Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Youngkin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Draft talk:Glenn Youngkin)

Significant coverage

[edit]
National coverage
  • Kelly, Jason (2012). The New Tycoons: Inside the Trillion Dollar Private Equity Industry That Owns Everything. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 29–33, 39–40.
7 pages
5 full paragraphs
8 full paragraphs
full article
full article
full article
full article
full article
full article
full article
full article
full article
full article
State coverage (Virginia) (sample early coverage)
full article
full article

--Oxenriver (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

added more Oxenriver (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for candidates who have never held elected office

[edit]

Youngkin is a nominee/candidate, not an elected politician. He has never held elected office, and therefore he requires the Template:Infobox_officeholder#Nominee/candidate. Please see the example set forth at Template:Infobox_officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate. Pinging KidAd. Thank you. Oxenriver (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He does not require anything. That infobox formatting is ugly and unnecessary. Seeing as he has never held elective office, he should have a "infobox person" anyway. KidAd • SPEAK 03:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on infobox

[edit]
Glenn Youngkin
Republican nominee for
Governor of Virginia
Election date
November 2, 2021
Running mateWinsome Sears
OpponentTBD
IncumbentRalph Northam
Personal details
Born (1966-12-09) December 9, 1966 (age 57)
Richmond, Virginia, U.S.
Political partyRepublican
Residence(s)Great Falls, Virginia
EducationRice University (BS, BA)
Harvard University (MBA)
OccupationBusinessman
Websitewww.youngkinforgovernor.com

Should this Glenn Youngkin article have a nominee/candidate infobox (Template:Infobox officeholder#Nominee/candidate)? The nominee/candidate infobox would look like this (shown on the right), matching the example set forth at Template:Infobox officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate. Youngkin's Democratic opponent will be announced and filled in after the Democratic primary on June 8. Oxenriver (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Youngkin is not an elected politician and has never held political office. The nominee infobox provides the pertinent information needed by readers who are looking at the article to find information on his candidacy. If he loses the gubernatorial election, the infobox will simply revert to a Template:infobox person, the same as it did with the above-linked example of Ralph Nader, a candidate who has and had never held elected political office. Oxenriver (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It looks bad. And being a nominee for political office is not a position, role, or office. Just change it to "infobox person" until after the election. KidAd • SPEAK 00:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This infobox is standard for nominees to significant office who have never held elected office. In what way does it look bad? You added the original Template:infobox politician to the article: [1]. Oxenriver (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? That template is a variation of the "officeholder" template commonly used for unelected candidates. KidAd • SPEAK 02:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly the point: this is the template commonly used for unelected candidates and that's why it should be used here for this currently unelected candidate. In what way does it look bad? Oxenriver (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This infobox is specifically for nominated candidates who have not previously held elected office; that's why it exists to be used. Please see Template:Infobox officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate. This Glenn Youngkin article already has an Template:infobox politician at the top -- please view the article. This RfC is about using the Template:Infobox officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate instead, since Youngkin is not yet an elected politician. Oxenriver (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is a nominee, this is the nominee infobox. I'm not understanding the opposers saying that this is the wrong infobox. We have to consider who will read and search for this page - likely a member of the public interested in the election who wants to know more about the candidate, and knowing who their running mate is at a first glance, for example, might be a good thing. Hentheden (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Soros fearmongering

[edit]

Why did the editor PerpetuityGrat remove content about Youngkin fearmongering about how the right-wing boogeyman George Soros was ruining education in Virginia? One of the key themes in Youngkin's campaign revolves around education in Virginia. I fail to see why we should note that Youngkin attributes the poor states of education in Virginia to George Soros. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, pretty rude tone right off the bat, but I'll stay above the fray. I didn't remove the quote quote because it was aimed at, as you put it, "the right-wing boogeyman George Soros," but rather because the sentence is entirely unencyclopedic. And for the record since you insinuated on my talk page that I'm some WP:UPE, no I'm not. I've made edits to both Glenn Youngkin and Terry McAuliffe articles. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide citations in article

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a political soapbox please provide rs before posting hitjobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.109.224 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you do not think the WP is an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Jpcase for input since their edit is in question. Personally, I see nothing obviously questionable about [2], [3], or [4], so what's the issue? They're not opinion article as claimed; the Post clearly marks any such articles. The other stuff added in the lead is already supported by references in the body of the article, such as [5] and [6]. clpo13(talk) 17:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue to me is that the positions summary seems to consist of the talking points from his opponents. Youngkin himself would say his campaign is largely about job creation, public saftey etc, whereas his opponents would say essentially what the summary says. Would it not be better to write a positions summary that better meets in the middle? lamevon(talk) 14:32, 26 October 2021 (ETC)

The lead should summarize points that are already discussed in the body of the article. The gubernatorial election section of this article discusses Youngkin's views on Trump, vaccines, and critical race theory, and so I summarized those points in the lead. The body of the article currently says nothing about Youngkin's views on the economy or on law enforcement, so I left those topics out of the lead. Something should certainly be said about those topics in the body of the article, but even then, whether or not they should be discussed in the lead depends on how central they are to the news coverage of Youngkin's campaign.

The goal shouldn't be to split the difference between how Youngkin would characterize the campaign and how Youngkin's opponents would like to characterize the campaign. The goal should be to explain how mainstream news sources have characterized the campaign. I've seen countless news stories from major publications that have focused primarily on Youngkin's education policies, but I have not seen the same amount of news coverage about Youngkin's economic policies. So it seems to me that the education policies are worth highlighting over other policies in the lead. Jpcase (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide references for the statements made. Also, if we're going to highlight specific policy positions there is a risk of cherry-picking. Our goal should be to comprehensively detail all relevant policy positions. Vdjj1960 (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References generally aren't used in the lead, but everything that I added to the lead is extensively referenced within the body of the article. The topics that I chose to highlight are the topics about Youngkin that have received the most news coverage. They are also the topics that the body of the article discusses in the greatest amount of detail.

The lead could potentially be expanded to also discuss other topics, but there don't appear to be any other topics discussed at any great length within the body of the article, so there really isn't much else to summarize. Jpcase (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive negative fact-checks

[edit]

There're several excessively negative fact-checks in the politics section that discusses education which makes this article read quite unbalanced and to make matters worse a few fact-checks were removed from his opponent's page, if fact-checks are allowed they should either be on both pages or none at all. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negative fact-checks are the fault of Youngkin. He's making himself look bad through baseless statements. I can see one McAuliffe fact-check in Tenure and one flip-flop noted in Political positions, and I've added more fact-checks there anyway. starship.paint (exalt) 10:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should incorrect fact checks be quoted? That CRT is in schools is not in dispute, it's well documented. Or is the issue that schools don't use the term CRT? That's like claiming to never teach about the Third Reich yet still teaching about The Holocaust, Operation Barbarossa etc. Or should I use a different example since I believe these are no longer taught?
I note the VPM article refers to Politifact and Harvard Law School but talks of CRT as a framework rather than a subject to be taught. Slurs like white fragility aside, it doesn't appear to actually examine what the criticisms entail. The Politifact piece argues CRT is not officially in the curriculum, and that local school systems don't appear to teach CRT as a subject either. Is anyone claiming CRT is a subject though? As the VPM article notes, it's a framework to shape thinking\conclusions. The Virginia DoE has an annual equity conference, but rejects the notion of equity (Which is not equality) as CRT. The DoE advocates anti-racism, Kendi, and his How to be an Antiracist book yet either doesn't seem to consider these highly controversial things CRT, or holds that even if they are, they're just outside viewpoints and resources not official endorsement of viewpoint. Apparently if it's not 'de jure' and only 'de facto' then claiming it as fact is false. Problem is that appears to be relying on a strawman to achieve a gotcha result. Given this distinction is political and the fact\fiction of the claims\counterclaims is dependent on definitions, I'm not sure Wikipedia is likely to resolve the issue. 人族 (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Net worth

[edit]

I removed the net worth parameter from the infobox, as it's now deprecated. If anyone wants to add that content elsewhere in the article, you can find what I removed in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like his net worth has increased rather than depreciated.[1] --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox template parameter has been deprecated, not his net worth. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep makes sense. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ "Glenn Youngkin Is Worth Hundreds Of Millions, But Terry McAuliffe Has The Big Money In The Virginia Governor's Race". Retrieved 27 October 2021.

More neutral term in lead

[edit]

I believe the lead could use a more neutral term. Instead of saying "rising to become its CEO", I think it should be "later becoming its CEO". I have tried to do this myself, but it seems that the same wording keeps being added back in. So, I am seeking consensus and discussion. "Rising" has a more positive connotation, while "becoming" states just what happened: he did become its CEO. I do not think "rising" is a neutral term to use. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 22:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. I went ahead and changed it back to how you had it. Jpcase (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Politician or person

[edit]

A compromise: Leave it as person for now. Then (only) change it to 'politician' if he's elected Virginia governor. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and dodgy wording under political positions.

[edit]

I noticed a few odd choices of words. I know it's deliberately ambiguous political-speak, but don't we have reliable sources that are willing to call a spade a spade?

Youngkin supports the COVID-19 vaccine, but opposes mask and vaccine mandates.

This statement is an oxymoron. He either supports or opposes vaccines. Both cannot be true at the same time.

Asked if he accepts the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change, Youngkin said he does not know what causes climate change and that the cause ultimately does not matter.

The causes of climate change are not in any sort of dispute and feigning ignorance on the subject, or pretending that it's a controversial topic is a standard dodge used by climate change deniers, and his later comments on the clean economy act erases all ambiguity as to what his position is.

There seems to be a distinct lack of scrutiny for these two particular positions, which is a shame, since the article does a pretty good job tearing apart his other positions. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to support vaccines themselves, and oppose vaccine mandates (ex. making the vaccine entirely optional). What would you prefer the second statement be changed to? WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 22:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WhoAteMyButter: It is possible to support vaccines themselves, and oppose vaccine mandates. Uhm... not it isn't. That's literally the position of right wing antivaxxers who are smart enough to know that insane conspiracy theories about population control and chinese microchips will only get them laughed out of the room, so they instead pretend to be the "moderate" middle ground, between the mainstream consensus and fringe quackery on completely black and white issues, such as vaccines, climate change or even the holocaust.
What I would prefer is the addition of reliable sources that describe his positions on vaccines and climate change as fringe, as any compromise between the mainstream position and a fringe position is by definition a fringe position, similar to how his claims about public education are debunked by independent fect checkers. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... it is possible to "support" the vaccine but not mandate such a requirement. This is the case for many individuals. That's not a fringe position, believe it or not that is a very mainstream position. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is like saying it's possible to accept that climate change is real but still question wether it's man-made. It is a fringe position because it contradicts the academic and mainstream consensus. And "many individuals" having a fringe view, doesn't make it any less fringe. That's an ad populum fallacy. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a false equivalence to compare the "support" of vaccines to the acceptance of climate change. Can you elaborate how "supporting" vaccines but opposing mandates contradicts academic and mainstream consensus? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because vaccines only work if people actually take them. Under ideal circumstances, there's no reason why someone wouldn't take the vaccine, barring the negligible minority of people with real health concerns. The mandates would be nothing more than a formality, because people would take the vaccine anyway. But the mandates don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in the context of rampant misinformation, conspiracy theories and anti-vaxxer mass hysteria, spread primarily by the same people who support Youngkin. Being against vaccine mandates is meaningful only to that camp, because it makes it consequence free to be an antivaxxer. So in a roundabout way, from a consequentialist standpoint, opposing vaccine mandates is the same as being an antivaxxer, just as denying man-made climate change is the same as denying climate change. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing vaccine mandates is not the same as being an antivaxxer, you're maintaining an extreme position. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vaccine mandates wouldn't be needed if not for antivaxxers. And having the same position as medical experts on the field is not extreme. Also, wether or not Youngkin is an antivaxxer/climate change denier is not our call to make. If reliable sources refer to him as such, then wikipedia must follow suit. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You started this section indicating that we need to clarify his position. Then you stated that he's speaking double speak and took "the position of right wing antivaxxers who are smart enough to know that insane conspiracy theories about population control and chinese microchips will only get them laughed out of the room, so they instead pretend to be the "moderate" middle ground, between the mainstream consensus and fringe quackery on completely black and white issues, such as vaccines, climate change or even the holocaust." Without a source, that's called original research. Again, opposing vaccine mandates is not the same as being antivax. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings us back to my original point. Are there reliable sources that call him an antivaxxer and a climate-change denier, similar to how there are reliable sources debunking his other talking points? 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PerpetuityGrat: So... I hate to bring this up again after a whole month, but it looks like Merriam-Webster doesn't agree with your assertion that opposing vaccine mandates doesn't make one an antivaxxer, considering that their current definition of the term includes that very thing. By the dictionary definition, Youngkin is very much an antivaxxer. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Youngkin is an antivaxxer, please provide a source. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He oposes vaccine mandates. That fits the definition. Do the sources need to contain the exact word? 46.97.170.115 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, otherwise it's considered WP:Original research, as I stated over a month ago. Find a reputable source that calls him an antivaxxer if that is what you want to include. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of college basketball statistics?

[edit]

Why are Youngkin's rather lackluster college basketball statistics included? Had he been a notable college player it might make sense. In this case, on the verge of Virginia's gubernatorial election, it almost seems they've been included to make him seem a lackluster individual. Goodtablemanners (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the kind of cult of personality that usually develops around right wing public figures, especially in the trump camp, it's possible somebody felt it's necessary to make his statistics known, before the usual suspects start circulating rumours about him being some kind of basketball champion, and using his past scholarship, without context, as evidence. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pennsylvania2: Courtesy pinging Pennsylvania2 who originally added the content. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He played college basketball at the D1 level for Rice. You can call the stats lackluster, but he played in 58 games at a very high level. It should be included as it's part of his biography. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of athletes who at least made the "major leagues" in their sports, are there any other college level athletes with these kind of drab statistics listed in their Wikipedia articles? I'm sure there are tons of far far better college basketball players who don't have a listing of their stats. Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually absurdly rude and in bad faith to assume that someone right wing added the basketball stats... I'd look at Cory Booker as a reference, kind of a similar background. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Booker along with Gerald Ford and Wayne Messam are just some to that I've come across. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether someone who's left wing or right wing or neither added the stats. It just seems silly, that's all. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goodtablemanners: my bad, that was in response to the ip user mentioning the cult of personality comment that didn't provide any substance to this section. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PerpetuityGrat:You misread my comment. I speculated that the basketball statistics were included to combat any possible narrative on the right that he may have been a great basketball player, based on the scholarship. That would be a good faith inclusion, even if undue, so I wasn't assuming bad faith. But such an inclusion WOULD theoretically become justified if such a narrative did start circulating. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This data should not be in the article. It is distracting and irrelevant for a person who is not notable for their college basketball career. KidAd • SPEAK 20:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with KidAd. I think adding the chart and the legend is disruptive a tad. If we look at the article Corey Booker, his college sports career includes only a few sentences, but they're interwoven in the Early life section rather than flat out statistics. I would be a proponent of that, just follow the Booker article. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and college basketball information shouldn't clutter his infobox either. Basic stuff, guys. KidAd • SPEAK 00:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The college football information isn't cluttering Corey Booker's infobox, just mirror that. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a policy. It's basically a variation of the "WP:WHATABOUTX" argument. If Youngkin was not notable for his political campaign, he would not pass WP:NBASKETBALL as a former college player. KidAd • SPEAK 01:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add Governor to the infobox

[edit]

Dave Wasserman has called it for Glenn Youngkin. Should we wait for an official call or can we put the Governor-elect title in the infobox. https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1455692529790328835 RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard to wait until either one nominee concedes, or the official canvassing is over. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NYT has called it for Youngkin if that counts? Youngkin has given his victory speech, McAuliffe however appears to be unwilling to concede. When is the end of the official canvas period if McAuliffe refuses to concede? 人族 (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even CNN has called it for Youngkin. As for McAuliffe? he knows where the Virginia Supreme Court is. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Anybody know how to place the lieutenant governor-elect in the infobox 'above' the outgoing governor? GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I just used "lieutenant_governor" instead of "lieutenant." KidAd • SPEAK 05:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also figured it out. Replaced office with order ;) GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woah woah woah, wikipedia

[edit]

You are portraying youngkin's win in a completely negative light. Can you please change that? 107.77.204.79 (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is experts' opinion, as covered by reliable secondary sources. Find a mainstream reliable source that portrays Youngkin's win as positive. Keep in mind that Fox is not reliable on political topics. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want wikipedia to portray Youngkin's win positively. I just want Wikipedia to portray it neutrally, with no slant. 72.81.153.195 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is giving proportionate representation to what reliable secondary sources say. If experts covered by reliable sources all agree that Youngkin's win is a negative, than that is how the article needs to portray it for it to be neutral. Ignoring such commentary is neither neutral, nor without slant. It is in fact biased in his favor. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does wikipedia decide what sources are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.153.195 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can read a brief explanation about it at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and in more detail at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. clpo13(talk) 19:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lower taxes, reducing government footprint, and putting parents in charge of their kids education seems pretty positive to me. I don't see the problem here, what am I missing? Are you suggesting the Wikipedia is left-biased? No way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.133.250 (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are campaign promises. Please keep in mind that if you're affiliated with Youngkin's campaign, the conflict of interest disqualifies you from editing this article. Also keep in mind that talk pages are for discussions on how to improve an article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"who was elected governor-elect"

[edit]

Is this some sort of cruel joke? Is in lede. Just say "who is governor-elect of Virginia". 2600:1012:B04E:336D:BD84:DB05:E949:5B00 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

[edit]

Mention Youngkin won the Governor election in Virginia 47.186.67.121 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Zoozaz1 talk 23:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Height

[edit]

Washington Post writes today that he now says he's 6' 5"--seems to be what they're using now: [1] Not sure his height is relevant anyway.--Bill Harshaw (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/glenn-youngkin-virginia-trump/2021/11/03/b66bf55e-3cb9-11ec-8ee9-4f14a26749d1_story.html.

Son attempted voter fraud after future Governor father campaigned on this issue

[edit]

It was reported in numerous major reliable sources: Newsweek, Washington Post, CNN, etc. It keeps being removed by two conservative editors (supposedly) as per WP:UNDUE.

I vote that it should be included with one sentence in the article, but I'd like to know other opinions before doing so again. Omnibus (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have mischaracterized the event a number of times. Secondly making assumptions about other editors motives is a personal attack, and says more about your motives for the inclusion of this information. If you read the sources the boy though he could vote because another 17-year old did, he presented ID and was turned away. It is a minor incident that is only tangentially related to his father the subject of this article. Hardyplants (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPBALANCE, Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. And this isn't his son's page. KidAd • SPEAK 01:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This information was not accurately described when first added to the article, but revisions have been made; I support keeping some mention of it in the article, as long as it's described accurately. It's been widely reported upon by numerous mainstream news outlets, and so a short description of it in the Personal life section should not be a violation of WP:UNDUE or WP:BLPBALANCE, as long as care is taken in how the information is presented. --Jpcase (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really belong in the Personal life section to be honest. Just looking at the Joe Biden article for reference, with Hunter Biden, where his son has been covered in the media innumerable times; this is one story about Youngkin's son and doesn't belong in the article to be honest. Not all verifiable content needs to be included in a WP article (WP:ONUS). --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a Hunter Biden article. If there was a Glenn Youngkin's son article, the material would go there. But he isn't notable, so that won't be happening. KidAd • SPEAK 02:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PerpetuityGrat: Controversies regarding Hunter Biden are discussed in the Joe Biden article. E.g. - under the "campaign" subsection of the "2020 presidential campaign" section, the article states, "In September 2019, it was reported that Trump had pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate alleged wrongdoing by Biden and his son Hunter Biden". Then a few sentences down, it states, "Beginning in 2019, Trump and his allies falsely accused Biden of getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired because he was supposedly pursuing an investigation into Burisma Holdings, which employed Hunter Biden." Then further down, it states, "The Senate Homeland Security Committee and Senate Finance Committee, led by Republicans, investigated allegations of wrongdoing by the Bidens in Ukraine, ultimately releasing a report in September 2020 that detailed no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, and concluded that it was "not clear" whether Hunter Biden's role in Burisma "affected U.S. policy toward Ukraine"."
So I do believe that mentioning this information here would be consistent with how the Joe Biden article is written. --Jpcase (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you see a difference. The Trump–Ukraine scandal was a significant incident that tangentially involved Hunter Biden. Glenn Youngkin's son has not played any role in the 2021 gubernatorial campaign. This voting incident has not had an effect on the outcome of the campaign and hasn't even been reported on since after election day. WP:NOTNEWS states Wikipedia is not written in news style. In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context. There isn't any "encyclopedic context" for this news story. KidAd • SPEAK 03:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the two situations are analogous. I'm simply noting that scandals concerning Hunter Biden are indeed mentioned in the Joe Biden article, as one of the above comments seemed to suggest that they weren't. That said, I don't see the Joe Biden article as a very good comparison point for this article; it would certainly be better to consider how articles about other state politicians are written. --Jpcase (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the two situations is a way to express why we include info on one son and not the other. Monumental difference in "news." --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's inherently going to be a difference in the newsworthiness of topics involving a president/vice-president/presidential candidate and those involving a governor-elect (which again, is why it would be more relevant to use articles about state politicians as a comparison point instead of the Biden article).
This story has been the primary focus of news articles published by numerous mainstream news outlets; in addition to the Newsweek, Washington Post, and CNN articles mentioned above by the OP, there are also articles published by NBC, ABC, Reuters, USA Today, The Guardian, Buzzfeed News , and probably others that I haven't seen. I do feel that when a news story about a state politician (or his family) gets international news coverage, it's probably notable enough to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. --Jpcase (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite its coverage, the incident was actually quite uneventful, and there really isn't much to say about it. According to the Washington Post, Youngkin's son did not vote, did not make any false statements, did not disrupt voting and did not commit any election offense. One election official summed it up quite simply: "It was just weird ... Teenagers do stupid things". Cilidus (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It bears noting that The Washington Post itself makes no pronouncements on the legality of the incident, but rather, merely quotes an election official as saying, "The man did not vote. He made no false statements. He did not disrupt voting. Based upon information available to me now, it appears that he committed no election offense as defined in Chapter 10 of the Elections Code". NBC-Washington quotes that same election official in this article and prefaces the quote by writing, "Fairfax County Registrar Scott Konopasek said it’s unclear whether the teenager broke any election laws. Virginia’s criminal code makes it clear that it is a crime to use fraudulent information to vote, but attempting to vote when not eligible and not succeeding is not clearly addressed in the Virginia code, according to Konopasek."
Further, the NBC article that I linked to above states, "The Fairfax County Office of Elections told News4 it was investigating the incident but noted that it's unclear whether any laws were broken since the teen presented proper identification and did not end up casting a vote."
So while the son hasn't been charged and most likely won't be charged, there is some legal ambiguity about the situation. I'm not suggesting that this is some sort of major scandal - personally, I don't think that it is. But I do still feel that it's a somewhat significant news story that holds some relevancy to Youngkin's article. --Jpcase (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Hunter Biden example noted above, let me provide some more solid comparisons. In 2013, the son of U.S. senator Rand Paul was arrested for underage drinking. In 2017, the son of Tim Kaine was arrested and faced misdemeanor charges. Despite being more serious offenses than in the case of Youngkin's son, neither of these incidents are mentioned on the Wikipedia pages of their fathers, as they are very insignificant to their respective biographies. Cilidus (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are better comparisons, although I'm still not sure that they're completely analogous, as they were unrelated to Kaine and Paul's respective political careers. The Youngkin situation is, I think, relevant to Youngkin's political career, because it involved an election that Youngkin was a candidate in.

I'm more or less an INCLUSIONIST, and so if a news story has been the primary focus of articles published by numerous different mainstream news outlets, then I generally feel that it should be included on Wikipedia. So the Tim Kaine situation, I think, would be relevant for Wikipedia; the Paul situation, probably not.

I recognize that there's currently a soft consensus against including the information about Youngkin's son in this article, and so unless others weigh into the conversation to support the information's inclusion or unless further news stories are published about the incident, then I'll support leaving the information out. My view hasn't changed though, and I do still feel that the information would be relevant to the article. --Jpcase (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's mainly three reasons why the incident is insignificant: uncoordinated, unsuccessful, and unremarkable. The case of Youngkin's sons was not part of any grand scheme, was not successful in its purpose, and would not have been covered by any major news outlets if it weren't for his father. Actual cases of campaign fraud involving politicians' sons, see for example Omri Sharon, are much more significant than this. Cilidus (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus may be that the son of a politician who has spread conspiracy theories about voter fraud, has himself attempted voter fraud, twice, to be insignificant, but you have to admit. It's pretty darn ironic. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it an attempt to commit voter fraud is dishonest. He asked if he could vote while providing legitimate identification. He couldn't vote, so he didn't vote. Had it been successful it would have been a different story. Had he used a fake ID, or even been encouraged by his father, it would have been a different story. Cilidus (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That depends. Do reliable sources call it attempted voter fraud? If so, wikipedia needs to follow suit. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia policy, no they do not. While some headlines use this term to describe the incident, WP:RSHEADLINES states that these "are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article." The claim needs to be verified in the body of the text. In fact, reliable sources verify that the incident was not an example of voter fraud: "The man did not vote. He made no false statements. He did not disrupt voting. Based upon information available to me now, it appears that he committed no election offense as defined in Chapter 10 of the Elections Code." Cilidus (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have overlooked something, but I haven't noticed any headlines describing the incident as attempted voter fraud, much less have I seen the body of any news article use that term. So while I do view the incident as both notable and relevant, I don't see any basis for using the term voter fraud when talking about what happened.
That said, it would be an overstatement to suggest that any reliable source has outright dismissed the possibility of voter fraud. No source has made any such proclamation.
To reiterate, The Washington Post itself has taken no stance on the legality of the incident; it merely quoted one individual's opinion, and that individual did not even take a definitive stance on anything, but rather, simply described what the incident "appears" to be, based on "the information available".
The most recent reliable source that I have seen on this said that the incident was being investigated by the Fairfax County Office of Elections. As far as I'm aware, that investigation is ongoing. --Jpcase (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made no claim that sources outright denied the term voter fraud, only that such a description is not justified in regards to the body of RS describing the event. If the investigation is ongoing, let's leave it at that. If Youngkin's son is charged with voter fraud, that would change things. For now, this discussion can be laid to rest. Cilidus (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is why guidelines like WP:HEADLINES & WP:BLPBALANCE exist. I would not include this into the article. There is a lot of editors that do not read the body of the article and just take the headlines as "reliable" sourcing. This is a grave malpractice among Wikipedia editors. Especially when dealing with WP:BLP issues. Eruditess (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about article bloat

[edit]

I share the concern that PerpetuityGrat brought up in the edit history: the article seems to be getting bloated and this is especially a concern if each new event is going to be added in similar detail as recent ones. There definitely seem to be potential issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. For instance, the section "Campaign Twitter attack on teenage activist" is primarily about the actions of Youngkin's campaign, and his direct involvement comes from his reaction after the situation had occurred. It could be worth including, but I don't think this event is nearly as relevant to the long-term view/notability of Youngkin as, say "Day One executive actions" or perhaps "Tipline for 'divisive practices'". Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with the cuts that you made in your most recent edit. I like having lots of detail as a matter of personal preference and do think that the details given in other sections of the article should remain, but I agree that the Twitter incident, while somewhat notable, is not as notable as other news stories from Youngkin's governorship, so tightening up that section is a reasonable way to go. --Jpcase (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Youngkin's election was much higher profile than those of his counterparts across the country—because his election was arguably an upset. But his article should be treated similarly to other gubernatorial BLPs. Can't stress WP:ONUS enough and the ten year test. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Twitter attack section has the exact same problem as #Son attempted voter fraud after future Governor father campaigned on this issue that we discussed a while back – it has barely no relation to Mr. Youngkin at all. Out of the four paragraphs of detail, the section contains only two sentences that are actually related to Youngkin himself. He played no part in authoring or publishing the tweet. The rest of the section suffers excessively from WP:NOTEBOMB, in trying to establish notability by name-dropping sources (including 7 refs for Youngkin's lack of apology, 4 refs for the tweet being deleted, 4 refs for Lynne sharing a correction, and 4 refs for Lynne's 'high school senior' bio). I can only emphasize the regard for WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS and WP:RECENTISM in coverage of this incident. There are plenty of more meaningful and more significant aspects of Mr. Youngkin's governorship. Cilidus (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section, the whole section screams 'got you' and trys to make a case for something that isn't a big deal that his campaign staff did. There's legitimate things going on like the mask mandate ban passing through the legislature that aren't even mentioned. The article, particularly with this section, is beginning to read like a hit piece. There's no way this should get ~10% of his page, frankly it shouldn't even be mentioned. It doesn't involve him directly and it's attacking in nature for no reason (like no laws were broken). I can't think of a reason why this should be included, unless you just want to play 'got you.' 107.77.241.60 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have very strong feelings about the Ethan Lynne section, so if Aplucas0703 and I are the only two in favor of keeping it, then I don't mind having it removed from the article. I do maintain that the information is somewhat relevant though.
Youngkin's national profile in relation to his gubernatorial counterparts doesn't factor into my opinions about coverage. As stated in a previous discussion, I'm an Inclusionist. And as someone interested in the history of Virginia state politics, I've been personally let down by how thin Wikipedia's articles are on the state's previous governors. I'd love to know more about the governorships of Terry McAuliffe or Tim Kaine or Jim Gilmore, etc., but Wikipedia is barely any help in that regard.
I do think that how politicians and their teams use social media is an important, often news-worthy, topic of conversation. Plenty of politicians have controversial tweets discussed in their Wikipedia pages, from Donald Trump, to Marjorie Taylor Greene, to Paul Gosar, to Ilhan Omar. And I get that the Lynne tweet wasn't sent by Youngkin himself. But it was sent by his official campaign account, which means that it reflects on Youngkin's decisions about personnel. If a Youngkin spokesperson gave a statement to the press, and the statement caused controversy, then that situation would reflect on the administration as a whole, even if Youngkin himself didn't directly sign off on the statement. I'm not sure why an official campaign tweet should be viewed much differently. --Jpcase (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the section was expanded a bit too much, and should probably be no more than a paragraph. When I started the section, I really wanted to embed it within another section. The information, I contest, was absolutely relevant. I think the right thing to do might be to create a section on social media usage, and then embed the Ethan Lynne story in that as a subsection. I think that if it ever becomes irrelevant, then it can be deleted. The point of Wikipedia is to function like a living document, changing to the needs of the readers over time.
I also do not believe that it is irrelevant because it is something his campaign did. It isn't like some random person tweeted it. It is his campaign, they speak on his behalf. He has also directly addressed the incident.
There needs to be a middle ground that we find between several paragraphs being written in the article about the incident, and nothing being written in the article about the incident. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the information, if included, would ideally be discussed within a larger section. As things stand now, I'm unaware of any other information that could be added to create a section solely focused on social media usage - which is why I'm amenable to leaving the information out, at least for now. Down the road, there may be value in creating a "First Year in Office" section, or something to that effect, which could serve as a depository for details like this that received significant news coverage but don't quite deserve their own devoted sections within the article.
In the meantime, I'd be fine with restoring the information and trying to condense it down to a single paragraph - if we go that route, then the NPR news story about the historian is arguably the least relevant detail and could probably be cut out entirely. The key details are the tweet itself, the negative reaction to it, and Youngkin's own response. There would of course have to be consensus in favor of re-adding the information though. --Jpcase (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing a Youngkin campaign staffer's tweet showing hypocrisy from a prominent Democratic activist and legislative aide to Trump et al. is ridiculous. The four of them you mentioned have personally sent out extremely hideous statements via Twitter which in many other democracies would be classified as either outright defamation/hate speech or borderline (particularly in the case of Trump's repulsive behavior). Unless his campaign Twitter use becomes a regular fixture of his administration, I think it's irrelevant in the scope of a four-year administration and places undue influence in the article. I'm completely against any mention of it given the present circumstances. Also, I'd like to mention that many progressives support reducing the voting age to 17 or 16, yet sadly too many are now supposedly outraged by this Twitter response. The whole thing is just politics. I wish our society was more consistent and principled. We need to move on from 'got you' culture. I only replied because of that ridiculous comparison. 107.77.241.60 (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am renewing my concern for bloat of this article. This article is approaching 90% the length/content of the article on Joe Biden, who is president of the United States, was vp of the United States, and US Senator for nearly four decades. Youngkin has been in office for not even a year and to have this article even remotely comparable in length is indicative of WP:BLOAT. Personally, the multi-paragraphed section Tipline for "divisive practices" seems unnecessary; just because there is renewed press on this topic doesn't mean it needs to be included (WP:ONUS). Additionally, four paragraphs on the nomination of a single state secretary. And a whole section devoted to a single campaign appearance with another governor (section Campaign appearance with Paul LePage)? Really? What is happening? How is that encyclopedic? Every comment, every action taken to amend a bill, every appearance on air, every criticism, etc.—it doesn't have to be mentioned. At this point the sections on his policy stances are several paragraphs long... like nine paragraphs plus in some cases—this is becoming uncontrollably bloated. I will scream WP:ONUS from the mountaintops: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Profile picture.

[edit]

Just a question. Why don’t we use Governor Younkins official picture? For example we use President Biden‘s official picture on his Wikipedia page. 96.255.140.83 (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with this. I just put his official portrait in the section on his term as governor because there was already a suitable lead image, but using his official portrait as the lead image would also be good. Endwise (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed now. Endwise (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

[edit]

@PerpetuityGrat: - Pinging to discuss your concern that the article is too long. As I've expressed before, my belief is that many Wikipedia articles on governors, including most articles on prior Virginia governors, are far too short. If there's specific information that you think should be cut, then I'm open to spinning some details off into a separate Governorship of Glenn Youngkin article, which is an approach that has been taken with lots of other articles about governors.

It should be noted though, that Virginia has a part-time legislature, which generally meets only for the first few months of each year. So there's naturally going to be a flurry of activity in Virginia politics from January through about April, followed by a lull throughout the rest of the year. The concern was expressed that this article is currently too long for someone who's only been in office for a few months. But, due to the divided legislature, most of Youngkin's actions have come through executive orders, which tend to be most prevalent during the start of a politician's term in office. And there's likely to be a minimal amount of legislation getting passed next year, since - barring special elections - the makeup of the state legislature won't change until 2024. So the article's current length shouldn't be viewed solely through the context of how long Youngkin has spent in office to-date, but should also be viewed with the understanding that these past few months are likely to have been the most active part of what will be Youngkin's first two years in office.

There are still a few big topics that haven't been covered in this article yet that I'd like to add, but after that point, the article is unlikely to require any big expansions for quite awhile. Jpcase (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to NCSL, over half of legislatures are part-time—that is not abnormal. Looking at Washington's Jay Inslee, whose political career started in the 90s, I appreciate the organization. The sections covering each of his terms held in various positions are concise and organized, though I will concede that there is more content that could be added. My prime concern about the Youngkin article is the length because of the inclusion of so much detail. The Cabinet section and subsequent subsections, while important, probably won't fulfill the WP:10YEARTEST. I do appreciate the First year in office section, though a majority of what should be included there is scattered sporadically throughout the article. The 2021 gubernatorial election section is a section I deeply appreciate. I am open to creating article offshoots such as Governorship of Glenn Youngkin or something to that effect. I think the majority of the content in the article is fine and I am appreciative of its inclusion, though I am worried about WP:RECENTISM, WP:ONUS, and the articles length. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Distinguishing between which information should go in the "Governor of Virginia" section and which should go in the "Political positions" section has been a struggle for me. Details that pre-date Youngkin's inauguration, of course, should go in the latter, but details about actions that Youngkin has taken since the start of his term could arguably go in either. The Jay Inslee article solves this problem by not having a "Political positions" section at all.


Someone else made the decision to have a "Political positions" section in Youngkin's article, and while I do think that there are some benefits to having such a section, I agree that it leads to organizational issues. I'm not sure what the best solution to that is.


It makes sense to me actually for the article on Jay Inslee to offer only a brief summary of his governorship, because he's held a variety of different offices over the course of decades. His tenure as governor was part of a much larger career. The lack of a separate article devoted specifically to Inslee's governorship is a real shame though. Readers of Wikipedia with a particular interest in the politics of Washington state aren't going to find anything more than a very cursory overview of Inslee's time as governor, and I see that as a problem.


I recognize that my interest in Virginia politics goes beyond that of the average person. But Youngkin isn't a national figure, he's a state politician, and so - especially in the long-term - the typical reader of this article is likely to be quite interested in Virginia politics. Someone with no personal ties to Virginia, who only cares about Youngkin because they saw recent news coverage about the 2021 election, won't be interested in Youngkin's cabinet ten years from now. But it's very unlikely that such a person will be interested in Youngkin *at all* ten years from now, unless Youngkin goes on to hold additional office. And while major revisions to this article would certainly be needed if Youngkin ever does win a future election, it's premature to be thinking about that. So unless that happens, the type of person most likely to be reading this article ten years from now is someone who will probably want to know some of the finer details about Youngkin's governorship.


Speaking for myself, I'd love to learn all about the cabinets of prior Virginia governors. So what does or doesn't meet the ten-year test is pretty subjective. I do recognize that some of the details currently in this article might fit better in an article specifically about Youngkin's governorship, and I'm open to going that route. But I'm not sure if we need to cross that bridge just yet. Like I said, by the end of this April, I don't anticipate that Youngkin's article will need many big additions through the rest of the year, and the article may not even need many additions next year either. --Jpcase (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too have an interest in learning more about a gubernatorial cabinet and the confirmation process, among other things, but we're at a point where whenever Youngkin is mentioned in the media, that content is incorporated into the article. And not every verifiable piece of information needs to be present in a WP article. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that the article should be covering most major news stories about Youngkin's policies. I'm mainly relying on major publications though, like The Washington Post and The Richmond Times-Dispatch. If a topic is covered exclusively in smaller outlets, then I'm not bothering to include it here in Youngkin's article. And plenty of news stories about Youngkin have been reported that have nothing to do with his policies; I've largely avoided including those here. For example, numerous major publications wrote entire articles about how Youngkin mistook one prominent Black female Virginia state senator for another. (See The Guardian, The Washington Post The Richmond-Times Dispatch, Business Insider, and The Associated Press) And The Washington Post has multiple articles [7] [8] about a conflict between Youngkin and another state legislator. Those stories could be perceived as important by some people, and I may, at some point, want to write something very general about Youngkin's relationship with the state legislature, but I do feel that detailing individual conflicts between Youngkin and specific legislators would be a definite overkill of information, so I've intentionally left those stories out of the article. Even the Ethan Lynne controversy, which I do think is notable enough for one or two sentences somewhere in the article, isn't something that I added to the article myself.
That said, I do think it's important to keep in mind Recentism as a positive. There's no way to know how certain news stories will develop, so I do think there's value in detailing lots of notable stories as they happen. Otherwise, details that may gain greater relevance down the road could be forgotten and important context from those stories could be lost. As long as those stories have been covered by major news outlets and pertain to Youngkin's policies, then I do think they'll remain relevant in the future to anyone seeking a historical understanding of Youngkin's governorship.
If I'm hearing you correctly, it sounds like you don't have an issue with specific content so much as the article's length in general. I can appreciate that concern and do want to ensure that the article isn't overwhelming for readers. My feeling though, is that article length should only matter so much, as long as everything is relevant and well-organized. No one has to read the entire article if they don't want to. If someone is interested only in the Tipline or Youngkin's stance on charter schools, then they can easily navigate to the respective sections of the article that are about those topics. And if someone's looking for a very basic, broad overview of Youngkin's governorship, then that's what the lead is for. If you want to work with me on crafting a lead for the article, then that would a worthwhile addition to the article. Still, I should reiterate that I'm very much open to spinning some information off into a separate article about Youngkin's governorship, if you think that would be worth doing. --Jpcase (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination at this point is to cut the "First Year in Office" section out of this article and to use it as the basis for starting Governorship of Glenn Youngkin. While I feel that the two paragraphs currently in that section - about Youngkin's response to inflation and the Virginia Association of School Superintendents response to Youngkin's education policies - are both noteworthy, they make more sense as supplementary reading for people with a particularly deep interest in learning about Youngkin's governorship. I'd be open to moving much of the cabinet information and perhaps some of the the inauguration details to the spin-off article as well, although I do feel that the sections covering Andrew Wheeler's nomination and Youngkin's restructuring of the Chief Diversity Officer position are uniquely notable and should remain here in this article - likewise for the sections on the Day 1 Executive Orders and the Tipline. I'd like to see the "Political positions" section remain mostly as it is, except for the "Criminal justice" subsection; that paragraph - about Youngkin's first veto - would probably be a better fit for the spinoff article.
There are still some additions that I'd like to make here at the main Youngkin article in the coming weeks, but the spinoff article should hopefully help ensure that the length of this article remains reasonable. --Jpcase (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the moves so far are totally sufficient. Thank you for spearheading this! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this article is extremely long, so long as to be overwhelming. i'm a random dude but the article length on random politician is insanity or astroturfing. 173.174.75.3 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mother v. Pregnant Patient

[edit]

@Dronebogus thanks for the explanation for the reversion you gave on my talk page, however I must respectfully disagee.

The section about abortion policy is about biological motherhood, not the human construction of gender, so it does not make sense to use vague language for a sex specific medical issue. "Mother" refers to the female parent of offspring (see Mother article). So there is no reason to use such language in a purely physical, not social medical context. Especially if sources themselves don't say it.

24.44.73.34 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 election

[edit]

Jpcase Youngkin failing to comment on the 2020 election isn't a political position that is still substantially covered in the media and therefore does not belong in that section. It was a matter of the 2021 campaign, and it is covered in that section in detail. After the 2021 campaign the issue was irrelevant to him, Virginia, the media, and his political opponents, while his views on abortion, taxes, race, covid-19 etc. are all still discussed. Bill Williams 12:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage about Youngkin does continue to discuss this. Fairly frequently. The quote that you removed was published nearly a full year after the 2021 campaign was over. You may personally consider the issue to be less relevant than others, but the fact that this continues to be discussed on a somewhat regular basis in news articles about Youngkin shows that political reporters do consider it to be among the more notable positions that Youngkin has taken throughout his career. Additionally, when sources like The Washington Post (or The Guardian, in this article published half-a-year after the election) say that Youngkin "flirted" with "conspiracy theories" or "false claims" about 2020, they aren't solely referring to his delay in acknowledging that Biden won the election; they're also referring to Youngkin's use of Amanda Chase as a campaign surrogate and his calls for a repeat audit of Virginia's 2020 election results. --Jpcase (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has zero to do with his "tenure and political positions" and shouldn't be at the top of the section, which implies it summarizes different elements of the section. It only relates to his gubernatorial campaign, and is already mentioned in that section. There is no reason to repeat the same thing in a separate section that is unrelated. Bill Williams 01:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe I've said in an earlier edit summary, political positions taken during a campaign are still political positions. And the top of the "Political positions and tenure" section was not intended to summarize its subsequent subsections in the way that the article's lead summarizes the body of the article, but rather, was intended to explain Youngkin's general place within the Republican Party's ideological spectrum. The varying responses taken within the Republican Party to 2020's election results, and to Trumpism in general, have been among the main dividing lines over the last several years within American conservatism. How Youngkin has engaged with those issues is highly relevant to his political positions, not just to his gubernatorial campaign. --Jpcase (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely misleading to put something that was only relevant during his campaign in a section that is about all of his political views and his tenure as governor. Using direct quotes from sources about how Youngkin relates to Trump is just incredibly misleading and tells them nothing about Youngkin besides vaguely painting him as Trump. The entire section describes his positions in detail, so these quotes add nothing to the reader's benefit that isn't already in his gubernatorial campaign section. Bill Williams 05:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, we're just talking in circles. I understand that you consider this "irrelevant", and you have every right to feel that way. But our personal feelings shouldn't be determining how Youngkin's political career is covered. The article needs to reflect how sources have discussed Youngkin's career, and as I've pointed out, Youngkin's response to the 2020 election results continues to be frequently discussed by mainstream news outlets. If this had become irrelevant to journalists after the election, then they wouldn't still be writing about it so consistently.
I'm not interested in edit warring with you, which is why I've left a number of your edits unchanged, even though I disagree with them. I'm hoping that we can both be willing to give a little bit of ground on this. If you strongly feel that the top of "Tenure and political positions" shouldn't be mentioning political positions taken by Youngkin during his campaign (or his affiliation with Amanda Chase), then I won't continue to push back on that. What I'd ask in return is that the article's lead be left in its current state. --Jpcase (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with personal feelings, my point is that you are misrepresenting what is DUE and notable for the article. The sources never state that Youngkin calls himself an ally of Trump or Amanda Chase, and claiming that he does in the article is false. It is true that he has taken specific positions on Trump and the 2020 election, but putting that in the lead as if that is one of the most important things about Youngkin is absurd, because all it adds to the lead is "Youngkin disagrees with this one specific person." Bill Williams 23:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also am not going to edit war over the mentions over Trump at the top of the "Tenure and political positions" section, but I do not believe it should be mentioned there, because saying his positions are like Trump is not backed up by his actual positions. Trump has criticized Youngkin a number of times in the past month alone and it lists zero specific examples of how they have the same positions, therefore providing no benefit to the reader. Bill Williams 23:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times and The Washington Post report the following:

  • [Youngkin] worked early in the campaign to win Trump’s favor, and he received Trump’s endorsement immediately after his nomination. [9]
  • Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin and Trump repeatedly spoke by phone over the course of the campaign, according to people familiar with the conversations who were not authorized to speak publicly, allowing the two men to go the length of the contest without saying negative things about each other or clashing on strategy. [10]
  • After winning the G.O.P. nomination at a party convention in May, Mr. Trump endorsed him and Mr. Youngkin told a conservative radio host that he was honored. Yet while Mr. Youngkin’s top political aide, Jeff Roe, maintained a line of communication to Mr. Trump’s top political aide, Susie Wiles, the former president kept the Virginia campaign on edge in the weeks before Election Day. The two sides worked to arrange Mr. Trump’s “tele-rally” on the eve of the election, according to an aide to Mr. Youngkin, but there was no coordination on what the former president would say. [11]

If "working to earn Trump's favor", saying that he was "honored" to accept Trump's endorsement, arranging to have Trump speak at a campaign rally for him, and coordinating with Trump on strategy doesn't mean that Youngkin has, at least at one time in his career, treated Trump as a political ally, then...how should one view all of those details about Youngkin? That Youngkin has never "called himself" an ally of Trump is irrelevant. The lead never stated that Youngkin "called himself an ally of Trump". The lead stated that Youngkin "positioned himself as an ally of Trump", and those quotes I just shared very clearly describe Youngkin treating Trump as a political ally.

That Trump "has criticized Youngkin a number of times in the past month" matters even less. Trump has criticized a lot of his political allies. He's even criticized Mike Pence. Would you argue that it's inaccurate to describe Pence as a Trump ally simply because Trump has made some statements criticizing Pence?

all it adds to the lead is "Youngkin disagrees with this one specific person" - this statement you made completely ignores the fact that Youngkin waited until almost half a year after the election before disagreeing with Trump on the election results. You may not consider that fact to be relevant. But news sources do consider it to be relevant. I've pointed you to several sources from mainstream news outlets that treat it is relevant. I've pointed you to recent sources from mainstream news outlets that treat it is as relevant. If you personally consider it "absurd" that news outlets continue to treat it as relevant, then well, that's your right. I'm not trying to convince you that it's relevant. I'm not asking you to agree with news outlets about what is and isn't relevant. I'm just hoping that you'll agree that when news outlets consistently treat a topic as relevant, we should consider that topic as relevant for the purposes of this article, even in cases where we may disagree with which topics those outlets choose to prioritize.

As for Amanda Chase, the source that was provided states that Youngkin "has nurtured a bond" with Chase and "treated Chase to an unorthodox, private bill-signing" even though Chase had been "on the outs" with most other Virginia Republicans. Then there's also the fact that Youngkin employed Chase as an official campaign surrogate, well after she had already been censured by Virginia Republicans. So again, the fact that Youngkin himself has never used the word "ally" to describe his relationship with Chase matters far less than the fact that news articles clearly and consistently describe Youngkin treating Chase as a political ally.

But as I've already said, I'm willing to leave mention of Chase out of the Political Positions section. I'm willing to leave statements about political positions taken by Youngkin during the campaign out of the Political Positions section. But I'm not okay with removing any mention of Youngkin's political association with Trump from the article's lead. --Jpcase (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to self revert because you're using original research to make determinations that are not stated in the sources. Zero times do those two citations quote Youngkin "positioning himself as an ally," they simply state that he was happy to take Trump's endorsement, that's not that same thing at all and it's extremely disingenuous to treat them as such. You're using OR to make things DUE that are not due, like Youngkin's statement on the 2020 election, which again is something Youngkin disagrees with Trump on so the exact time he stated that belief is irrelevant. Unless you can find a reliable source that makes it notable, stop adding it to the article. Bill Williams 02:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be removed as failing verification, because your quotes from "multiple sources" simply state that Youngkin worked to make sure he wasn't hated by the leader of the Republican party, which is something almost every primary candidate engages in. It never says he treated him as an ally, it just says he allowed Trump to hold a telerally for him and was okay with it occurring. You're adding editorialization to what the reliable sources state. Bill Williams 02:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources never use the word "ally", but just because a specific word doesn't happen to appear in a source, doesn't mean it's OR to use that word when summarizing the source's statements. Arranging to have someone appear at a campaign rally is equivalent to treating that person as a political ally. Coordinating with someone on campaign strategy is equivalent to treating that person as a political ally. Anyone who is given a speaking slot at an official campaign rally is being treated as a political ally by the person running that campaign. Anyone who collaborates with a campaign on strategy is being treated as an ally by the person running that campaign. And not every Republican primary candidate has sought out Trump's endorsement. Most do, sure, but there are notable exceptions. Youngkin is not one of those exceptions. The suggestion that someone could accept an endorsement from a politician that they aren't treating as a political ally makes no sense.
In addition to all that, Youngkin has stated that he would support Trump if Trump is nominated by the Republican Party for another presidential term [12]- a stance that several Republican politicians have not taken - and has spoken out vocally in defense of Trump after Trump became the subject of federal investigation. [13] [14] None of this means that Youngkin supports every single thing about Trump, which is why the lead also clearly states that Youngkin has distanced himself from Trump on some issues. But it is not OR to say that Youngkin has, at least up to this point in his career, treated Trump as a political ally. --Jpcase (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zero sources show that Youngkin considers Trump to be his ally, and the source you provides never states this. You are interpreting the source in an extremely misleading way, because zero times does it state that they are allies using the term "ally" or any synonym of it. Working with Trump on individual things does not mean he considers Trump to be his ally, even Joe Manchin voted with Trump 50% of the time, should we add that they're allies to his article lead? Bill Williams 05:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is the Youngkin campaign was trying to stop Trump from having a primary role in the campaign and they convinced him to do the phone rally to shut him up. Now Youngkin is thinking about a run for the presidency and Trump's attacking him. Seems like a stretch to call them allies. This page also seems like it's overly negative towards Youngkin by repeatedly bringing up things he's done and juxtaposing it with how Democrats disagree, unions disagree (who are generally Democratic proxies like business groups are with the GOP), and 'look we found some experts who do as well' when you can find some sort of expert to agree or disagree with just about any remotely non-extreme position. The page brings up Youngkin's predecessor too much as well. Other political pages don't harp on about their predecessor like this one. I feel like a neutral set of editor(s) need to come in and correct some of this bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.116.83.14 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that Youngkin "worked early in the campaign to win Trump’s favor" and "repeatedly spoke by phone over the course of the campaign" with Trump "allowing the two men to go the length of the contest without saying negative things about each other or clashing on strategy." Those are direct quotes from mainstream news sources. I've seen no sources suggesting that Youngkin wanted to "shut Trump up".
I'm aware that Youngkin has kept a certain amount of public distance from Trump, but it's a verifiable fact that the two of them privately maintained close ties throughout the campaign. To suggest that those close ties are irrelevant simply because they were somewhat de-emphasized by Youngkin in public settings does not at all feel like a neutral argument - especially considering that Youngkin did make several pro-Trump statements in public. And if we're going to make comparisons with the Joe Manchin article, then well, that article does state in its lead that Manchin supported Trump on some key issues. So while I'm very open to debating the exact language that we use to describe Youngkin's ties to Trump, it would be inconsistent with the Manchin article to completely omit all mention of those ties from the lead of Youngkin's own article.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the suggestion that "working to earn" a politician's "favor", accepting that politician's endorsement, and coordinating with that politician on campaign strategy aren't each synonymous with treating the politician as an "ally". But I understand that "ally" is a strong term, and if the argument is that we should only use language that can be directly sourced, then I'm open to reworking the language. How would you feel about mentioning Youngkin's ties to Trump in the lead, so long as the language more closely matches the exact language used in available sources? --Jpcase (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's point is valid that Trump and Youngkin certainly are not "allies" and mentioning such a nonsensical thing in the lead is misleading to readers. Youngkin worked with Trump during his primary because Trump was the leader of the GOP, there is nothing about that making them "allies" and you have provided no sources that state they are allies. Unless you can provide any, it should stay out of the article. Bill Williams 04:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated that I'm not attached to term "ally". But there are plenty of available sources out there describing Youngkin as close to Trump and Trumpism, using much more explicit terms than are used in the sources that I've already provided. If the lead describes Youngkin's political ties to Trump in terms matching those sources, would that solve your objections? Or is your position that the lead can't mention Trump in any context under any circumstances, regardless of what sources say about the two of them? --Jpcase (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youngkin's Focus as Governor

[edit]

The lead says, "As governor, Youngkin has focused heavily on culture war issues pertaining to race and gender identity in public education." We could phrase that more neutrally if it were true, so that it doesn't paint him as divisive, contentious, and confrontational. For example, something like, "As governor, Youngkin's legislative priorities have focused on issues pertaining to race and gender identity in public education." But, anyway, it's not correct; his priorities, agenda, and accomplishments have been more wide-ranging.

I recommend this detailed analysis: Rankin, Sarah and Price, Michelle. “Youngkin scores some legislative wins as he eyes White House”, Associated Press (12 Mar 2023).

Lots and lots of issues and accomplishments are discussed by AP, with only a little bit about race and gender or the like. According to the first three paragraphs of the AP analysis (emphasis added):

  • He "has earned a series of wins, including measures taking a tougher stance against China"
  • "But many of his legislative priorities, such as a push for more tax cuts, are tied up in budget negotiations."
  • "Proposals to restrict abortion access or tighten penalties for criminals, were stymied by Democrats"

The remainder of the article described the rest of his priorities and agenda, not including those described above:

  • "The first piece of legislation the governor has promoted with a formal bill-signing is one that aims to make it easier for licensed or experienced workers such as barbers and cosmetologists to move to Virginia and get straight to work.
  • "[A] union and business-backed measure streamlining now-scattered workforce development programs under one agency, [was] among the measures he most pleased to see pass."
  • “his proposal for a major boost in mental health spending and an expansion of childhood literacy and school innovation initiatives”
  • "His administration has won praise from consumer advocates for the role it played in a compromise measure that would restore some oversight to regulators who set the rates and profitability of Dominion Energy.
  • "[A] new definition of antisemitism in state code that supporters say will help the Virginia track and combat hate toward the Jewish community."
  • "Youngkin cast Democrats as intransigent on 'commonsense' issues, including a bill he sought that would have allowed prosecutors to bring murder charges against drug dealers if a user dies of an overdose."
  • "Youngkin and his wife, Suzanne, through her advocacy work, have made combating the threat of fentanyl a vocal priority."

Our lead says, "As governor, Youngkin has focused heavily on culture war issues pertaining to race and gender identity in public education." The term "culture war" isn't even mentioned in the body of the article, and I think this sentence of the lead is misleading and ought to be removed or rewritten. I would suggest something like, "As governor, Youngkin has taken a generally conservative stance, addressing culture war issues, toughening measures with regard to China, prioritizing tax cuts, tougher penalties for criminals, regulatory efficiency, educationsal and mental health initiatives, and fighting fentanyl and antisemitism." Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does mention other aspects of his governorship, such as tax cuts, and can certainly be expanded to discuss additional topics. But it's accurate to say that he has placed a special focus on culture war issues pertaining to education, so I don't think that should be changed. The body of the article actually does quote The New York Times using the term "cultural war zone" in relation to Youngkin's education policies. And here's a Washington Post article that refers to "Youngkin’s heavy focus on educational issues as governor", particularly in relation to "cultural matters". --Jpcase (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s true that education was a key theme of Youngkin’s campaign. Per the WaPo article you mention: “Stephen Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington, said Youngkin’s heavy focus on educational issues as governor is in line with his promises as a candidate.” But that heavy focus on education has been much broader than critical race theory. I’ve already pointed out above that Youngkin has supported an expansion of childhood literacy and school innovation initiatives, per Associated Press. Also, Youngkin has called for higher standards of accreditation in math, reading and history, and opposed “soft bigotry of low expectations.”[15] Additionally, he has supported “a record investment in education including a significant boost in teacher pay”, plus more charter schools.[16] So all of that supports Professor Farnsworth’s statement in WaPo about Youngkin’s heavy focus on education, quite apart from CRT. Regarding CRT, “the Virginia Department of Education has repeatedly insisted [it] is not taught in any Virginia classrooms,”[17] which strongly suggests there is not so much a “war” about CRT in Virginia, so much as widespread consensus. CRT is only a small part of his overall heavy focus on education, as best I can tell. As for the NYT article you cite, it was written before Youngkin became governor (even before he was elected), so it is not very relevant in a sentence of our lead that begins "As governor...." Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like any governor, Youngkin has supported a wide variety of policies. But a policy should only be summarised by the lead if that policy has (A) already been discussed a lot within the body of the article and (B) been widely covered by the news over a sustained period of time. The policies currently discussed in the lead largely reflect which policies have been discussed the most within the body of the article. And Youngkin's views on topics like CRT and transgender students have received far more news coverage than his views on, say, early childhood literacy. His views on charter schools are discussed a good amount in the article and something about that could perhaps be added to the lead, but it would arguably be premature, as no charter schools have actually been established in Virginia under Youngkin. In contrast, Youngkin has enacted real policy changes around issues like CRT, transgender students, mask mandates, and sexual topics within school curriculum. The lead's focus on education policy is not solely about cultural matters though, as increased funding for education is also discussed.
Youngkin's very first executive action was about racial equity programs, such as CRT. This was generally seen by major news sources as a sign of Youngkin's priorities as governor. And while CRT has never been taught in K-12 classrooms, it was discussed within training materials and such before Youngkin's term, which is why the lead says that the order "banned discussion within the state's school system" of CRT instead of saying that the order "banned teaching" of CRT. The "culture war" isn't about whether CRT should be taught in classrooms, it's about whether CRT, or more broadly, racial equity programs in general, should inform any aspects of state education policy.
To date, Youngkin has done one CNN Town Hall, which was held last March - about a year into his governorship. The town hall was officially called "The War Over Education". Youngkin discussed a lot of different educational policies in the town hall, not all of them cultural. But the very first lines of the program's introduction were: The war over education. It's turned schools into culture war battlefields.
The town hall was largely focused on culture war issues, and I can add it as a source to the article if it would help. I can also pull up more sources from the past year that mention Youngkin's focus on culture war issues, though I don't think it's really necessary. All of the culture war issues that were discussed in the cited New York Times source have continued to be a major focus of Youngkin's governorship, and the body of the article shows that with its extensive coverage of Youngkin's actions on those policies since he took office. --Jpcase (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead's mention of a "heavy focus" was grabbed from a statement by a professor quoted by WaPo that Youngkin has had a "heavy focus on educational issues as governor". We have thus distorted the source. Additionally, if there's been a heavy focus in the media on culture war issues, that's not the same thing as the media saying Youngkin has heavily focused on culture war issues. In fact, they're very different things. So I disagree with this revert of yours. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow why you consider the statement a distortion of the source. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding you, but is it because the quote only mentions "educational issues" instead of specifying cultural educational issues? The statement from Farnsworth was made in the context of a larger discussion specifically about cultural issues. He immediately follows that quote with a statement about Youngkin's "efforts to lean in on cultural matters". So I do think that Farnsworth's statement supports the view that Youngkin has heavily focused on cultural issues. Yes, there are other notable aspects of Youngkin's education policies, particularly the increases to funding, but the budget is already discussed in the lead, so I think that there's a good overview of the main topics. --Jpcase (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, WaPo was not speaking in its own voice about Youngkin's "heavy focus", so we should probably provide in-text attribution. Second, that sentence of Farnsworth only mentions "educational issues" which we know from reliable sources have broadly been a top priority of Youngkin (described above). Farnsworth obviously wanted to characterize Youngkin's whole educational program as a heavy focus, rather than characterizing only a relatively small part of it that way. Just like Farnsworth, I do support mentioning in the lead Youngkin's CRT position, but not as though that alone was the subject of Youngkin's "heavy focus." It wasn't and isn't. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Farnsworth's statement was made in the context of a discussion that was very specifically about cultural issues, so I disagree with the idea that he wasn't talking specifically about cultural issues. But regardless, the lead isn't based solely on Farnsworth's quote; it's based on the totality of numerous news articles that are included as sources in the article. We have many, many sources about Youngkin's actions on cultural education issues, far fewer about most other aspects of his education policies. This doesn't mean his other education policies are unimportant, just that they have been less reported upon. And again, the lead should only summarize those policies of Youngkin's that have received major, sustained news coverage.
The lead doesn't say that CRT has been the lone subject of Youngkin's focus on education. Other cultural issues, such as gender, sexuality, and Covid are discussed, as is the non-cultural issue of school funding. And I'd be fine with adding more non-cultural education policies to the lead, so long as those policies have actually been enacted through legislation or executive action and have received a comparable amount of news coverage to the policies already mentioned in the lead. Currently, I don't think that there are any other education policies of Youngkin's that meet both of those criteria. If any charter schools are actually established in Virginia, then that would be a clear topic to include in the lead, but like I said, it's premature at the moment, as far less has actually happened on that issue than on issues like CRT, Covid policies, or the budget. --Jpcase (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not going to keep arguing with you about this. For JFK most of the stuff written about him was about his death. That means his assassination belongs in his lead. It doesn’t mean we should say in that lead that most of his thoughts and concerns were about his own death and everything else he focused on was secondary to that. You’re conflating the heavy focus of reliable sources versus the heavy focus of the article subject. Plus putting words in Farnsworth’s mouth. Let’s see if anyone else has an opinion about it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an untrue and absurd and irrelevant comparison. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is more reporting on Youngkin's cultural policies than there is on his other policies expressly because reporters consider the cultural policies to be the ones that Youngkin has prioritized. If he hadn't placed a heavy focus on the topic, then there wouldn't be much to report on. If it would help to see a news article explicitly stating, without any ambiguity, that Youngkin has focused on culture wars issues pertaining to education, then I can understand and address that concern. Here are two more Washington Post articles, each published a year into Youngkin's term. [18] [19] In the first article, the reporter writes about Youngkin, "He has leaned into culture wars in K-12 education." In the second article, the reporter discusses Youngkin's stances on cultural education issues such as race and gender, then writes that Youngkin "has continued to center those stances in office". I can go ahead and work these sources into the body of the article. --Jpcase (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Youngkin&oldid=1254545546"