Talk:James Mueller (Indiana politician)

Just a note

There are too many one-sentence paragraphs. Otherwise nice start! – Muboshgu (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• James Mueller.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• James Mueller 2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Mueller (mayor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Review by Z1720

Hi, I will be conducting a review in the following few hours. Please ping me if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments:

This article is in good shape, but it needs some work to become a Good Article. Here are some things that need to be resolved.

• The lede needs to be expanded. The article should have 2-3 paragraphs and provide an overview of the entire article. See MOS:LEADLENGTH for more information.
• "He lived on Hoover Avenue near Potawatomi Park." This feels like too much detail that can be removed, as non-South Bend residents will have no understanding of where these places are.
• "Mueller attended St. Anthony de Padua School and was classmates with Sean M. Haas, who later became his opponent in the 2019 mayoral general election.[5] He was also classmates with Pete Buttigieg[6] at St. Joseph High School, where Mueller graduated in 2000." We don't really need to know who his classmates are, and this goes into WP:TRIVIA territory. I suggest removing it.

• "earned his PhD in oceanography.[2][3][4][7][9]" Five citations is a lot for one fact, especially an uncontroversial one. Can the primary sources, like his campaign website, be removed?
• Per MOS:PARA, single-sentence paragraphs should be minimalised. Please expand, merge, or delete these instances in the article.
• "Mueller stepped down as chief of staff to assume a new position, becoming the city's director of community investment." -> "Mueller stepped down as chief of staff to become the city's director of community investment." This tightens up the language.
• I am surprised at how sparse the "2019 mayoral campaign" section is. There is no information on what happened during the actual campaign, only a quick note that he defeated a Republican challenger. I think the one-sentence paragraphs should be merged and more information given about the actual campaign.
• "After being elected mayor, Mueller worked to fill positions on his staff." This is not needed; it is expected that a new mayor would hire new staff.
• "Mueller stated that Buttigieg had offered him much advice during the transition." This feels like WP:TRIVIA and can be removed.
• "As mayor-elect, Mueller had supported Dawn Jones to remain as South Bend City Clerk." This paragraph isn't needed, as it goes into too much detail into an event that Mueller was not involved in. I suggest condensing this into one sentence and merging it with the previous paragraph.
• "Mueller assumed office on January 1, 2020, at noon.[31][26][32][33] His ceremonial inauguration was held later that day at Century Center." I recommend keeping this sentence, and deleting the rest of the information as off-topic. This article is about Mueller, not the city council, and should remain focused on him.
• The "Mayoralty" section has lots of small sections. Per MOS:OVERSECTION, too many small sections make the article difficult for a reader. Please merge these sections and remove the prose that goes into too much detail or is trivia.
• The "Homelessness" is too long and difficult to read. Please summarise the information.
• I do not think the political endorsements section is notable and can be removed from the article or merged with "Political positions"
• Ref 52 is a press release by a company, which is considered an unreliable source.
• I am concerned about some sections not conforming to WP:WIKIVOICE, as it sounds like the author is in support of this politician. Some examples include "Mueller believes that systemic racism is a problem that needs to be dealt with." and "Mueller has collaborated closely with the South Bend school board." Some of this will be resolved when the article is summarised, while others can be resolved with more neutral language chosen. I think this quote from WIKIVOICE says it best, "Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." I will take a closer look at this after the article is summarised.

Please ping me when the above concerns are addressed and I will reassess the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Working on alterations, but find some disagreement or concerns with some of what you brought up.

• The lead is two paragraphs, and does summarize the article. Should I be also including his early career in the summary, because that'd be quite unusual for a such an article?
  • The information I might add to the lede are information about his mayoral campaign, initiatives he has led in the city, and his political positions. For example, instead of saying that he has dealt with the COVID crisis, give an example of what he has done in the city or an initiative he has tried to start. It doesn't have to go into detail about how he got it started or specifics of a program, but the lede should give more information about what he has done. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• I do think the mention of him being classmates with Buttigieg is noteworthy. I had it regularly mentioned in news coverage of him that he and Buttigieg were classmates.
  • Just because sometime is regularly mentioned in the news doesn't mean it is important. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and WP:NOTNEWS. Why is it important that the reader know that Mueller and Buttigieg were classmates? If they became friends, and that influenced Mueller's involvement in Buttigieg's campaigns, then it would be worth mentioning. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I added more clarity to that. It has been considered newsworthy precisely because he was childhood friends with Buttigieg, who later employed him.
• I added some stuff to it. But the 2019 mayoral campaign section is sparse because there is very comprehensive coverage of that election at its own dedicated article. There is also not much to note about the general election campaign, which was arguably pro forma in a city as Democratic-leaning as South Bend.
  • I like the information about the general campaign added to the article. In answer to your comment: the 2019 mayoral campaign is a comprehensive article about the campaign, but this article should include comprehensive coverage of Mueller's campaign, which might include different information. This is a major moment in his life and his mayoralty is a major reason why he is notable for Wikipedia. The coverage of his campaign should be comprehensive. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Mueller worked to fill positions on his staff", not sure if you are correct in thinking that it does not need to be said because all readers will assume that it happened during his transition period
  • Why would a mayor not hire people for his staff after they are elected? If he kept the positions empty, and this was the first time that had happened, then that would be noteworthy. But it is generally assumed that a mayor of a decently sized city would hire people for their staff. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • That is something people with knowledge of government generally assume. Are you to assume all Wikipedia readers are familiar with how transitions of government work?
• "Mueller stated that Buttigieg had offered him much advice during the transition." I think illustrates the dynamic between the outgoing and incoming mayor. Even in occasions where the outgoing officeholder supported their successor, transitions do not always see this sort of dynamic occjur. Take Franklin Roosevelt, who, upon becoming governor, rejected overtures from outgoing governor Al Smith to provide him with advice (despite the fact that Smith had hand-picked him to be his successor, and was the reason he was entering that office)
  • If this is noteworthy, then be specific on what advice Buttigieg gave, and how Buttigieg influenced the start of Mueller's campaign.
• "As mayor-elect, Mueller had supported Dawn Jones to remain as South Bend City Clerk" This was the first instance in which Mueller flexed his political muscles, and involved himself in providing his clout to a political issue. I feel it is notable in relation to Mueller.
  • I did not interpret this as an example of Mueller flexing his political muscles. This should be explicitly stated with commentary added from reliable secondary sources on the impact of this event on Mueller's mayoralty. What were the consequences to Mueller's mayoralty after this event? Cut down the amount of detail in explaining the event and instead focus on Mueller
    • South Bend City Clerk is the only citywide elected office outside of the mayor. It had the impact on his mayoralty of deciding what clerk his administration would need to work with for the next four years.
• Mueller believes that systemic racism is a problem that needs to be dealt with." is directly supported by sources. And I'm not sure how it could be a biased statement. In fact, it's not even necessarily an entirely positive statement about him, there are those who will view this as an incorrect stance and will view Mueller more negatively reading this info.
  • I could phrase this as, "Mueller believes in the existence of systematic racism in the South Bend community. His proposals to address this concern include new recruitment techniques at the police department and for the city to provide new opportunities for youth." This replaces the "dealt with" MOS:IDIOM with specific examples of what Mueller has proposed. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • But those were never labeled as plans to to address systemic racism. Those were presented as plans to address crime. That'd be original research to say those are plans to address systemic racism. And, again, there is nothing biased in saying he believes systemic racism is a problem that needs to be addressed.
      • You are correct: it's not biased to say that he believes systematic racism is a problem that should be addressed. But that wording is more NPOV then saying it must be "dealt with", which is what the version I reviewed stated. My concern is that "dealt with" is not in a WP:WIKIVOICE. Giving specific examples of how he thinks it should be addressed will help bring it to a Wikivoice and makes it clearer to the reader. Z1720 (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Some comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720:SecretName101 (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720:I believe I remedied/addressed nearly all of what I understood you to want repaired. SecretName101 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: I've been following along with your edits, and I think they have vastly improved the article. I am a little busy at the moment (I'm procrastinating on Wikipedia to avoid doing work, which is always a bad idea) but I'm putting this review at the top of my priority list. If I have not given further comments by Sunday, please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720, continued

I am making some copyedits as I review the article. Please revert anything that is not helpful. Some comments below:

• "Mueller proposed continuing the progress made under Buttigieg, whose endorsement he carried." One person's progress is another person's backtracking, depending on their political position. Can this be changed to, "Mueller proposed continuing many of Buttigieg's policies, whose endorsement he carried." Or something similar?
• "and promised to build upon the progress made during Buttigieg's tenure." I don't think you need this part of the sentence. The following sentence talks about how Mueller is going to continue Buttigieg's policies, so this is redundant. Maybe, "Mueller's campaign closely tied him with Buttigieg, promising to continue many of the policies and programs implemented by Buttigieg."

• "(including adopting "clean" energy)" per MOS:SCAREQUOTES clean should not be put in quotation marks. Instead, describe what Mueller considered clean energy.
• "On May 7, Mueller won a crowded primary to capture the Democratic nomination." What about, "On May 7, Mueller won the Democratic nomination, defeating XX opponents." This removes commentary that it was crowded, and instead makes the opponent number specific so readers can judge for themselves.
• "Mueller continued to campaign upon promising to continue the progress made during Buttigieg's tenure." Again, can this be changed from "continue the progress" to "continue the policies"?
• " it was not yet entirely "back" (i.e., revived)," What about, "it was not entirely revived" this removes the scare quotes or direct quote that is used with back
• "Four out of five of Mueller's first five leadership position appointments were given to African Americans, however, three of these were to positions that had also been held by African American individuals under Buttigieg." This feels like WP:TRIVIA. Why is it important for the reader to know this?
• Under "Appointments and staffing" there are lots of individuals named, most of which do not have wiki-articles of their own. I do not think all of these individuals need to be named, as it is not important to Mueller's biography to have every single person appointed by Mueller named in the article. Instead, I think the most important information is the chief of staff, maybe deputy chief, and that he kept most of the same department heads that Buttigieg had.
• I would remove the Homelessness heading and call this section "Housing and Homelessness" because the "Housing" section is only a sentence long.
• The Homelessness section is still too large. This section should be summarised, and some of Mueller's quotes can be removed because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and his actions will describe what his policies are.
• "In announcing this project, Mueller declared that he would," descriptions of what Mueller planned to do should mostly be deleted from the article. Instead, describe what actually happened and the results.
• The streetcar paragraph is not very definitive and doesn't say if Mueller supports or opposes this. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS so a biography on Mueller shouldn't include information about every proposal that is made during his tenure. Unless this is a major part of his mayoralty, supported by more than one source, I would delete.
• The "COVID-19 pandemic" is still too long, too. Please summarise the information.
• "Fire department" This section seems to only talk about the appointment of a non-notable fire chief. I would delete this section.
• Try to bring the policing section to four paragraphs. Merge the smaller paragraphs into larger ones.
• "Mueller has considered either replacing the city's code enforcement department with a new "Department of Neighborhoods" or merging it into the Department of Community investment.[47]" This is speculation, and nothing definitive has been proposed for this. Per WP:CHRYSTAL I would remove.

These are my follow-up thoughts! Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk)

• @SecretName101: to ensure they saw my followup comments. Z1720 (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Working on these now SecretName101 (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure mentioning the number of candidates instead of just summarizing the primary as "crowded" improves the article./ I think "crowded primary" is more apt wording than saying that there were nine candidates total. It was crowded not because it had nine candidates on the ballot (as four of those candidates captured less than 25 votes). It was instead crowded because the other five candidates on the ballot (including Mueller) captured more than 6% of the vote. A race can have a lot of candidates, and not be considered crowded. A race is generally only considered crowded when it has a lot of candidates with substantial support. SecretName101 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Sorry for the delay in this response. When I read "crowded primary", I did not interpret that phrase to mean that there were five candidates on the ballot with more than 6% of the vote. Different people might have different definitions of that term, and different thresholds of when a primary can be considered "crowded" because the term has not been clearly defined yet. I suggest saying explicitly what is meant: that the primary had nine candidates, of which five had more than 6% of the vote.

Has there been progress on the other points I raised above? If so, please comment under them when they are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

For the "clean" energy change you recommended, I think leaving it in quotes is as is is best practice. At least in campaign literature on his platform, he did not elaborate on what he considered to be clean energy. SecretName101 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi SecretName101: normally GANs are on hold for 7 days. This has passed the one-month mark, and some sections still require massive improvement. I don't want to rush improvements as Wikipedia is a volunteer service and a rushed article doesn't always create a good article. Would you be amenable to failing this nomination now so that you can work on improvements without being rushed, and then you can renominate it later? If you want to keep this open, when do you estimate that improvements will be completed? Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: I'd be amenable to failing it at the moment and re-nominating it later. SecretName101 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to James Mueller (Indiana politician) (non-admin closure) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

---

James Mueller (mayor) → James Mueller – The primary topic in a WP:ONEOTHER situation and gets more pageviews. Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Appears to be the clear primary topic over a fairly longterm length of time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support In terms of usage, page views, and long term notability, the Indiana politician appears to be a clear primary topic over the Ohio one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose He's a small town mayor, the other guy is a small town state rep. In 100 hundred years they will be equally insignificant. I don't see this guy as having anymore significance, also the clarification is important since they are both politicians from Midwestern states. I think the title should be James Mueller (Indiana politician). Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• We determine primary topics by relative notability to others of the same title, not by meeting a minimum arbitrary standard of significance. Someone can be a national leader and not be a primary, and someone can be an supporting actor on a one-season sitcom and be one. In this case, the relative notability is overwhelming, and there's no reason beyond CRYSTALBALL to make the assumption that would be any different in a decade.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree with this philosophy. I think the absolute level of significance is a relevant factor - and the lower it is, the higher the threshold for relative difference should be to establish a ptopic. For example, even though Paris (mythology) is not far below the city in significance, no editor is going to make the mistake of writing [[Paris]] intending to link to the prince, because everyone knows about Paris, France. The same safety valve does not exist when disambiguating between obscure topics like this. (I wrote about this in another recent RM discussion as well.)

Also, I disagree with this: there's no reason beyond CRYSTALBALL to make the assumption that would be any different in a decade. The mayor is in office today. The other James Mueller was in office in the 1970s. Colin M (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2022 (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.

Requested move 1 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

---

• James Mueller (Indiana politician) → James Mueller
• James Mueller → James Mueller (disambiguation)

– Consistently gets the most page views by far (apart from when Jim Mueller was on the In the news section of the Main page). Also Jim Mueller is more commonly referred to as Jim not James and so the only other article is James Mueller (Ohio politician) who doesn't seems to have any long term significance. Sahaib (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, pageviews are convincing. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per convincing "oppose" argument made nearly two years ago under Talk:James Mueller (Indiana politician)#Requested move 6 February 2022, above. Since Jim Mueller is also listed on the dab page, the Indiana mayor's entry is not primary over the combined notability of the remaining two entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roman Spinner. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2023 (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.