets (cat, dog, rabbit, snake) with their names and even three dead pets with their names, the year they died and their age at death. Isn't this just a tad excessive, to say the least? I've yet to see such excessive detail about pets in Wikipedia and IMO it makes us look rather dopey. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's entirely excessive. The reason that it's all in the article is because the national news is obsessed with finding fault with Pence and write stuff like this: Pence’s Pets Won’t Stop Dying. Wikipedia editors love that stuff and can't wait to add it to the article. Deli nk (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, did these alleged pets die of natural causes? Were they licensed or illegals? Any Euthanasia or abortions? It does sound like trivia. SPECIFICOtalk18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to mention his pets in the article. I don't think it's dopey, but politicians of the highest office are placed under a microscope. I sourced the text with articles that were fair unlike the Newsweek article whose title was downright disgraceful. There was a great deal of press about Obama's dogs Bo and later on Sunny. You do have a point about the text of his deceased pets. However, the only encyclopedic mention should be about his current pets especially his pet rabbit Marlon Bundo who has a book coming out soon. FunksBrother (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the rabbit will get back in when the book comes out. Or could perhaps go back in now if it's important to you, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Both books involving Marlon Bundo have been included on the page. As both have been published and are widely sold, it is appropriate and necessary to include this pertinent information. As the first book was mentioned on here, it is fair to include both, and I believe that consensus would have otherwise been reached regarding this edit if discussed prior to updating. Κοματσουλάκης (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Conversion therapy
Ahechtbrought to my attention that Pence has a long history with conversion therapy. I took a WP:ADVANCED search and got hundreds of RS hits. It struck me that we don't mention this anywhere. There are so many RS reporting on it that I don't know where to even start writing about this. Who knows, maybe we'll need a Mike Pence and conversion therapy article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)wumbolo^^^19:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: Spinning it off to a new page is a huge leap considering it isn't even on this page yet. Why don't you draft a few sentences on it here so we can agree on a consensus entry for inclusion? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Arpaio revert is not SYNTH
This edit [4] removes RS text about Pence's honoring Joe Arpaio with the edit summary "SYN". But the connection between Pence's honoring him and his criminality is made in the cited source. So this is not WP:SYNTH and should be restored. SPECIFICOtalk12:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I recently added a large edit to the section of the article titled "Religion and LGBT rights" but now I can't find it. The edit history says nothing at all was removed, so I'm wondering; was my new edit relocated to a new portion of the article?
Ryan1783
This edit request to Mike Pence has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The sidebar with information about Pence lists his address incompletely. Instead of "Number One Observatory Circle, Washington, DC," It should be "1 Observatory Circle NW, Washington DC 20008-3619" according to the USPS zip code lookup site. Bonitakale (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
In light of media reports and with consideration of genuine vs fake, the single-largest reportable fact in the speech read by US Vice President Pence on the Cruise ships chartered for the Papua New Guinea APEC event may well have been the foreign military aid bombshell;
the Vice President stated that US taxpayer-funded expenditure of 2018 totalled MORE THAN THE THREE PREVIOUS CONSECUTIVE YEARS, combined.
Certainly this should be mentioned in the article?126.3.17.188 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per WP:JOBTITLES, should we change Vice President of the United States in the pros & infobox title, to vice president of the United States (in the other bios of US vice presidents, as well)? GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Not the place for this, as this has been discussed and debated many times recently and you also originally just put this on the Donald Trump page with the expressed reason that it would get the attention of the most editors. So you've already made it a split discussion, and I'm not sure but the topic itself may have a moratorium on it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a moratorium. But, I sure wish there was a place on Wikipedia, where I could open an Rfc on this topic & get as much of the community involved as possible. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
GoodDay, you can add a tag {{rfc|style}} at the front of first paragraph of the other discussion and it will be listed as a style-related RFC. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Checked the history of this article (and the other bios of US Vice Presidents) it's highly likely that capitalization will continue. I won't object if this discussion is closed & collapsed. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It states that Mike’s brother, Greg, is currently running for election to represent his district in Indiana. He has already won and assumed his appropriate office Hays9999 (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Mike Pence has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under "Death of Suleimani" subheading, Soleimani is misspelled everythme it appears. "Qasem Soleimani" is his real name. Please fix. User666158 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
“Opponent of abortion” is an incomplete wording of Pence’s views. He is well known for being opposed to embryonic stem cell research, as well as wanting fetal remains to be properly buried. This falls under the broader category of “pro-life”. To state that he is simply opposed to the medical procedure of abortion is an oversimplification of his views. The phrase “pro-life” needs to be incorporated somewhere in the article. Bsubprime7 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
It is possible to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. The idea is you are pro right to life and if you are convicted and sentenced to death you have lost your right to life. You are arguing for a very simplistic, binary POV.Bsubprime7 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
Bsubprime7, "pro-death penalty" is "pro-death", in that specific sense, which puts the lie to the term "pro-life". I believe Wikipedia is moving past the nonsense labels of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" anyway, though I don't recall if there was one centralized discussion crystallizing that. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
"Opponent of Birthright Citizenship"
False statement that Pence is an opponent of “birthright citizenship.” It has been well documented in RS that he shares Trump’s views that a child born of an illegal immigrant is not “subject of the jurisdiction thereof” aspect of birthright citizenship and therefore not entitled to such. Therefore he maintains a different interpretation of birthright citizenship. To state that he is opposed to birthright citizenship outright is a gross oversimplification of his views, not to mentioned it reads like a talking point from a political opponent, rather than a neutral analysis. Bsubprime7 (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
We report what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources state that Trump desires to do away with the concept of birthright citizenship, and Pence supports that view. [This makes logical sense; obviously, if one excludes U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, you no longer have birthright citizenship.] Neutralitytalk21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The RS do not say he wants to do away with the concept of birthright citizenship entirely. If they opposed birthright citizenship in its entirety, Trump and Pence would believe that the children of American citizens born on US soil not would not be entitled to citizenship automatically. Please read this publication https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/birthright-citizenship-a-primer/
“The meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the citizenship clause has also generated significant debate among legal scholars. A Congressional Research Service review of the debate finds that most scholars believe the phrase encompasses all individuals within a sovereign nation’s territorial boundaries since the state can enforce its laws within these territories. In contrast, opponents claim that the phrase excludes the children of non-citizens, especially undocumented immigrants, since it limits the concept of “jurisdiction” to individuals that have established political links with the U.S. government.”
“However, critics of birthright citizenship argue that removing birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants would be legal since neither Wong nor the citizenship clause explicitly establish that the children of undocumented immigrants have the right to birthright citizenship.”
The belief of Pence and Trump is that birthright citizenship does not apply to a certain group of people not that they are against the concept in its totality. The article states a blatant falsehood. Bsubprime7 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
Neutrality the edit makes sense, if you want the phrasing “birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants” that’s fine. Birthright citizenship is not as simplistic as simply being born on US soil. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has not been fleshed out in the courts, if the children of immigrants in the country illegally are in fact subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Until this question is answered by the Supreme Court, the wording that Pence opposes birthright citizenship is incorrect. Please read the sources and constitutional analyses given.Bsubprime7 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
“Critics claim that anyone born in the US is automatically a citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.”
Please read the article, the facts are, Pence does not oppose the entire concept of birthright citizenship he merely holds a different interpretation of what it means and who it applies to. Bsubprime7 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
SPECIFICO, heritage is not listed as an unreliable source. I don’t believe a SPA such as yours speaks for all the editors.
Any way you slice it the current wording is at worst false and at best incomplete. Bsubprime7 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
Specifico may edit primarily in American Politics and related topic areas, but they’re an editor who has been around for over seven years, and with 20,000+ edits to their name. I really don’t think they’re an SPA. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
At this point the evidence is incontrovertible regarding a specific editor being a SPA. The New York Times has written about this impression of the 14th you can dance around as many sources as you want the wording is again at best incomplete. Bsubprime7 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7
Regarding biased or opinionated sources, see WP:BIASED. Its first paragraph:
"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
Laurie Garrett, who won a Pulitzer prize for her reporting on infectious disease, explained on Democracy Now why she thought Pence was unqualified to lead the coronavirus effort, and also explained why she thought Pence's response to the opioid epidemic in Indiana was incompetent and led to many deaths.
“Pence is Not a Medical Expert”: Is the Trump Admin Ready to Stop a U.S. Coronavirus Pandemic?
Laurie Garrett interviewed by Amy Goodman
Democracy Now
Feb 27, 2020
(Note that you can read a transcript by clicking on the three dots on the right of the "SAVE" button.)
Many WP:RS have made the same point, but Garrett has particular expertise in emerging infectious diseases, and therefore explains it better than most other sources. --Nbauman (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
A August 31, 2016
B August 2, 2016
C February 2015
D June 2010
E November 2013
.jpg)
Proposed
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I'm also in doubt on whether to add this image due to the current restrictions set on this article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Partly done: In my eyes, replacement is not possible as the image is relevant, so I just added the image directly below it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC).jpg){kind=link}
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Gandydancer (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. Added a sentence on his current pets and a sentence on Marlon Bundo's future book. FunksBrother (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done. He's not one yet. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)