Jump to content

Talk:JD Vance/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Appearance at Christian nationalist event

FMSky, why do you believe this is irrelevant and undue?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1248958016 soibangla (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

He speaks at hundrets of events --FMSky (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
are all his events so notable that the NYT and WaPo publish dedicated stories about them and NewsHour runs a dedicated segment? soibangla (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
while FMSky considers that, do others believe the content should be restored? soibangla (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Not necessarily opposed to some of it being included, but definitely isn't significant enough to warrant it's own entire section. Just10A (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I would keep the parapgraph but drop the header, I agree with Just10A that the content is due but its not significant (or long) enough to warrant it's own section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
No, WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Thus far editors haven't shown evidence that this appearance will have any WP:LASTING impact on Vance's life. Since he is in an election campaign at the moment there is some argument that it could go there, depending on whether or not it's had any impact on the campaign. Eg, major drop in polls as a result, etc. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you are fundamentally mistaken about the applicability of WP:LASTING in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. The coverage we're talking about is quite routine and seems to meet the criteria described in WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:DEPTH. I'd be interested in seeing any secondary sources which explain how Vance speaking at this event will have any lasting impact on his personal or professional life. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
What does the notability of events have to do with this discussion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
This is definitely significant enough to get mentioned here, but perhaps does not need it's own section header. Please restore the removed content. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I still don't see how this is of lasting significance but I have restored a shortened version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1249514592 --FMSky (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
You seem to be approaching this backwards... We add it now and if it isn't of lasting significance it gets removed later. You seem to be taking a thought experiment as practical guidance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
The version it sits at now is good. It mentions it but does not devote an entire section to it. Green light from me. I think this issue is resolved. Just10A (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Excluding who the host does a disservice to the readers. It appears that the new version is way too censored. Per Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so." Wozal (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
No one is proposing it be censored on the grounds that it is offensive. Just10A (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, it should be omitted because it's irrelevant. Nothing about it is objectionable or offensive. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@Kcmastrpc: In what world is a political meeting with Christian Nationalists and election deniers either "routine" (your words above) or "irrelevant"? The United States is a democracy, and courting the support of people who are opposed to those values should in no way be considered the norm. We also must follow what the sources say, so this isn't really up for us to decide based on personal preferences and opinion. Reliable sources have made mention of this, and so should we. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:VNOT Just10A (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@Just10A: Okay sure. So (aside from your partisan beliefs) why not include this pertinent information? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Do not engage in personal attacks. The reason why consensus has not decided upon it's inclusion is already outlined by multiple other editors. I'm just directing you toward policy. Just10A (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you have it backward, the onus is on editors to demonstrate why it should be included. I already mentioned above that the current sources don't rise above the level of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I realize we're here talking about JD Vance, but perhaps we should mention that Joe Biden eulogized Robert Byrd[1] on his BLP? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@Kcmastrpc: Yes, feel free to take that discussion to the Biden page.
But also: you failed to address my comment above, which I will reiterate - In what world is a political meeting with Christian Nationalists and election deniers either "routine" (your words above) or "irrelevant" (also your words)? The United States is a democracy, and courting the support of people who are opposed to those values should in no way be considered the norm.
Care to comment on how that doesn't rise above the pale? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Because the sources cited talk about Lance Wallnau and how he and Vance did not interact with each other. I don't see anywhere in those sources mention Vance discussed topics on election denialism or Christian nationalism at the event. The sources don't say Vance has ever acknowledged Wallnau's views either. Wikipedia doesn't engage in WP:OR and create narratives that don't exist. Sorry. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Vance attended a town hall hosted by Wallnau, and New Apostolic Reformation discusses how the group acts by stealth and obfuscation to conceal its activities from the secular world. soibangla (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but do multiple reliable sources that have covered this event make the bold assertion that Vance is directly supportive of that movement as to make it WP:DUE for his BLP? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Thats not what would make it due or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
this is not about anyone else's BLP, it is about three top-tier secondary sources reporting in dedicated stories about Vance associating with people who advocate Christian dominion over all aspects of American society. I recommend editors read New Apostolic Reformation in depth. soibangla (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree, this is a WP:BLP about JD Vance, it's not about Lance Wallnau, Christian Nationalism or New Apostolic Reformation. See WP:COATRACK Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Coatrack articles doesn't appear to apply here Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:BITR seems applicable, but I'll just leave it at, "I disagree." Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
How is BITR applicable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you move on from this discussion by any chance? --FMSky (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@FMSky: "Moving on" would certainly benefit your interests in keeping this information suppressed, now wouldn't it?
How about engaging in the discussion, rather than working to stifle it? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Because engaging with it is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The reasons why a significant amount of people don't support it's inclusion has already been explained to you multiple times (primarily by @Kcmastrpc's posts). WP:VNOT and WP:LASTING seems to apply here. Just10A (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't characterize two or three people as a "significant amount" of non-support. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, considering only ~6 people are substantially contributing to this thread, I'm afraid thats how mathematics works. Regardless, it's WP:IDONTHEARTHAT Just10A (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I see it as I heard your arguments, I don't find them persuasive, and I won't yield to them soibangla (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
@Just10A: Using that math, we could also say there is "significant support" for inclusion then. :)
This is not a vote afterall, and I simply disagree with your arguments and find them to be unconvincing. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Correct. That's how the word "significant" works. It's not mutually exclusive. Glad to help with that.
Unfortunately, I'm not going off of what "I see it as" or whether or not "I simply disagree with your arguments" I'm going off of Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Just10A (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
@Just10A: Yes, you are basing arguments against inclusion on incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia policy. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
And wikipedia behavioral guidelines say that competence is required... An example of incompetence (and IDNHT) would be insisting that WP:LASTING applies to a discussion that isn't about the notability of a topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
You're right, that was a typo. I meant to cite WP:NOCON about living persons. (which, just to be clear, actually gives us ground to remove the paragraph entirely as was originally done. The current inclusion is actually generous if anything.)
Anyway, it's been explained multiple times now why people have issue with the matter, and why it was modified/removed per WP:VNOT, and it doesn't need to be rehashed. Have a good day. Just10A (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree that LASTING does not apply... However that would mean that we do actually have a consenus of policy and guideline based arguments to include. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Just because sources cover his appearance at this event doesn't imply it's worthy of inclusion, and for us to include coverage of this would require WP:ECREE per WP:TRUE. The issue with including this prose to suggest that Vance is associated with said organization is that very few sources have established that as fact, and the few that suggested the association has been attributed by non-notable individuals who have no weight for inclusion in a BLP.
This prose can probably go in the campaign article or in an article about the event itself, but it has absolutely no DUE weight for inclusion in Vance's BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
We appear to have a consensus of policy and guideline based arguments to include, also this is not an extraordinary claim... It is in keeping with the public image of the subject and appears to be within character. Vance spoke at their event, that is an association. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
There are two problems with the proposed addition:
1. We need more than just a few WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources that mention he showed up to speak at an event to put in Wikivoice that he's associated with that organization. That's the exceptional claim part, so far I've seen very little weight to that claim.
2. Him showing up at this event and speaking is trivial without the above, and editors absolutely cannot SYNTH or OR their way into including such a claim either attributed or in wikivoice to make it non-trivial and DUE.
In summary, find more sources which put weight onto this appearance and how it's had any effect on Vance's public perception, life, or career. There are policy based reasons to not mention anything more than he spoke at the event (see #1 and #2), and I would argue including his attendance at the event is UNDUE because there's nothing significant about his speech that night or his (lack of) interaction with the controversial figures present. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
The disputed text [1] does not include a wikivoice claim that Vance is associated with that organization. There is no SYNTH or OR here and what you are describing would not be SYNTH or OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
We're going around in circles, which seems to be a pattern I've noticed. The rationale for removing that was discussed and editors are objecting because it's largely undue, there hasn't been a strong policy based reason to include information about the organizers and funders of the event Vance spoke at. WP:BIT / WP:V just isn't good enough, editors have failed to demonstrate why it's DUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
We aren't going around in circles, I just completely demolished your two part argument. The strong policy based reason to include is that the sources include it, they treat it as important context which means that we should also treat it as important context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, just because some sources go into detail about an event JD Vance attended and spoke at doesn't guarantee that we must include details about the event, the organizers, or the associations of those organizers in Vance's BLP. You've repeatedly failed to demonstrate why we should outside of WP:BIT, which isn't good enough. Feel free to keep trying though. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Its not a level of detail that they go into about other events, they seem to single this one out as particularly important which is why more coverage is due than of other events. Arguing to include it because the sources put empahsis on it is not WP:BIT... Its the most common DUE argument that gets made on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
well that's an odd thing to ask soibangla (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
the content was and remains about what Vance did, he is the protagonist here, not Wallnau
it is both due and relevant soibangla (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to step away, so as to not bludgeon the discussion and let other editors weigh in but seeing that Vance did not interact with Wallnau or make any statements in support of his political activities I simply don't see how it's due or relevant. This is essentially guilt by association, and I don't see how coatracking some activists name and associations in an article about Vance without a plurality of reliable sources making such an assertion is nothing more but original research and synth. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
So you can't see that its in the sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
The only thing that I saw which could be interpreted as such is an attributed quote to a doctoral student. Not really something I'd be comfortable putting in a VP candidates BLP. Gaspard-Hogewood said Vance’s appearance at the Courage Tour lends credence to Wallnau’s extremist views. “The message it sends is that Vance is not against what Lance Wallnau is saying and preaching,” Gaspard-Hogewood said. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Then you can argue it isn't due... But that not original research/synth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree with this analysis. Anything more than the article's current state would be getting into tangental/undue territory. Just10A (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Links to sources are readily available for any who want extra details. The organizer didn't speak or appear with Vance. —ADavidB 17:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Length wasn't a problem, the original paragraph is an apropriate length it just shouldn't be its own section. Your short is much too short, at a minimun it should mention Lance Wallnau and New Apostolic Reformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how any of those things pertain to JD Vance, did he voice support for those individuals or organizations directly? Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
The sources treat it as pertinent context, I don't see any reason to second guess them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
agree soibangla (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems like this should be included if there are articles about this event specifically, which lifts it above the average campaign event. Cortador (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Thats not a policy or guideline based reason to oppose inclusion. Please make an argument we will actually be able to judge rather than be forced to reject out of hand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/10497254

"American conspiracy theorists" category

Other than the disgusting notion that pets are being eaten in Springfield, OH, what other conspiracy theories has he promoted in the past or is actively promoting? I ask because I found only two uses of the word conspiracy (none for conspiracist) in the article: one in reference to Jack Posobiec, and the other for the category "American conspiracy theorists". So, given the current state of the article, is it appropriate to continue to use that category, despite there only being one known conspiracy theory in there? Unknown0124 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

He's done a bit more than just the eating pets one. See PBS and New Republic. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. Unknown0124 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Seems like adding the category is appropriate provided that content is added to the article as well. Cortador (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
When I initially posted this, the category was there, but someone removed it. From posting the reply last week, I hadn't visited the page until today, so I didn't know that the category was removed. The direct reply to my initial post from @EvergreenFir had some good info, though I feel if it's not already sourced in the article, it should be. Preferably, I would go with the one from PBS over the one from the New Republic because PBS tends to be more reliable and less biased. Unknown0124 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The couch thing

While it's clearly just a joke, the level of impact on his public perception feels like it belongs somewhere on this page. His VP run has been impacted one way or another. Maybe an "in pop culture" reference of sorts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4000:82:D480:28D8:EF8E:7DB1 (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2001:1970:4000:82:D480:28D8:EF8E:7DB1 (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)


Well, it's not hard to find numerous news articles from reputable sources on the issue:
1dragon (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not the point OP's making; the claim's effect on the campaign is separate from its truth. The question is whether or not its effect alone is noteworthy. Tama Boyle (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
The Telegraph focuses on the AP's response to the hoax, not any focus on Vance. Newsweek is not generally reliable [2]. Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politics.[3]. WP:HUFFPOLITICS is not a good source for determining whether a hoax is due weight in a political BLP. The USA Today article is from their 'For the Win' section which is just tabloid garbage. Vulture is a pop culture magazine. I've never heard of Pedestrian TV but just a quick glance tells me it's a tabloid rag. Salon has no consensus on reliability and should not be used to establish due weight here. Daily Beast is mentioned as requiring caution for BLP. I'm unsure about the SFGate. The Vox article goes off on Vance's history of remarks and the Washington Post focuses on how Twitter allows misinformation to spread. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
hey just a note the "he is it vice presidential candidate" is incorrect grammar and the page should be updated to say "he is its vice presidential candidate" it appears near the top of this article currently thanks. Lol. Aerist (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
@Aerist That old sentence was so brain tickling. I think the new one is better. TheFloridaMan (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
It'd be nice if the Snopes fact check gets added, because it debunks a new rumor saying the couch thing was present only in the first edition: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jd-vance-hillbilly-elegy-first-edition-couch-erotica/ 197.1.53.51 (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@2001:1970:4000:82:D480:28D8:EF8E:7DB1
it does not belong on this page at all.
hillary clinton's page doesn't mention qanon once, and the qanon hoax has been 100x more impactful than the couch hoax. consistency would be nice. 2A00:E180:171C:3800:F66B:8474:7B18:6C15 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The Comet Ping Pong hoax? That may have been about her, but it speak to her, but rather the people who believed and spread it. The couch thing relates to Vance's public perception directly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Right so people being able to believe Hillary Clinton was involved in child trafficking speaks nothing about her but people believing JD Vance had sex with a couch speaks to him. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you raise a fair point and I'm not sure why it was ignored. One could also note the employment of the hoax by the Harris campaign as propaganda but instead it's referred to as a "shift in messaging" or "attack line". Pretty interesting obfuscation. 2600:1700:76F1:E8A0:39FF:1896:950:A60F (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
No, there's no "fair point" in comparing QAnon to this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
One is a long-lasting hoax that has influenced thousands of people, including some politicians. The other is a short lived hoax that was quickly disproven and has no evidence of influence over anything. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Most important, the original source:

has luckily been archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20240724234824/apnews.com/article/fact-check-jd-vance-sex-couch-038130326229 --89.14.236.87 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I feel like this whole event is notable enough to justify at least a small blurb on the page. It may be worth noting that it's a false claim, but it's the thing most people are hearing about a notable person and the level of virality of the event is quite abnormal PleaseComputer (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes. It's been added now. I think the addition is appropriate; this received widespread coverage as demonstrated above. Cortador (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Since this hoax seems to have taken on a life of its own, but it's arguable whether it should be discussed at length in this article, I suggest that a WP:SPINOFF page should be created - perhaps JD Vance couch hoax. Thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Carguychris Interesting! I'm not completely sure it justifies its own page, is there precedent for these sorts of events being spun out? 72.38.50.76 (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Please read through WP:BLP. That article was already created and was speedily deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle I'm familiar with WP:BLP and it doesn't address hoaxes. That is the key: this is an obvious hoax, easily demonstrated to be nonfactual through basic research, and many reliable sources have now made that clear. Nobody is saying that it's true; the spinoff article would be about the hoax itself and the people who perpetrated it, and not a vehicle for speculation about whether the hoax is true. That said, I'm on the fence about whether it should be created because the hoax may not have WP:LASTING effects. Carguychris (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLPGOSSIP. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not an indiscriminate collection of information. A twitter rumour is not something that merits an article as it has no encyclopaedic value. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The Twitter rumor is not the reason it's notable. The notable part that an apparent Internet hoax got picked up by a major news organization, that organization then tried to suppress it, and then the suppression in itself was picked up by other organizations. Carguychris (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
So in that case how is it relevant to Vance? You're stating the notable part is the Associated Press talking about it - if that is the case it is not due weight to be included in Vance's article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
it is relevant to Vance because it is a prominent point of public discourse and is shaping perception of him as a vice presidential nominee. SecretName101 (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
You have no evidence of the latter. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
See WP:BLPGOSSIP it is completely inappropriate for this information to be included. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
the hoax has clearly been prominent enough to maintain relevance in its own right. BLP does not mean we ALWAYS shy away from talking about things that aren't shone in a neutral light, but provides that when inclusion is so, we cover the subject in the most factual way possible. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
evidently, this has been prominent enough to function under those standards. gossip, like anything, can become meta-notable when it gains noteworthy status in it of itself, and has more than a shallow status of relevance. There's enough here to warrant inclusion. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Non-neutral things we might cover in a BLP include criminal convictions and controversial actions. We don't cover false rumours.
>There's enough here to warrant inclusion.
Most of the sources are tabloids. This will not be remembered in 10 years let alone a year. Encyclopaedias aren't meant to cover every single piece of information on a subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm highly, highly skeptical of including the couch thing. Jjazz76 (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Even if added, it deserves no more than a sentence. "False rumours of ________ were spread from 2024". starship.paint (RUN) 12:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I suppose that the Telegraph, HuffPost and AP are all tabloids, @Traumnovelle. yes, that makes sense. 🙄😮‍💨
this has had enough effect and impact on his largely apparently negative (according to proper metrics) public opinion that it makes sense to include it. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The AP deleted their story. The Telegraph are reporting on AP removing the story. WP:HUFFPOLITICS has no consensus on it's reliability and yeah it is a fucking rag of a paper. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle that’d be a valid point if The Telegraph was the sole source that covered that. But it was not: numerous significant sources did beyond those three. SecretName101 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Numerous sources would be a valid point if they weren't primarily primary source tabloid rags. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle: It's been covered by The Washington Post, The Guardian, NPR, Business Insider, Vanity Fair, USA Today, The Cut and Vulture (both imprints of New York Magazine), Rolling Stone, The Mercury News, The Boston Herald, SFGate, The Hollywood Reporter, Vox, Slate, The New Republic. Plus cable news networks have discussed it. A pretty broad variety of sources are covering it. SecretName101 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. You don't even know what constitutes a reliable source. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP exists. You've even (indirectly) linked to it above. WP:WAPO is reliable. WP:THEGUARDIAN is reliable. NPR is reliable (from WP:RSP). WP:BUSINESSINSIDER is currently no-consensus, but it's not unreliable. WP:VANITYFAIR is reliable. WP:USATODAY is reliable. The Cut and Vulture are reliable (both part of New York magazine, from WP:RSP). WP:THR is reliable. WP:RSPVOX is reliable. The New Republic is reliable (from WP:RSP). There were a few sources listed that aren't listed at WP:RSPS, but only one was unreliable, and that was WP:ROLLINGSTONE.
Even Last Week Tonight with John Oliver covered it (there was actually even another reference to it from last nights episode too). The hoax is incredibly well sourced and definitely DUE given the far reaching coverage it received (as John Oliver noted: coverage even made it into print in a newspaper in Norway). You don't even know what constitutes a reliable source. You really do protest too much; out of sixteen sources @SecretName101 listed, only one was unreliable, with the overwhelming majority already reliable per WP:RSPS and a handful not listed there. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
And even Rolling Stone is considered reliable by Wikipedia for culture pieces and some other subjects. SecretName101 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a political BLP not a 'culture piece', it's explicitly what it should not be relied on for. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
A BLP about a figure who is part of a national political campaign. National US political campaigns and popular culture regularly intertwine and overlap. Even more so in this era. SecretName101 (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The USA Today piece is not their main column but some spinoff that is quite clearly some low-tier tabloid journalism based on what other stories they run. They're also primary sources which are not useful for establishing due weight. Secondary sources establish weight. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Traum's kinda noticed he's losing seeing as he's taking potshots at the USA Today story above all else. All the other sourcing stands. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle add Cincinnati Enquirer and Talking Points Memo
It’s also been covered both by conservative (and liberal slanted sources alike. SecretName101 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
You're not convincing me by mentioning different rags that cover it instead of quality secondary coverage that establishes an impact to Vance from it. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
that establishes an impact To be clear, that's not a requisite, that's something you personally want. You've been given a dozen reliable secondary sources, you just don't like them for whatever reason. That's unfortunate, but that doesn't affect the decision making going on here with regard to how we cover the hoax. What affects that is those same reliable secondary sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Those were not secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't know what secondary sources are. You should probably visit the Tea House and get help on that. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
You should really bother to look up what a secondary source is if you think news reports are secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:TEAHOUSE —Locke Cole • t • c 14:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Convenience break

We do have an article on secondary source. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle have you read the article? SecretName101 (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
>Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Just like the secondary sources provided above. Glad you finally got that figured out. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
No, those are not secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
They are. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Please learn what a secondary source actually is. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but, respectfully, I think it makes sense to refocus on the principles in WP:BLPGOSSIP. While there has been media coverage of this incident, that alone doesn't justify inclusion in a biography of a living person. WP:BLPGOSSIP explicitly says we should "avoid repeating gossip," even if true, unless it's relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. This is a hoax, and clearly falls under "gossip". And while some of the sources discussing this may be reliable for other topics, I think we should also question whether they constitute high-quality secondary sources establishing this hoax's lasting impact on Vance's career or public image, as required by WP:DUE. Including this information, even briefly, risks giving undue weight to a trivial event in the context of Vance's overall life and career (also see WP:UNDUE).
(Long-time reader/user; first time getting back into the fray of editing in a while since I'm tired of seeing obvious bias.) ballpointzen (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ballpointzen You also seem to have a misunderstanding as well. The gossip would be "JD vance wrote about masturbating....". That's not being included at face-value, nor is it being included for it's face-value assertion.
Rather, what is being included is that there was a clear hoax that received high-profile attention and impacted discourse during his early VP candidacy. All of which is true, notable, and verifiable. SecretName101 (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of WP:BLPGOSSIP in this context. The way it is written, the policy on gossip isn't limited to just repeating the same face-value claim. It says "[a]sk yourself whether the source is reliable . . . and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The key here is relevance, not just reliability. While the hoax gained attention, it doesn't appear to have had any lasting impact on Vance's career, policies, or public actions.
Look, if we think it's necessary, this hoax might be more appropriately covered in a broader article about the 2024 election or social media's impact on politics, rather than in Vance's personal biography. If anything, I think that's what your response above argues in favor of.
If I were to look at this cynically, it would seem like an attempt to keep the hoax alive among aspects of his life that are actually notable or had a significant impact on Vance's career or public image in order to score political points. But I'll reserve that accusation until what is said clearly merits it. ballpointzen (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Are you asserting there isn't widespread reliable source coverage of a hoax involving JD Vance and claims that he said something in a book regarding sexual acts with a couch? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're making it quite hard to assume good faith about your reasons for supporting the content. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So is that a "no"? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Locke Cole Once again, the question isn't whether there's widespread coverage of the hoax - we've established that there is. The crux of the issue is whether this coverage justifies inclusion in a BLP based on WP:BLP. This hoax doesn't significantly contribute to understanding Vance's role as an author, politician, or VP candidate. It hasn't had any demonstrable, long-term effect on Vance's career or public actions. The hoax seems to fall into the category of ephemeral internet phenomena rather than substantive biographical information. Would a dispassionate overview of Vance's life and career necessarily include this incident? I'm convinced that it wouldn't. Given all this, I think the weight of WP policies - particularly BLP and UNDUE - leans heavily towards excluding this info from Vance's biographical article. The existence of coverage doesn't override these policies. Unless there's compelling evidence that the hoax has had a significant, lasting impact on Vance's career or public image - beyond just being a momentary topic of discussion - I think we should err on the side of caution and remove it from the article. I propose we move forward with removing this section. Does anyone have any final thoughts before we do so? ballpointzen (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

understanding Vance's role as an author, politician, or VP candidate Those aren't the only reasons we include content in articles. WP:DUE is, again, the typical gauge we use to include or exclude content. Given the prevalence of hoax coverage in reliable sources and the continued use of the hoax a short paragraph on the topic is justified. The consensus so far in this section is for inclusion, so your attempt to push through removal seems... unwise. Pinging other major participants to this proposal: @SecretName101, @Carguychris, @Muboshgu, @Starship.paint, @Traumnovelle, @YodaYogaYogurt154, @PleaseComputer —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Given the prevalence of hoax coverage in reliable sources
I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, but prevalence of hoax coverage is not sufficient to include information in a BLP.
Can you cite to exactly what you're basing the idea that "prevalence of coverage" is sufficient to include information in a BLP? ballpointzen (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:DUE —Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Due weight is determined by secondary, not primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
That's not what DUE says. And regardless, we have many secondary sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
You don't know what a secondary source is and you've made it quite clear what your motivation is here. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
what a secondary source is Pretty sure I have a firmer handle on it than you do. But regardless, WP:DUE makes no mention of secondary sources, so it doesn't matter anyways. what your motivation is here To build a complete encyclopedia, it's unclear to me what your motivation is considering you've had multiple editors tell you you're wrong, only to just parrot the same things over and over again as if repetition will somehow change the fact that you're wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: Citing WP:DUE with no explanation doesn't look like good faith engagement. And while it's important to consider, we need to consider it alongside WP:BLPGOSSIP, which is specifically tailored for situations like this. So I'll go ahead and actually undertake the task of looking at them together.
Let's also keep in mind the fundamental principle of WP:BLP that we may be overlooking: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." This is crucial in our current debate. Consensus needs to be formed around including this information -- the default is excluding it if consensus isn't reached. Accordingly, it should really be deleted until consensus is reached.
Now, let's apply WP:DUE as you seem to suggest. We must consider if the hoax represents a "significant viewpoint" about Vance. It's a hoax that was proven to be a hoax and has been perpetuated only by political actors since it occurred. How does this contribute a "significant viewpoint" about Vance? I don't see it. WP:DUE also warns about giving "undue weight" to minority aspects. In the context of Vance's entire career, this hoax is a minor event, regardless of some articles around the event. WP:DUE's guidance about minority views not belonging on Wikipedia "except perhaps in some ancillary article" suggests that if this hoax is to be mentioned, it might be more appropriate in an article about the 2024 election or social media's impact on politics, rather than in Vance's biography.
Then let's look at WP:BLPGOSSIP. WP:BLPGOSSIP explicitly says to "Avoid repeating gossip" and asks us to consider "whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." This directly addresses our situation and should be given significant weight. WP:BLPGOSSIP warns us to "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." Many reports on this hoax look like they fall into this category.
While WP:DUE suggests representing views "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources," WP:BLPGOSSIP reminds us that reliability alone isn't sufficient - relevance to a disinterested article is crucial.
Considering these points, I believe the burden of evidence for including this hoax has not been met. Those arguing for inclusion need to demonstrate how it aligns with these BLP principles, not just that it was widely reported.
Unless we can show that this hoax has had a lasting, significant impact on Vance's career or public image - beyond temporary media attention - and that its inclusion serves the goals outlined in BLP, I still think that we should remove it from the article. This conservative approach seems most consistent with the policies designed to protect living subjects. ballpointzen (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you cite to exactly what you're basing the idea that "prevalence of coverage" is sufficient to include information in a BLP? This was your original question. I responded with WP:DUE. I'm sorry that four paragraphs of text weren't sufficient enough for your needs. WP:BLP is satisfied and WP:BLPGOSSIP does not apply to this (we're not engaging in gossip in wikivoice; however, the hoax itself that promoted a false claim is widely reported in reliable sources). The minor amount of text dedicated to this subject is certainly WP:DUE given the continuing coverage the hoax has. At some point I'm just going to stop replying because we've had this argument now for nearly three weeks. Nothing new has been presented to justify removing our coverage of the hoax. And we aren't required to WP:SATISFY the repetition in arguments. There's also some serious WP:IDHT going on... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
If we've had this argument over including a hoax in a BLP for three weeks, that seems to clearly mean it should be excluded. Again, the burden is on the editors including the information to demonstrate consensus, not those trying to exclude it. ballpointzen (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
There haven't really been any arguments for the past three weeks. It's been mostly one editor arguing against many others using flawed logic. You just showed up recently from an account created in 2005 with edits numbered in the hundreds, and a gap of 15 years since any activity to speak of to.. come here and battleground this? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Which part of WP:BLPGOSSIP is applicable to this situation per the wording of BLPGOSSIP? Not saying I support including more than a passing mention (a sentence or two at most), but BLPGOSSIP isn't going to be the reason we exclude it. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Avoid repeating gossip. ... even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not gossip from the outset: reliable sources all point to it being a false claim that has been debunked. At that point, BLPGOSSIP no longer applies; reliable sources have discussed the incident (the false allegations), at this point the salient issue is whether or not such coverage is widespread enough to satisfy WP:DUE. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
According to the OED gossip is: 'trifling or groundless rumour', that applies to the story here. BLPGOSSIP includes whether rumours are WP:DUE and in this case it isn't due for this article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:DUE covers what is or isn't due. Thank you for confirming BLPGOSSIP is inapplicable here. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
And giving undue weight to certain things is a BLP violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Luckily this is not a BLP violation. Which circles us back to WP:DUE, of which given all the reliable sources on the hoax, we have plenty to justify the exceedingly short passage we have thus far. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned above, this is in fact a BLP violation and I think we're misinterpreting WP:BLPGOSSIP in this context. While the policy does kind of seem to intersect with WP:DUE, it also give specifics guidance for this kind of situation: WP:BLPGOSSIP says "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Even if the sources reporting on this hoax are reliable, we have to question whether this information is truly relevant to a disinterested article about Vance. The hoax itself, while widely reported, doesn't directly relate to Vance's actions, career, or public service. ballpointzen (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
“trifling or groundless rumor” would apply to the face-value claim of him humping couch cushions. that is the rumor
however, the internet hoax that promulgated that rumor and the impact that that has had is not a rumor: it is fact. It is factual that a widespread internet hoax exists. SecretName101 (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle, this is not a BLP violation. It would be a BLP violation if we said "Vance fucked a couch" in Wikivoice. Covering it as we do does not violate BLP. And there is considerable impact of the couch meme along with the "weird" vibe on Vance. The couch debacle only underscored Vance’s overall dismal introduction to the country after his somewhat forgettable speech at the Republican national convention last month, prompting some to wonder if Trump should make the historic decision to ditch his running mate just three months before election day. The section is also not so long as to be undue. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That article goes far beyond the rumour and focuses on other stuff. You can't argue it has impact when it's nothing more than a clickbait headline for the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The non-tabloid/rags go in detail about his past or focus on the Streisand effect and ability for misinformation to spread online. It's far more due in an article on online misinformation, not as it's own paragraph and heading in a BLP. There are dozens of news stories published every day about this man. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
dozens of news stories published every day about this man Yes, but few have received the level of coverage and entered the corpus of human knowledge like this hoax has. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
>corpus of human knowledge
What an utterly absurd statement. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I bet if you stopped ten random people on the street and asked them if they knew about the couch thing you'd get a lot of people who knew about it. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Be my guest if you want to try and prove that. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle In my experience, knowledge of the rumor is shockingly widespread. SecretName101 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I think good evidence of this is how late night shows, political analysts, and politicians alike have been able to make jokes/wordplay about Vance and couches without needing to contextualize the jokes for their audiences. SecretName101 (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/04/jd-vance-critics-trump-vp
Interesting article
worth noting also noting: that the term “JD Vance Couch” is getting 1/7 the number of searches as the query “JD Vance”. Pretty much underlining just how widespread this thing became.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-couch-sex-joke-author-speaks-2024-7?amp
a look a Google Trends shows it as the top related search to Vance SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The search term "jd vance couch" is receiving comparable if not significantly higher searches than the topic Hillbilly Elegy, the book he became famous for which is mentioned 8 times in the article, per Google trends. (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=US&q=jd%20vance%20couch,%2Fg%2F11c5947bwl&hl=en) Clearly, this is relevant enough to merit the existing mention. 2601:1C2:1400:DCD0:1533:23A0:7BD8:56B7 (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
We base what merits inclusion based on what secondary sources do, not on what people put into Google. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle Did you not notice the Business Insider link that I linked to reporting on that? SecretName101 (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Interviews are primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down to one sentence and put it in his campaign section: On July 15, 2024, an Internet hoax spread from social network X that falsely claimed that Hillbilly Elegy described Vance masturbating using a latex glove placed between couch cushions; Internet memes were generated in response, while the viral hoax's spread was amplified after the Associated Press published and deleted a fact-check of it. I've also cited more reliable sources, WaPo, Guardian and NPR, that justify the inclusion of this sentence. I don't think it needs its own section, it seems to draw even more attention to the hoax. starship.paint (RUN) 12:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint I like your new version better; it adequately explains the event without giving it WP:UNDUE weight. I've made a couple of very minor wording and punctuation tweaks. Carguychris (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Carguychris: - thanks, here's posting version for the record: On July 15, 2024, an Internet hoax spread from social network X falsely claiming that Hillbilly Elegy described Vance masturbating using a latex glove placed between couch cushions. Internet memes were generated in response, and the viral hoax's spread was amplified after the Associated Press published and promptly deleted a fact-check of it. starship.paint (RUN) 14:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I also support this revision, I wasn't a big fan of the dedicated section header. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Trimming is good. It may yet deserve more content than this in the future, but we'll have to wait and see. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps combine the hoax and polling under a combined section titled “public perception” or something to that effect? SecretName101 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@SecretName101, I think the hoax belongs in the previous section where it was before you moved it. I don't see what it has to do with Vance's public perception, since none of the sources are reporting that the general public actually believes this nonsense. Carguychris (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Why is this allowed to be added but not other famous hoaxes like the Richard Gere gerbil story or the Rod Stewart stomach pump story?Exzachary (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not basis to question this information. of all the ways you could have took on this thing from your viewpoint, this is the approach you took? YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
It's fair to point out the only reason this cruft has been kept is because of political bias. If this wasn't a political BLP it'd be strongly opposed.
And no, there is no evidence this has any lasting effect and this attempt to include it on Wikipedia is just trying to create one. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Please do not cast aspersions. You can't just accuse editors of political bias without proof. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
It's been evinced by an editor here where they've shown a clear double standard in regards to including hoaxes. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
You need better evidence than just saying words. You need diffs and a trip to WP:AN/I, or you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and try to actually make your arguments on the merits. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
lame. really lame, Traumn. Accusing other editors of bias unfounded is fuckin' low. borderline personal attack. I wish those in "His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" would simply keep to their arguments and not stray into poor WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments and frivolous accusations. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No of course it does not belong. If that is included, Tim Walz’s stolen valor controversy not only deserves more mention, but it entirely deserves its own page.

Hi IP editor. It's something of coverage and has had an effect and a lasting point. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As hilarious as the hoax is and all the discourse around it, it clearly does not belong on this wiki page as per all of the objections raised above. I'll add also there is an element of "recentism" in here as well. This is unlikely to be a notable topic in his life past December, after he has (hopefully) lost the election and slinks back into obscurity. It is far, far too early to make claims that "it is a lasting point". Per WP:WEIGHT I think it could perhaps be better covered by a simple and neutral sentence such as "Vance has been the subject of numerous internet hoaxes since becoming the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee." David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  • This proposed sentence is too vague. A reader should walk away knowing that the couch allegation is fake. After thinking some more, I'm okay to simply trimming to this: On July 15, 2024, a viral Internet hoax spread from social network X falsely claiming that Hillbilly Elegy described Vance masturbating using a latex glove placed between couch cushions. starship.paint (RUN) 13:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed the proposal is too vague and being crystal clear that it is fake. That being said, I think the trimmed version omitting the meme portion of the incident (which is ongoing) wouldn't be appropriate. The AP fact-check then retraction being trimmed might work though (it was interesting when the incident first occurred, but it's not really relevant now that I can see from more recent sources). Here are a couple more recent sources that show the topic is still being covered, and the effects of the hoax are still being realized.
    • Marquez, Alexandra (2024-08-12). "Democrats continue to joke about false JD Vance rumor after years of criticizing Trump for spreading misinformation". NBC News. NBC News. Retrieved 2024-08-14. The fervor reached a peak in Philadelphia, the day Vice President Kamala Harris named Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. Walz told an arena filled with thousands of excited supporters: "I got to tell you, I can't wait to debate the guy [Vance]. That is, if he's willing to get off the couch and show up." As the crowd roared and Harris smirked behind him, Walz, who just weeks earlier started a trend of calling Republicans "weird," quipped, "You see what I did there?" The Harris campaign's TikTok account, named Kamala HQ, posted a video of the moment that has been viewed over 5.3 million times.
    • Lee, Michael (2024-08-12). "Dems hitting Vance with debunked vulgar claim 'undermine' their anti-Trump credibility, strategist says". FOX News. Fox News. Retrieved 2024-08-14. The moment went viral on the Harris campaign's TikTok account, named Kamala HQ, garnering 5.3 million views, NBC reported, noting that Democrats have continued to use the joke despite the release of fact-checks debunking the rumor by several media outlets. In one such example, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a news release on July 26 targeting Trump's decision to pick Vance, joking that Republicans are "couching their public praise of Trump's vice presidential nominee with private criticism." On July 27, the Kamala HQ X account shared a screenshot of Vance's moments on "cat ladies" with the caption that the Ohio senator "does not couch his hatred for women." A day later, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, long believed to be a potential candidate to join Harris on the ticket, joked on ABC News that while Trump "talks about all kinds of crazy stuff," Vance is "getting known for his obsession with couches."
    —Locke Cole • t • c 14:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, not much longer: On July 15, 2024, a viral Internet hoax spread from social network X falsely claiming that Hillbilly Elegy described Vance masturbating using a latex glove placed between couch cushions, and Internet memes were generated in response. The current Harris/Walz campaign stuff can go to the Harris/Walz campaign article. It doesn't need to be in this BLP. starship.paint (RUN) 14:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    This discussion seems to have gone on long enough to where we should probably just RFC it. I didn't even know about this "hoax" until I read about it here, which one might argue is why we should cover it, but on the other hand, I also believe it's never going to pass the WP:10YT test. I'm going to lean towards this particular circumstance having zero encyclopedic value on this BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    I'd personally be stunned if this didn't find its way into independent biographies on JD in the near future. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. I think this, alongside the run for vice-presidency, is what people will remember about Vance. Cortador (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    This is sarcasm right? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    I think he's probably right on, actually. He'll be remembered for his book, this, and the vice presidential run.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly. What do people remember Howard Dean for, other than being a politician and the Dean scream? I think Vance will end up like that. Cortador (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    A hoax is fake. Stating that the a hoax is false is redundant and poor writing. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    The details of what the content of the hoax are is what is causing friction with WP:BLP. The graphic details of the hoax should therefore be removed. The vagueness is a feature, not a bug.
    The word "hoax" should indicate to any reader that there is no substance to the hoax, and it is entirely false. But we can really labour that point if you like.
    If it needs to be mentioned, it only needs to be something like: During his Vice-Presential campaign Vance was the subject of several viral Internet hoaxes. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    I'm convinced that what's causing friction is that this particular hoax is puerile, R-rated, and deeply and indisputably tacky. No other Vance-related hoax is anywhere near as notable as this specific one. Nobody is saying that he actually did the deed. Why sugar-coat this? Carguychris (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    Because it is about a real person and we are supposed to treat living people with dignity on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Cloventt Given the lack of consensus on its inclusion, why would we not just exclude it? I thought per WP:BLP, the burden is on editors trying to include information to show consensus, not on those who don't believe it's correct to include it?
Genuine question. I may be misunderstanding the policy. Thanks. ballpointzen (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Summary and proposed next steps

Summary of discussion of "the couch thing" and proposed next steps

This discussion has been ongoing for several weeks, with no clear consensus yet.

Key points raised:

For inclusion:

  • Significant media coverage from various sources
  • Impact on public discourse during Vance's VP candidacy
  • Potentially meets WP:DUE given extent of coverage

Against inclusion:

  • WP:BLP sets high bar for including controversial content about living persons
  • Concerns about WP:UNDUE weight in context of Vance's overall career
  • Questions about lasting impact and relevance to a disinterested biography

Proposed options for moving forward:

  1. Seek input from the BLP Noticeboard for a broader perspective on policy compliance.
  2. Consider drafting a separate article on misinformation in the 2024 election, where this could be mentioned in context.
  3. Retain a brief, factual mention of the hoax without detailed coverage or its own section.
  4. Request a neutral third-party administrator to review the discussion and make a determination.
  5. Keep the current expanded content as is.
  6. Remove all mention of the hoax.

Please indicate your preferred option(s) in your response. If you have alternative suggestions, please add them to the list.

Note: This is not a vote, but a way to gauge consensus. Final decisions will be based on policy-compliant arguments, not vote counts.

--ballpointzen (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ballpointzen.
Regarding your previous question, my preference is to completely remove it (eg #6 in your list). I would also support #3. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep as-is (#5), I don't see why this is such a big deal if it's clearly labeled as a hoax. The hoax and the reactions to it are clearly notable. The only reason this argument is still going (and going... and going...) is that the topic of the hoax is squicky. Carguychris (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
#5, though I think the dedicated section is gratuitous and wasn't what we had in the article when consensus formed around inclusion a couple of weeks ago. The text @Starship.paint suggested above, in a "Public reactions" section which covers other WP:DUE public reactions would be most sensible. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
3, there’s enough coverage. 1 and 4 will probably not produce a result. What is needed is an RFC. starship.paint (RUN) 10:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
3. Agree with starship, needs an RfC. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  1. 6 because this does not pass WP:10YEARS and is just tabloid shitposting. No ignorant/disinterested reader will need to or want to know this about Vance to better understand him.
EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  1. 5 because this has become more than about being fake, it's something that (even objectively wrong) has other lasting effects on Vance. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
10YEARS - which is just reverse crystalballing - has this to say: "Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?".
The section that was removed was a single short paragraph mentioning a hoax. It's not confusing. The hoax was widely reported on. Vance will likely be remembered for this. Not much time in the article is devoted to it, as the section was only a few sentences. Cortador (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
3. per starship.paint, we will probably require RfC though. Enix150 (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an embarrassment

We already have a section dedicated to this topic, refactoring this discussion into the other discussion —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So we settled on removing his medals but made damn sure to add a section cracking jokes about him fucking a couch. (Redacted)2601:600:817F:16F0:ECF7:C037:B1C5:EC3F (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

His medals are still there (both in the military section and in the info box). But you do raise a fair point as to the inclusion of the coach etc Editmakerer (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
He makes a fair point that wikipedia is not censored? The information is unambigously due, removing it would be polical censorship which we don't do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
We didn't cover AOC's Alex Stein lawsuit[1] because it's not WP:LASTING, same thing applies here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
LASTING is about the independent notability of events... Which does not apply in this context at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The issue is not about "censorship", but whether this rank juvenile unverified "hoax" belongs in a Biography -- a BLP. There is an issue of citation overkill, also, while FACTCHECK said in so many words that the story is bullshit. Also, there is no counterpoint, let alone Vance's words on the issue, which raises serious NPOV issues. Therefore the section has been tagged until we put this out on the curbside with the rest of the biased trash.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Hoaxes are no less signficant than anything else, if it gets significant coverage we cover it. If you think that there are sources which need to be included to address a NPOV issue then you are obligated to include them, if no such sources exist then there is no NPOV issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Hoaxes are not more significant than the basic and established facts.Any issue can be artificially inflated, especially by the news. Sources are not the issue, the way the section is written is. A section can still be unbalanced even when a variety of sources are used, if it only offers one view. We don't need a source to tell us the sun rises in the east. The section is obviously lacking other perspectives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • A statement from The Telegraph, per the Associated Press, already used as one of the citation/sources in this section, was included in the 'Couch' section, stating that this "hoax" has been debunked. i.e.'Sex with a couch' was never mentioned in Vance's book. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, thats why we call it a hoax... Because it isn't true. Whether something is true or makes absolutely no difference in terms of due weight, as a hoax its due and as a true story it would be due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and folded the couch hoax into the Public reactions section, I also trimmed a sentence that was added that seemed to duplicate what was already said in the second sentence. We already make it quite clear, in wikivoice, that this is a hoax and it is false. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
At this point I believe it should just removed completely. We don't need to RfC for removal, editors who want to keep it need to RfC for inclusion. I suspect there have been enough editors object to inclusion at this point to warrant such action. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree, this hoax is not at all important to the biography. If we let this one slide, then what's next? BLP's are not a gossip column, nor should it have a section for this sort of rubbish. If this ill inspired rumor had significant consequences in Vance's political life, we could consider it. All that this hoax has accomplished is to give various news sources something to rant about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
In neutral terms we call "give various news sources something to rant about" "significant coverage" and its is grounds for inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Not true. Your claim would open the door to any rumor that's peddled by the news media. Again, if the hoax had a significant effect on Vance's political life, or his life in general, we could consider inclusion. Many things have "significant coverage" -- this doesn't automatically establish WP:DUE where we have to include any and all such stories.  We have twelve sources/citations for this inflated nonsense, and I noticed none of the sources include ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, CNN, etc, all widely read news sources. Three of the existing sources cover the same bit concerning the Associated Press regarding the fact-Check issue. Please review WP:LASTING and WP:RECENTISM and WP:SENSATIONAL. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The door was open to any rumor that's peddled by the news media long before I ever started editing, if you want to shut that door its going to be a lot of policy and guideline rewriting. Have you ever reviewed those? I don't think you have, if you'd have ever looked at Wikipedia:Notability (events) you would have known that "Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." and that it didn't apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/08/comedian-sues-aoc-for-twitter-block-after-he-catcalled-her-outside-us-capitol.html

Remove the nonsense about the couch

So let's remove this embarrassing nonsense where Wikipedia gives credence to stories about him fucking a couch, please. It's quite well established that the only reason it's in the article is due to politically motivated editors who see their job as Harris for President first, encyclopedia writer second. Fun's fun but it's time to stop.

Additional note: This comment was deleted, but baselessly as the "discussion above" has been stalled for several days so I am putting it back. I get it, the job of the various heavily involved editors is to run out the clock until the election but c'mon, guys, have a little tiny bit of shame. I'm sure that soon enough there will be some other baseless slander that can be slipped in and then protected while a month of desultory argument goes by. 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello friend. Please do not cast aspirations of that sort at other editors. Regardless of your personal take on the issue, our process is to come to consensus, which produces the best quality articles, in our experience. The above discussion came to the conclusion to keep a mention, but to make it clear that it was a hoax. This post should also not be under an edit request heading, as it is not an actual request for edit, rather, it is a discussion of content.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
An article is in no way "best quality" when it is edited out of spite, malice, and bias. This can be seen with the amount of overall negativity and removal of positive aspects of J.D. Vance, like the medals. Vance's comments on childless women were clearly jokes and certainty don't need its own sub-section for it. This article saying him "linking childlessness to sociopathy" and endorsing far-right activists were likely done out of political bias as well. I'd recommend for you to stop being ignorant to the constant editing of this article of political bias and removing talk pages calling it out. If editing out of pure bias is appealing to you, then maybe Wikipedia editing is not for you. Bias in articles is incredibly discouraged by Wikipedia, and it is against the community guidelines and wikiquette as it makes articles untrustworthy, low-quality, and misinforming. Cavdan2024 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
As discussed just above ad nauseam, there are significant reliable sources that have covered the hoax. The general consensus at the time was that it was WP:DUE, and while consensus can change, nothing so far demonstrates that it has. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Coverage of negative aspects of a person's life does not make the article biased against that person. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
In fact, leaving out such aspects even if they are covered by RS would introduce bias. Cortador (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I made no reference to the quality of the article. I said that we follow consensus, which was reached after a fashion. You should retract what you said about me, as it likely violates the no personal attacks rule.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shitposts in biographies. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that there is no consensus for inclusion at the moment with a plurality of editors arguing it doesn't belong in a BLP based on WP:RECENT and WP:DUE concerns. Editors wishing to keep it in the BLP need to open an RfC to find consensus per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
A plethora of replies (like Traumnovelle above) does not make for a plurality. There's consensus for inclusion; if you disagree, it is up to you to demonstrate that this is the case. Cortador (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you point me to the RfC where consensus was formed? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you point me to the comment where I claimed consensus was established via a RfC specifically? Cortador (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Given the long running discussion (see WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS) on this matter it's pretty clear that WP:NOCON exists for inclusion. Per DC, my assumption had been that there was an RfC on the matter. Given that's not the case, WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE clearly applies here. I suggest you self revert and open an RfC per policy. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Reminder that when there is no clear consensus, In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The longest discussion above is almost exclusively one editor supporting removal based on the (frankly absurd) claim that there are no secondary sources. Word count doesn't make for lack of consensus. Cortador (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I went through the current discussion on this Talk page (didn't even bother going into the Archive) and the most recent discussion on the BLP/N and counted 10 editors (not including IP editors) who expressed an objection towards inclusion of this in Vance'd BLP. Shall I ping them? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Why are you asking me? Cortador (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Because you're suggesting there is consensus for inclusion when there is not. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Why do you want my permission to ping a bunch of editors? Cortador (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I figured it was obvious, you could either gracefully back away from the comment "only one person is objecting" to this, but it sounds like an editor is going to open an RfC where we can ping everyone who has weighed in on this topic matter. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Strongly against my better judgment, I would throw my hat in the ring in favor of keeping the current form of the information, and if so decided, link to a separate article with more in depth information. I also think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that it isn't a notable hoax, just based of the sources gathered at the top of the page.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Why would I back away from a claim I never made? Cortador (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
A formal RFC is not required to determine consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
We've had longstanding consensus from the discussion above. One editor playing WP:IDHT for weeks, then casting aspersions about other editors doesn't change that. Consensus can change, but the burden is on those wishing to make the change to demonstrate that it has. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not clear to me where consensus was ever formed, with multiple editors (I've counted no less than 10 logged-in editors) entirely opposed to inclusion since the beginning across multiple discussions on multiple talk pages and noticeboards. Also, stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS, or prove it with diffs. The WP:ONUS is on editors seeking to include the disputed content. Today there were multiple editors who removed the content entirely stating policy behind the removal, so either open an WP:RfC or we can go to WP:ANEW with the issue, because to me it's clear there is either WP:NOCON or a clear consensus to exclude covering the hoax. Continuing to attempt to include without clear consensus has become a slow moving WP:EDITWAR. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I've counted no less than 10 logged-in editors WP:NOTAVOTE It's not clear to me where consensus was ever formed During the first few days of discussion above, with only a lone dissent. across multiple discussions on multiple talk pages and noticeboards WP:FORUMSHOP Also, stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS, or prove it with diffs. Lolwut? The WP:ONUS is on editors seeking to include the disputed content. Already have that. The onus is on those wishing to remove it to demonstrate that consensus has changed. So either start an RFC to propose removal or stop edit warring, because to me it's quite clear that there's been consensus for nearly a month. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Mm, this is getting pathetic. Can someone just start a damn Rfc? Please? this whole argument is a waste of time and editor effort. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Look, you're the guy who, below, thinks this stupid couch-fucking hoax from some Twitter rando is going to be the centerpiece of biographies of Vance in the future. It's quite clear that you have a strong negative opinion of the subject of this article and that affects your editing such that you should gracefully remove yourself from the discussion. 2601:600:817F:16F0:9DB3:A3E3:5972:3194 (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I said that it would be remembered about him. Then, I advocated to use the formal process required to gain a consensus during a hotly contested argument. Also, you should make an account, as it makes it way easier to pick you out in conversations. Regards, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Pretty sure they were replying to me, luckily, I never said this stupid couch-fucking hoax from some Twitter rando is going to be the centerpiece of biographies of Vance in the future. I did say it would very likely be part of biographies of the subject in the future, and I stand by that prediction. As noted by someone else, this will likely be like the Howard Dean scream (Dean scream) that he's known for now. And I just want to be crystal clear here: nobody here is saying JD Vance had sex with a couch, we're saying there's been widespread and persistent coverage of a hoax that has long since been proven false that he had sex with a couch. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(BAD) RFC: Inclusion of couch hoax

RfC withdrawn

Apologies, see [4] but folks want to do a better structured RFC with a clearer question. Apologies again.


Should couch hoax be included in this article? How much coverage/where? Should it be part of this article, or another? There are continuing questions about whether the couch hoax should be included on this article. There has been talks of starting an RFC, so I'll start one. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Survey - Should couch hoax be included in this article? How much coverage/where? Should it be part of this article, or another?

  • Delete from this article. Possibly Weak move the couch material to JD Vance couch controversy and let that page have it, but we shouldn't include or link this biography to a WP:GOSSIP hoax from some random stoned twitter user who wanted to mess with JD Vance on an encyclopedic biography, even with all the coverage. Sidenote, I think Kcmasterpc was talking about WP:10YT, and agree even another article may not survive such a test, but I think its fine to have that argument about keeping or deleting that content if the public eye moves away from the couch hoax for some time Bluethricecreamman (talk)

Further Discussion

Paragraph removed without consensus

With this edit, @Rhododendrites: removed the paragraph under discussion that had consensus without demonstrating a consensus to remove it. Their edit summary states for contentious BLP material, the burden is on those who want to include it to demonstrate that there's consensus. I don't see consensus to include this. personally, I think it's possible there's a way to include it, but it's not as a "public reaction" to Vance as it's just a hoax. if there were an "in popular culture" or something maybe? Rhododendrites, can you please specify what you view is contentious BLP material that warrants ignoring existing consensus and which specific WP:PAG you are using to justify removal? The only straw-poll like discussion above attempting to demonstrate a consensus (whether it's for continued inclusion, an RFC, or immediate removal) is, at best, "no consensus" for removal. You should self-revert absent evidence of a consensus to remove. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course it would be contentious to report that Vance fucked a couch, even if dressed up with qualifiers to absolve editors from responsibility for promulgating the hoax. Anyone adding that material without the support of a formal RfC would be violating WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
What about is "contentious"? The paragraph in the article about the hoax was supported by 10+ sources. Can you present sources that contradict the information, i.e. which would actually make this a contentious issue? Cortador (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
The material remains at Hillbilly Elegy, and if it remains on Wikipedia then that’s the best place for it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever edited this article or talk page. I saw the discussion at BLPN, looked at the material in question, looked at this talk page, didn't see a clear consensus to include, and so removed it per the rationale quoted above. I see your insistence that there's consensus to include it, but don't actually see that above, and we need consensus to include rather than to remove. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Locke Cole said, "at best, "no consensus" for removal", per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:NOCON the WP:PAG is (emph. mine, referenced from NOCON) In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. Seriously, open an RfC if you feel strongly about inclusion, otherwise WP:DROPTHESTICK.
@Cortador Sources exist that refute the claim, hence the hoax. Additionally, WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies because not everything about JD Vance needs to be in his biography. If a WP:PRIMARY source, such as another book by JD Vance were published about the election that references this hoax, I could see an argument for inclusion. Furthermore, it is self-evident by sheer volume of discussion -- that I would argue such designation applies. Consider this essay on contention, esp. "we are having an argument, so the claim is ipso facto contentious." Also, WP:PLA is another good essay to consider. Additionally, BLP and AP are designated contentious topics as a matter of policy. see WP:CT/BLP and WP:CT/AP.
As mentioned above by @Anythingyouwant, the hoax is covered in the Hillbilly Elegy article, also I floated the possibility of adding a Misinformation category in 2024 US Presidential Election article, which might be something worth considering (it's also worth considering how it may turn into a breeding ground for more edit warring).
Also, as a final note, I feel like we're starting to wander into WP:BLUDGEON territory, so I'd invite everyone to go read WP:DEADHORSE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Kcmastrpc Every source already says this is a hoax, and that was in the article. Can you present sources that contradict that information?
Literally no editor demands that the couch sex thing is presented as truth on Wikipedia; you are strawmanning. Cortador (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Literally dozens of editors are objecting to it's inclusion on Vance's BLP; hence WP:NOCON. You are WP:IDHT and completely disregarding others editors arguments presented and policy on the matter. Either take it to RFC or stop wasting everyone's time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you present sources that contradict the information that was in the article i.e. making this issue actually "contentious"? You are not doing yourself a favour by presenting an argument and the being able to back it up after having been asked three times. Cortador (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I already did above, and I'm about to take this to AN/I if you continue to persist. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Kcmastrpc No, you have not. Present the sources. Cortador (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm serious, go read WP:CT/BLP and WP:CT/AP, and follow along to WP:AC/CT. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Johnuniq said above: "Of course it would be contentious to report that Vance fucked a couch, even if dressed up with qualifiers to absolve editors from responsibility for promulgating the hoax." Plenty of RS reported on this, and there is no disagreement on what happened: someone made a false claim, the claim was debunked, fallout of the hoax persist. If you think that is in any way "contentious", you need to present sources that contradict the information that was in the article.
Just saying that BLP topics are contentious per se as a argument for excluding information is meaningless. Cortador (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm literally drafting the AN/I report right now. Where is the policy that states there must be sources to contradict a given subject for it to be deemed contentious? Perhaps you mentioned it at some point, but this debate is almost 10x the size of the article and I'd be interested to learn about it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I recommend you stay on topic instead of making threats.
We aren't talking about a subject (Vance) being contentious. We are talking about the hoax inclusion being supposedly contentious. That is what the user above (Johnuniq) claimed, I disputed that. Furthermore, you claimed that you presented sources that contradict the information that was in the article (see here), and yet seem to be unable to link to whichever comment those were included in. Cortador (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Kcmastrpc, you appear to be under the misguided belief that simply saying something is contentious over and over again is somehow going to allow you to ignore requests for sources that support your claim. You linked to Wikipedia:Contentious, and somehow managed to miss the entire forest for the trees (that being that the essay largely talks about unreliable or lack of sources leading to "contentious claims"; not a situation we're facing here with a significant number of high quality, reliable sources). I asked another editor, @Rhododendrites, to explain their actions and specifically to substantiate the contentious BLP material claim in their edit summary (which I note they have not, and have instead claimed no consensus existed, despite there being, at worst, WP:SILENTCONSENSUS, by virtue of the fact that the paragraph in question existed (sometimes in its own section!) for weeks).
Instead of addressing the questions around what you or Rhododendrites see to make your believe this is contentious (in so far as sources are concerned), you've leveled threats of taking this to WP:AN/I which you ultimately followed through with. I'm very sorry you can't quantify what makes this contentious, but in my view this shows just how weak that argument is. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to exclude material that is clearly WP:DUE, and the paragraph should be restored immediately. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
User:Kcmastrpc, have you consulted WP:Summary style? Only the “most important” stuff in Hillbilly Elegy should be repeated in J.D. Vance. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
That was the argument I was trying to make with Talk:JD_Vance#UNDUE_inclusion_of_reception_of_Hillbilly_Elegy, however, I didn't have the time or energy to really pursue that debate. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, @Cortador and @Locke Cole, I feel like you and your side are correct. However, this has spiraled out of control. Would you be willing to engage in binding arbitration with an uninvolved admin if @Kcmastrpc and the rest of the proponents of removal would also agree? I feel like this or a formal RfC needs to happen, because as it is this is a slow moving edit war.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion – This is in article Hillbilly Elegy, where it belongs. I can’t see how a hoax belongs in two articles. In general, unless it can be shown to have had a material effect, I would think it belongs in an article about the person voicing the hoax, not the victim. If someone feels a need for inclusion, start an RfC. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

While I personally support including the sentence, I agree that an RFC is needed at this point to end the dispute. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
It belongs either in Hillbilly Elegy, an article covering the current political campaign, or both. The hoax is only around because of the book and the campaign, and it does not provide any useful info about the person, which should be the criterion for inclusion here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I also oppose inclusion. This whole couch meme/hoax/whatever you call it belongs in the Hillbilly Elegy article (which is already there at Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention) and/or the campaign article, but not this main BLP article (per WP:VNOT, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:UNDUE, etc). Some1 (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand how it's relevant in Hillbilly Elegy, but not relevant to the subject of the hoax. Can you elaborate on the logic behind this, as you've cited a number of policies (WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:VNOT) which do not apply, and appear to misunderstand others (WP:DUE). Invoking WP:VNOT also brings us head-on with WP:NPOV; you can't have a neutral article on this subject that attempts to omit a major viral hoax that received (and continues to receive) significant coverage in reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
again, inclusion's merits are not simply due to it being a hoax, but due to it being noteworthy itself and having impact beyond its own existence. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Restore The couch controversy has enough coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion in article. pbp 23:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree this content should be restored. Couch controversy should get a small mention here. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    @72.14.126.22 @Purplebackpack89 please review the numerous discussions above, several editors have objected to its inclusion based on policy and per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS we've reached the point where an WP:RFC is in order since this topic has been brought to multiple noticeboards and several discussions have run their course. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    I've read enough of it to know that you've been BLUDGEONING other editors who support retention of the couch language.
    My comment stands. Just because you vociferously oppose the couch language doesn't mean I need to retract my comment pbp 23:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    I never suggested you should. This has been to AN/I and no action was taken so please stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS. Multiple editors have suggested those who are seeking inclusion should start an RFC and so far none have. I don’t have anything else to say. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
    You can't just scream ANI and ASPERSIONS every time your conduct is brought into question... At some point you actually have to engage in good faith with your fellow editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
    Bumping this conversation with unconstructive feedback like this could fall under WP:TENDENTIOUS. So either open an RFC, or take your issues to a noticeboard if you feel so strongly about it. I already tried that, and thus far no one seems willing open an RFC, and per WP:NORFC I'm not surprised. You might also want to read the other example on TENDENTIOUS right above NORFC. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
    You're aware you don't need an RfC for everything, right? You CAN undo one talk page discussion with another talk page discussion, right? pbp 23:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
    So now you're going to cast aspersions instead of accuse other people of casting aspersions? That seems like a red herring, as does insisting that we have a RFC or repeat this whole exercise at a different venue when we seem to have a decent policy and guideline based consensus (albeit one you don't like). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not alone in asking editors to make an RFC, go read up (and down). I counted at least 4 or 5 people suggesting RFC is the next step. Editors have objected on inclusion based on good faith WP:UNDUE concerns and editors have expressed support based on WP:DUE. We are at an impasse. And the WP:ONUS is on editors seeking inclusion to find consensus for this article. Is that an WP:RFC, a WP:BOLD edit, I don't know? Per WP:NORFC I'm convinced editors are refusing to do so because they know how it's going to turn out, so we can keep going around in circles or one of the editors so convinced that it's WP:DUE can open an RFC. Also, nothing is stopping an editor from making a WP:BOLD edit and reintroducing it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    That seems like a trap, you're almost certainly going to invoke BLPRESTORE if such a bold edit is made like you did before. If you think that we don't currently have a consenus then open a RFC, as it currently stands I see a consenus among policy and guidleline based arguments to include although how much to include remains an open question. The only reason to have a RFC is if someone challenges that consensus, are you doing so? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    I already did, per this edit. As have several other editors in this discussion and similar reversions. I'm not going to WP:EDITWAR over this matter, if that's what you're implying. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    I have no idea how to square all of these conflicting positions. How can both you and nothing be standing in the way of a bold edit? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    Horse is right, and I've made the bold edit to restore the content. KC Masterpiece being loud and pointy doesn't make him a majority here. pbp 19:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    And, without discussion @Traumnovelle: removed the content. He has now edit-warred with several other editors to keep it removed. pbp 19:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    There has already been discussion here and on BLP/N I don't see what has changed. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    Readded. I disagree, and think this is both notable and portrayed in a quite tasteful way, all things considered.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    I have reviewed the above discourse around the topic. My position is that Wikipedia should not be censored, and we should cover the issue and make this information available to readers. If an RFC is necessary, then so be it. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
    There was consensus before. It it on you to demonstrate that consensus has changed. Cortador (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know why I'm even responding to any of you. The same few editors seem dead set on including coverage about the hoax but aren't willing to open an RFC to gain consensus for its inclusion. Ever since the content was introduced there have been editors opposed to it's inclusion. WP:CCC and WP:ONUS suggests the onus is on editors to show how there is consensus for inclusion, and I don't see any policy that says editors must demonstrate how consensus changed. The content is too new for there to have ever been long standing consensus, and WP:SILENTCON is the weakest form of consensus. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see any policy that says editors must demonstrate how consensus changed How do you directly link WP:CCC (a part of the overall policy on consensus) and then say that? For a number of weeks there was only one editor arguing against inclusion, and as per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS (yet another policy you yourself have linked to) The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group. I'm sorry for Traumnovelle (who was the single vocal opposer to inclusion), but the rest of us at the time agreed it merited inclusion. Discussion and consensus are not reached via voting, and the weight of arguments for inclusion were and are stronger. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
    Locke Cole, make an RFC please. I agree with you, but this is a waste of time.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Restore. Significant media coverage, one in seven ghits for JD Vance include the term "couch", and I haven't seen a non-partisan reason not to include it. Enix150 (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Restore, this is clearly due at this point... Early on some opposition was reasonable but at this point there just isn't a policy or guideline based argument against covering this. The coverage is overwhelming. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Restore. The proponents for inclusion have presented stronger arguments. Chillaxer45 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Restore, the original sentence presents a fair, valid and appropriate length of coverage for us to include. It also clearly states that the rumor is a hoax, so its quite clearly not gossip. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • As we need affirmative consensus to include rather than consensus to remove, you may want to run an RfC. Ideally it would include the text and where in the article it would live. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    The mention and its location has already been determined, it has simply been removed. Though and RfC would be nice, it isn't essential. Kingsmasher678 (talk) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    We had affirmative consensus to include above. Other than a couple of detractors and one very persistent editor exhibiting WP:IDHT behaviors, the text was included for nearly a month. It was only after opponents to the passage edit warred was it finally removed. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Include "couch" hoax paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Short reminder of policies. Per WP:BALANCE, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. Wikipedia in particular is not a place for scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. The onus to find consensus is on those seeking to include disputed content. This doubly applies to BLPs.

Discussion. There is no doubt that the hoax exists, as supported by ample sources, and indeed contrary to some readings of WP:NOTSCANDAL it is not scandalmongering as the point of that policy is to prevent attack pages and/or libellous content from appearing and not to silence all appropriate mentions of hoaxes (see WP:FRINGE); but there is still controversy over whether to include it. Most of the sources covered the viral hoax for at most a week or two, and the last usage reported was on John Oliver's show a month before. Despite claims of how "couch sex" allegations made an impact on the vice-presidential campaign or Vance personally, these would have been better backed up by sources and they simply weren't there. The sources just reported on the hoax itself and on how the Democrats (or mostly Gov. Tim Walz) weaponised them to turn around the campaign. Other than that, it boiled down to personal preference.

The case the opponents made was stronger. This can be covered in Hillbilly Elegy, to which the hoax is related. Absent evidence of at least some RL impact on Vance, the Republican campaign or other connected entities, it is hard to say that the hoax is prominent enough in his life to warrant a mention. It might very well be that even these two sentences are too much for something that does not explain who Vance is and what he stands for. The WP:NOTNEWS concern is also valid, as among the sources presented, there are really only two events that they cover: how the Associated Press botched fact-checking and Walz roasting Vance during a rally. The text doesn't even mention that the couch thing has at least briefly been an attack line against Vance in the Democratic party in general and not some Walz's schtick, which would have lent more credence to the idea that it's something with enduring significance.

There is definitely no consensus to include this passage in the JD Vance article. There is consensus to include it somewhere else though, so find a more appropriate place, maybe rewrite it and you will be good to go. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This RFC is to determine whether consensus exists for the inclusion of the following two sentences regarding a widely covered hoax that went viral during the 2024 Donald Trump campaign with regard to JD Vance. The hoax (as evidenced by usage of the word "hoax") is clearly false, however, coverage of it has been noteworthy, consistent, and it has clearly had an impact on the subject of this biography. The text below (as was used prior to removal without any consensus) very clearly states in Wikivoice it is a hoax, and absent consensus for removal, will be the text used in the article. 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC Proposed Text and Sources

On July 15, 2024, an Internet hoax spread from social network X falsely claiming that Hillbilly Elegy described Vance having sexual intercourse with a couch. Internet memes were generated in response, and the viral hoax's spread was amplified after the Associated Press published and promptly deleted a fact-check of it.[1] In a rally on August 6, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who had been chosen as Harris's running mate earlier that day, obliquely referenced the hoax while challenging Vance to a debate. The Harris campaign's acknowledgement of the hoax and willingness to use it as an attack line received significant media coverage, with some using it as an example of part of a broader messaging shift in the campaign.[2]

References

References

  1. ^ Multiple sources:
  2. ^ Multiple sources:

This RFC will run for the standard duration of 30 days notwithstanding an earlier request for closure if participation has died down or an obvious result has become clear. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC !Votes

  • Include. This short paragraph is appropriate. Chillaxer45 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • First off, bad rfc per WP:RFCNEUTRAL - self-evidently non-neutral framing. But ultimately omit. We're not talking about adding this to some sort of page/section like "in popular culture" that would include fictional representations of a person. The proposal is to include a hoax invented about a person in our biography of that person. That there is source coverage just indicates it should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, and indeed there is a lengthy section devoted to this hoax at the Hillbilly Elegy article. Omit per WP:BLP primarily, but also WP:WEIGHT. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    You wanna qualify your WP:RFCNEUTRAL concerns with some quotations or are you just casting WP:ASPERSIONS? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, here: coverage of it has been noteworthy, consistent, and it has clearly had an impact on the subject of this biography and used prior to removal without any consensus and absent consensus for removal, will be the text used in the article (which is also just a straightforward misrepresentation of policy). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Recall, we already had consensus for inclusion so WP:ONUS isn't relevant. Noting the situation for uninvolved editors isn't a neutrality concern, the text was removed without any effort to demonstrate that consensus had changed. The first quote is a fair characterization of the situation. Y'all have had ample opportunity to start an RFC for exclusion but instead chose to revert war over it. After multiple pleas for me, personally, to start an RFC, I finally did it because apparently those wishing to exclude it can't be bothered to get consensus for it (too busy revert warring, I suppose). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    we already had consensus for inclusion - You keep saying that, but I haven't seen it. Maybe this has splintered so much that I missed it? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    "coverage of it has been noteworthy, consistent, and it has clearly had an impact on the subject of this biography ". That's true. So it should be included. pbp 05:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Include This is clearly noteworthy for a small mention, it has had a sizable effect on his VP campaign. It has also received tons of coverage from reliable sources and continues to be referenced. I do not find the opponents' arguments convincing. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit WP:VNOT says: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The couch hoax/meme belongs in the Hillbilly Elegy article (which is already there @ the #Renewed attention section) since the hoax originated from a social media post that falsely claimed that the Hillbilly Elegy memoir included a passage of Vance fucking a couch. If this hoax "had a sizable effect on his VP campaign", then it can also be mentioned in the relevant campaign article. Oppose including the hoax/meme in this BLP article per the general Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTDIARY. Some1 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    WP:VNOT is relevant, but so is WP:DUE: we have a significant number of reliable sources. It's entirely possible for content to appear in multiple articles. Hillbilly Elegy, for example, mentions the fact that the book was made into a feature film. That same fact is also mentioned here. There's no WP:PAG that absolutely forbids duplication of content. The passage that is being discussed is directly related to his VP campaign and his public perception/reaction, and given the quality and quantity of sources, it easily warrants the short mention under discussion here.
Waving at WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. isn't really convincing either. BLP has been discussed ad nauseam above; but TL;dr: as the text under discussion makes crystal clear the claim is a hoax, we are not engaging in gossip or speculation, but rather providing a summary of something covered by dozens of reliable sources (something that is also not contentious, as those reliable sources all acknowledge a viral hoax and the events surrounding it). As far as WP:NOTNEWS goes, it is likewise not really germane, specifically Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest. We aren't discussing content that summarizes something routine or ordinary, this is something that has had a big impact on the subject of this biography, with it rippling through his 2024 VP campaign and being used as fodder by his political opponents and the media at large. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Include, it's an appropriate item to be acknowledged in relation to his campaign 142.113.238.244 (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit. The couch hoax is already covered in Hillbilly Elegy, and WP:Summary Style says only the “most important” parts of Hillbilly Elegy should be repeated in the main Vance BLP, so it seems pretty clear that this contentious hoax should not be in the main Vance BLP. But contentious or not, it is a detail in Hillbilly Elegy, and a very tangential one at that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Include: There's obviously an abundance of reliable secondary sources which support this material. I don't think the length is out of place given the coverage. TarnishedPathtalk 08:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Exclude per wildly UNDUE. Sadly, it's already covered elsewhere, and this tabloid-style garbage content (not the sources), that originated from the toxic cesspit social media platform Twitter does not help our readers one bit have a better understanding of the subject of this BLP, or as a VP candidate. The claim is complete fiction, and has no business in a serious encyclopedia. Just because some people found it funny, or effective as a way to embarrass the other side, doesn't mean we should be jumping down that rabbit hole with them. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    And also agree the question asked is not WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to doubt that the paragraph is reliably sourced and true, but is it due? This is on the fringes of actually being about JD Vance. It's more about 2024 United States presidential election. It's a salvo of disinformation fired in a war between two opposing tribes, and is best understood in that context, rather than as a significant viewpoint about JD Vance. For comparison, Barack Obama doesn't mention hoaxes about his citizenship or religion, and Hillary Clinton doesn't mention hoaxes about pizza. These hoaxes absolutely exist, and true paragraphs about them can be reliably sourced, but that doesn't make them due in a BLP. Therefore, omit from this article but include in an article about the election campaign. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • mostly include. It has seen significant news coverage. But, question; is there source for it being a intentionally false disinformation hoax, and not just a joke which people misinterpreted as being true? (genuine question). Also I do think it's a fair argument for it to be put in the 2024 election article because of the scope of this article (as per barnard.tar.gz's argument), but i think it could also go in both. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit. Seems like WP:GOSSIP, WP:NOTASCANDAL and is fairly unencyclopedic to include a meme with very little staying power. Seems particularly unlikely to last for long... (anyone remember Joe the Plumber? well this couch meme seems even smaller than that). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit, it's disappointing that a RFC is even necessary and that some editors are supporting its inclusion when it clearly not WP:DUE. This is basically fodder for people who are terminally online, hopeless obsessed with politics, and who are prisoners of the moment. Coverage doesn't automatically justify inclusion. This isn't something encyclopedic and it's certainly not something that should be included in a WP:BLP. Nemov (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit, this is WP:UNDUE. Please also note that it is already covered in the Hillbilly Elegy article that already receives ~180k pageviews/month. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Include. The hoax has received broad coverage. Sourcing is strong, and the hoax had an effect on Vance's campaign, as reported by RS. Cortador (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit here. A BLP should summarise the most important aspects of his life. The hoax doesn't seem to have ended up a particularly noteworthy fact of Vance's life, though it's probably noteworthy in other contexts, like for the article on the book or potentially some article about the 2024 election (because of Walz referencing it). As Barnards.tar.gz mentioned, it's for the same reason birtherism isn't mentioned at Barack Obama or pizzagate mentioned at Hillary Clinton; it is nonsensical and scandalous rubbish that hasn't ended up being a particularly noteworthy fact of his life. If this rumour had a lot of staying power, like for example birtherism, I do think this would be a closer call, but that doesn't appear to have happened. Endwise (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Include. The hoax has received significant media coverage, and has been cynically used by Democrats as a line of attack against Vance. Their attack has been so effective that I have been exposed to it many times in the media, and until today, I did not even realize that the story was a hoax/lie. I think the original text does a good job of explaining the hoax, emphasizing the fact that it is false, and noting its usage by the Harris/Walz campaign. All of that is valuable information to the reader, and I see no good argument for omitting it. Pecopteris (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit, per WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:UNDUE, transitory trivia and nonsensical and scandalous rubbish, already (over) covered in book article and possibly deserves a brief mention in 2024 election article, but has no lasting relevance to this BLP.Pincrete (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit, NOTSCANDAL and UNDUE, and honestly just a silly thing to include in the article.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Include, based on the coverage we have it seem due... Not seeing any policy or guideline based reason to exclude beyond an IAR argument, it also seems that most of the Omit votes are on bad grounds... NOTSCANDAL/GOSSIP doesnt apply here at all because we're talking about information published in high quality sources not "Scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." This does not promote things which are not published in relibale sources, it is not libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy and the article is not written purely to attack the reputation of another person. Its one of those arguments where the BOLD link makes sense but the actual linked policy or guidleline doesn't... People seem to forget that these links actually go somewhere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit, it's trivia better handled on a page about misinformation if it's even worth mentioning at all. 73.225.173.79 (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit per WP:ASPECT; it's impossible for me to believe that a hoax like this, despite its brief moment of media attention, really belongs in a BLP about someone who is notable for his authorship of a popular book and subsequent high-level political career. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 21:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit, Applying WP:10YEARTEST, this hoax will not impact this person's life sufficiently to be included. It will not be considered the reason he won or loss or the reason for any aspect of his life or his political impact on American life. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think it's the opposite - this is Vance's Dean Scream moment, and he will be remembered as the 1) a former vice-presidential candidate and 2) the couch guy. Cortador (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Include per Pecopteris. Also because:
1) The proposed text about the hoax will be placed in the 2024 vice presidential campaign section of the article, which is appropriate.
2) It has been described in a WP:BALANCED way as a significant and frequently memed event, similar to the pet-eating hoax coverage, and deserves mention here as part of the political campaign.
3) Aside from being WP:DUE, having received widespread domestic as well as international attention from papers in the UK, Hong Kong (The South China Morning Post), and (lower quality sources within) India, the proposed text should be included specifically because it is NOT spreading WP:GOSSIP, it functions to debunk disinformation while discussing the import of this cultural event and a strategy by Democrats to use it to their advantage.
4) Further, I think the proposed text could be modified to mention that the messaging by Democrats was also criticized by some, per the New York Magazine article. For example the last sentence of the proposed text could read: The Harris campaign's acknowledgement of the hoax and willingness to use it as an attack line received significant media coverage and minor criticism,[1] with some using it as an example of part of a broader messaging shift in the campaign.

References

  1. ^ Hart, Benjamin (9 August 2024). "Democrats Should Ditch the J.D. Vance Couch Joke". New York Magazine. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
Sorry for the long response. Please include the proposed text about the couch hoax in the article, thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Include - Well sourced with sufficient coverage that a brief mention is WP:DUE. Policy is that well covered well sourced information stays in articles, even if it is not flattering. Fieari (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Include to some extent; it's an obvious hoax and must be described as such, but it also has large amounts of WP:SUSTAINED coverage that makes it clear that it has had a significant impact on the subject's biography - two months is a lot, and there's still some today, eg [7]. The correct approach in situations like that is to document and describe the hoax in terms that leave no doubt as to its falsity, not to omit it. That said, I wouldn't be averse to trimming the text slightly (down to a sentence rather than a paragraph), as part of the broader discussion of the "weird" thing - based on coverage it was mostly important as a part of that. --Aquillion (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I think this infomation should be detailed on another 2024 presidental election related article, I am just not certain if the content is relevant enough to justify inclusions on this article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit per comment of Some1 above. The allegation is false, but we can verify that it was made, and it achieved widespread coverage, so it merits inclusion in Wikipedia (accompanied, of course, by the debunking). Nevertheless, it's not important enough to be included in the main Vance bio article. The bio can't include every single verifiable fact about Vance. Inclusion in the articles about the book and the campaign is appropriate. JamesMLane t c 14:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit per comments by u:Some1 and u:JamesMLane. Consider that the article about Hillary Clinton doesn't mention qanon conspiracy theories about her. Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Alaexis: But has Hillary Clinton put forward QAnon inspired conspiracy theories and advocated for them? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    Probably no. But how is it relevant? This is a hoax *about* JD Vance, so my point was that the main article about a person should not describe hoaxes about it. If JD Vance "put forward QAnon inspired conspiracy theories" then it seems notable but it's not related to this RfC. Alaexis¿question? 21:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Omit – Inclusion goes against MOS:LEAD and sets a really bad precedent, which other editors have explained in better detail. Yue🌙 18:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Yue: What does this have to do with the lead? I don't think the proposal involves any changes relating to the lead of the article, does it? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    I misunderstood the RfC. Yue🌙 20:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Include. I do believe this would pass a 10-year test, much like the comments about "childless cat ladies". This seems like a perfect length for the impact it gave; this is a pretty short paragraph compared to other things in the section about being a VP candidate. It remains a notable, and lasting aspect of the campaign. SWinxy (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

RFC Discussion

Additional discussion, proposals, etc.

@Locke Cole: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 8,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Kinda surprised Legobot doesn't just use the first paragraph in situations like this, but I broke it up a little bit. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
As stated at WP:RFCBRIEF, Legobot will copy the markup of your statement (from the end of the {{rfc}} tag through the first timestamp) to the list of active RfCs, if it is sufficiently brief; a long statement will fail to be copied. and in a ref note at the start, The "statement" is the part that is located between the {{rfc}} tag (exclusive) and the first valid timestamp (inclusive). It mentions timestamp twice, but nothing about paragraphs. So, this edit hasn't helped at all, because it's not shortened the statement but instead has added about 40 characters, and subheadings also fall foul of For technical reasons, statements may not contain tables or complex formatting, although these may be added after the initial statement (i.e., after the first timestamp). because they're treated as complex formatting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Fixed? I'm done trying regardless. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
We'll find out when Legobot next runs, most probably at 23:01 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I came here to state what @Redrose64 has. The first paragraph should be removed and replaced with "Should the prose below be included in the article?" TarnishedPathtalk 08:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • For those voting "omit" on the grounds that this is clearly false, part of the story here is that AP admitted they couldn't definitively prove whether or not it was false. It is possibly false, but we don't know for sure pbp 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree with this. The reason that we can include this is because we pretty clearly know it probably didn't happen. The only reason it's notable is because of his opponents reactions.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    You've bewrayed your true intentions here. You don't think this is of encyclopaedic merit nor that it will imrpove the article. You're just trying to smear a figure you dislike and will even stoop to lying [8] to get your way. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    You're missing the point. The AP messed up they way they titled the fact check. They can't possibly say with certainty that "No, JD Vance did not have sex with a couch." Only he could possibly know that. Chillaxer45 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    Except they can and they did; he obviously did not do such a thing and we cannot suggest otherwise. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    Again, you're missing the point. They can't conclude that "No, JD Vance did not have sex with a couch." They messed it up by not linking that statement to the book. They should have said something like "No, Hillbilly Elegy does not state that JD Vance had sex with a couch." Chillaxer45 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    They said that "No, JD Vance did not have sex with a couch"...and then retracted it because, while he having sex with a couch was unlikely, they couldn't say for certain that he did or did not.
    And please retract the "stoop to lying" claim. Now. pbp 02:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's not a claim, you're still lying now:[9] [10] “The story, which did not go out on the wire to our customers, didn’t go through our standard editing process,” an Associated Press spokesperson told SFGATE in an email. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    Why are so insistent on clinging to a retracted source? pbp 04:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    What? Those two sources show the reason for AP removing it. They did not admit that it was not false. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    You're not bothered at all that this was retracted? You're going to ignore the implications of the retraction? pbp 06:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    Stop trying to imply there is any truth to the hoax. The AP have stated their reason for removal and there is no valid reason to think that wasn't the reason for the retraction. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    Seriously, this clip might help explain the distinction you seem to be missing.
    Regardless, the proposed text at no time suggests he had sex with furniture. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
No good argument have been brought forward so far to exclude this. Argument against are:
  • Coverage isn't lasting: lasting coverage is for articles, not aspects of articles. The hoax received coverage over several weeks.
  • WP:NOTSCANDAL/ WP:GOSSIP: this policy states that articles shouldn't be advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, opinion pieces, scaremongering, self-promotion, advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations. No editor has pointed out which of these the article would supposedly turn into were the information about the hoax ::incldued.
  • WP:UNDUE: no editor has explained what viewpoint is missing (which is what this policy is about). Just posting WP:UNDUE with no further explanation means nothing.
  • No secondary coverage: there is plenty of secondary coverage.
  • WP:VNOT: there is broad coverage of the story. The hoax is not merely verifiable. Cortador (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • "It's already in the Hillbilly Elegy article": the story affected Vance's campaign, and this belong here too. There's no policy banning content from one article just because it has also been mentioned in another. Cortador (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    the story affected Vance's campaign How significantly affected? Can this be sourced? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's still being used as fodder for late night talk show hosts who are aired nationally (this clip is from last night): The Late Show with Stephen Colbert clip (skip to 9:42 to get to the start of a bit he does about the couch hoax). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    I’ve no doubt his political enemies are enjoying trying to make it a thing, but has it had any actual impact on him or his campaign that we could write about aside from the hoax existing? Something that rises above routine election campaign mudslinging? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's impact is the fact that it's still being used in secondary sources to this day (clip from Bill Maher talks about the hoax, originally aired 2024-09-20). The linked skit received coverage in sources: [11] [12]. It's important to recall that so far almost all objections fail because they cite WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL notions and WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:BLPGOSSIP (neither of which apply, because it's not gossip to state there was a viral hoax; the "gossip" would be to state in Wikivoice that the hoax was true or accurate). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    The Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert cites are comedy bits. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Objective3000 are comedy bits ... that have received coverage in reliable secondary sources. Which addresses the question has it had any actual impact on him or his campaign [...]? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    No it doesn't address the question. Jokes about you are not impact and comedians are not reliable secondary sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    Additionally, it conveniently reinforces Illusory truth effect, which is an actual phenomenon and since we are in a US election cycle editors should be mindful of how politicians, entertainment, and media personalities will promulgate hoaxes like the couch sex thing to denigrate their political opponents. As an encyclopedia we should know better than to try and wedge short-lived viral hoaxes into BLPs, but they do have their place. Ergo, the Misinformation article that is being drafted. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    Additionally, it conveniently reinforces Illusory truth effect ... How's that? At no point in this discussion for two months has anyone suggested we, in Wikivoice, state that he did the thing claimed by the viral hoax. If anything, including coverage that clearly defines it as a hoax that falsely claims [hoax] would tend to reinforce that it is NOT true. short-lived viral hoaxes It's been getting traction for two months now. I think calling it short-lived is a little ridiculous at this point... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    How's that? The JD Vance couch sex hoax serves as a good example of the Illusory Truth effect, which is the phenomenon where repeated exposure to a statement increases its perceived truthfulness, regardless of its actual validity.
    At no point in this discussion for two months has anyone suggested we, in Wikivoice, state that he did the thing claimed by the viral hoax. I never suggested you or anyone else has. In this case, the hoax involved false claims about JD Vance - and as these claims circulated, especially on social media and news outlets, people began to accept them as true simply because they encountered them frequently. The more the story is shared and discussed, the more familiar it becomes, leading individuals to believe it without critically evaluating the evidence. This is the theory behind Illusory Truth.
    I think calling it short-lived is a little ridiculous at this point... I don't consider coverage that involves a couple of late night talk show hosts using the hoax for blue comedy as traction. I also don't know what the point of this conversation is either, it's obvious neither of us are going to come to any sort of agreement on the matter. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't consider coverage that involves a couple of late night talk show hosts using the hoax for blue comedy as traction. Oh, it's not just late night comedy hosts, but if you're being absolutely honest, I'd wager more people see those comedy bits than the odd RS sources that are still covering this to some degree:
    • Ximena, Bustillo (September 30, 2024). "Vance and Walz debate in New York City on Tuesday. Here's what you need to know". NPR. NPR. Retrieved 2024-09-30. Since his nomination, Vance has had to address controversies that are likely to come up again during the debate, including couch-related jokes and criticisms of him calling prominent Democrats "childless cat ladies."
    • Moorwood, Victoria (September 30, 2024). "JD Vance dossier, firefighters and couches: Which rumors will make it to the debate?". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Gannett. Retrieved 2024-09-30. Did JD Vance write about having sex with a couch in 'Hillbilly Elegy'? One of the more well-known Vance rumors can be traced to a July 15 post on X shared by the account @rickrudescalves. Shortly after Vance was announced as Trump's running mate, the X user claimed Vance admitted to a sexual act with couch cushions in his 2016 memoir, "Hillbilly Elegy." The post, since deleted, read, "can't say for sure but he might be the first vp pick to have admitted in a ny times bestseller to (expletive) an Inside-out latex glove shoved between two couch cushions (vance, hillbilly elegy, pp. 179-181)." A quick glance at Vance's book "Hillbilly Elegy" shows the claim was fake, but it spread like internet wildfire. It even popped up in TV shows like "Last Week Tonight" hosted by John Oliver and "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert." The joke circulated, and people believed it, so much that Snopes and the Associated Press wrote fact-checks debunking it. AP later deleted its fact-check. The rumor's originator, @rickrudescalves, told Business Insider he identifies with the political left and does not work in politics. He said he made up the joke because he does not like Vance and thought it was funny. He hid the post within a week because he was uncomfortable with the amount of attention it got, and admitted to creating misinformation, though he said that was not his intent. Luke Schroeder, Vance's spokesperson, earlier declined to comment to The Enquirer about the false claim.
    • Macks, Jon (September 26, 2024). "The 7 C-Words Tim Walz and JD Vance Must Master to Win the VP Debate". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2024-09-30. My inside source tells me that when challenged about inflation and the border Tim Walz's comeback will be, "It's pronounced Walls," and when asked about IVF treatments Vance will change the subject by bragging that he has more experience having sex with a couch than any Veep nominee since John C. Calhoun.
    I also don't know what the point of this conversation is either, it's obvious neither of us are going to come to any sort of agreement on the matter. Well luckily, we don't need to agree on facts. Denying objective reality won't change the fact that RS are still discussing this hoax. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Jokes about you are not impact and comedians are not reliable secondary sources. Correct. The secondary reliable source coverage of those comedians still discussing it is. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    The equal and opposite players are still talking about Obama’s birth certificate. That doesn’t make it due for Obama’s article. By actual impact, I mean something like: did the hoax cause a drop in his polling? Just because partisans are trying to keep it alive as a meme or joke or whatever doesn’t make it a significant viewpoint about the subject of the article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Don’t forget WP:Summary style. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
A non-argument as you called the hoax "contentious". There's nothing "contentious" about it; sources agree on it across the board. Cortador (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:Summary Style says, “The parent article should have general summary information like a lead, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article.” The couch stuff is not necessary to summarize Hillbilly Elegy, it is merely a detail, because it did not actually appear in that book, or in the movie, or in the life of the subject. Contentious or not, it is a detail, and a very tangential one at that. Please address this guideline, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The hoax matters for Vance's campaign, and should thus be included. Whether or not it matters for the book isn't relevant. Cortador (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Why would it matter, if it’s a hoax? I’m not aware that Vance has spoken about it, but both Biden and Harris have spoken about it, so maybe it should go into their BLP’s? Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Because RS report on the hoax, and that is what matters. Cortador (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
It seems you're confused that just because something is reported by reliable source it makes it required to be included in the article. That is not the case. Just because something is verifiable and mentioned in reliable sources doesn’t automatically mean it should be included in an article. Editors must consider whether the information is relevant, encyclopedic, and necessary to the topic. A detail in the coverage of a book as @Anythingyouwant has pointed out. You may disagree with that if you want, but to argue there's "no good argument brought forward" only weakens your argument. Nemov (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Since the couch hoax affected Vance's campaign, it belongs here. I already stated that above, but maybe you were too "confused" and missed that. Cortador (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Such an odd response, this article isn't about a campaign it's a biography of a living person. Nemov (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
You still seem confused since you apparently don't realise that the campaign is part of Vance's bio. But feel free to seek consensus for removing it from the article. Cortador (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
No confusion here. Nemov (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The campaign is certainly within the scope of an article about someone running in it... And both this page and the one for the campaign fall under our BLP policy. That is why your argument appears confusing, perhaps you can clear up the contradictions for all of us? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The above exchange is clear enough. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
You are not doing yourself a favour if you can't explain why running from vice president shouldn't be part of someone's bio. Cortador (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
You may be interested in this article about all the Democratic politicians who have joked about the couch lie. Shall we edit their BLPs accordingly? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
You are free to start discussion on the respective talk pages if you want that material to be included in those articles. Cortador (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Nemov You do understand there's an entire section of this article that goes over his campaign for vice president, right? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Every day, for the next two months, reliable sources are going to report on things about Vance due to the campaign. Should every story, hoax, piece of gossip be included in the article just because it was reported? Of course not. Nemov (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Should every story It depends on a number of factors, WP:DUE and WP:BALASP seem most applicable here. If a "story" were to see significant coverage in reliable sources, and if such coverage was persistent, I'd say it would merit a mention at least. hoax As with stories, a "hoax" would likely need reliable source coverage and the considerations of DUE/BALASP. To be clear, nobody is suggesting we add every bit of unverified/unsourced rumor, speculation or gossip to this article. The couch hoax is verifiable, reliably sourced and has seen significant coverage. piece of gossip be included in the article just because it was reported? As mentioned, nobody is suggesting we start including gossip in our articles. The couch hoax is so far removed from gossip to be kind of baffling to see it continually brought up in the !votes above. TRUE gossip is unverifiable and/or unsourced. This is neither of those. We have significant sourcing for this, and it's easily verifiable. That really just leaves us with WP:DUE, and again, given the significant coverage of this (and the ongoing use in campaign and comedy bits), it seems easily DUE. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, repeating these arguments is a waste of time. I've written enough about this silly topic. Nemov (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Cortador: When people are citing WP:DUE here I think they should really be citing WP:ASPECT, because that's specifically the issue here, though I admit both sections of NPOV are roughly talking about the same thing. The issue isn't (as you said) that certain viewpoints are missing, it's more that a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.. Cheers, Endwise (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The policy you quoted isn't from WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE. Cortador (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware, that's what I was trying to say in the first sentence of my reply. Cheers, Endwise (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"JD "the Couch" Vance" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect JD "the Couch" Vance has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § JD "the Couch" Vance until a consensus is reached. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"JD "the couch" Vance" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect JD "the couch" Vance has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § JD "the Couch" Vance until a consensus is reached. Some1 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JD_Vance/Archive_4&oldid=1252978360"