Jump to content

Talk:Mike DeWine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Non-notable impeachment filing nonsense

[edit]

{{BLPN}}

Discussing how a Afd voted a "merge" in the article, but content is removed.

[edit]

In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine, it was very clear that the consensus was to merge. I am needing an explanation as to why the information is being removed by GoodDay and William Allen Simpson. The Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer deemed that information not notable, however, Afd's don't cross, especially ones that have been decided. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I removed the 'info' because, the same was done at the Whitmer article. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need an RFC on this matter, concerning the inclusion/exclusion of impeachment resolutions in bio articles & or whether there should be impeachment resolution articles, themselves. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What happened on Whitmer's article shouldn't matter for this article. Afd had a 7 editor (of 7 editor) consensus to merge the information into this article. The Afd was also decided before Whitmer's Afd started. In Theory, the information is deemed notable until otherwise proven. I would be OK for an RFC discussion, however, since the Afd is the latest discussion on the information, I am going to add it back. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've already restored it. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the general background of this fellow DeWine, he graduated from college at the hottest part of the Vietnam War, but it is just mentioned that he entered law school. Many people, including me, were drafted out of law school in 1968. The whole Selective Service approach changed on June 30, 1967 and ended grad school deferments except for dental, divinity, and medical schools. DeWine could easily have had a physical impairment or some other reason to not serve, but one purpose of a biography is to tell that person's story. Including this is even more important for a politician who, by the very nature of seeking public office, must want to engage in public service so military service (or lack thereof) in the biggest war of our lifetimes is germane.

RFC for the Impeachment Resolution Section

[edit]
The consensus is that the event is not worthy of noting here. Common themes amongst editors in support was that it has received coverage in reliable sources. Those in favour of removing it mainly cited WP:NOTNEWS or similar arguments. There does not appear to be opposition to inclusion should an impeachment resolution pass. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple editors have different opinions about the impeachment resolution section of Mike DeWine. Should the Impeachment Resolution section be added to the Mike DeWine article? Elijahandskip (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needing Help to fix the Rfc tag Elijahandskip (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add on for referencing. The Afd was decided 7 days ago, on December 8, 2020. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would maybe say stick with DeWine's article just for this RFC. In non-COVID related issues, impeachment proceedings/process is considered highly notable on Wikipedia, even if it doesn't go anywhere, just because they are so rare (Last was 2009....Pre-COVID. See Rod Blagojevich corruption charges). The main discussion is about COVID-19 impeachment resolutions. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elijahandskip, well, it's rare that they're actually impeached, certainly. But drawing up or filing articles of impeachment isn't the same. It may also be rare, but in this political climate where we've got much crazier things going on, is it really important enough for a named subsection? I'm just not convinced yet. As I mentioned at the AfD, I think there might be an article in all the crazy shit the nutjobs are doing right now to keep from pissing off Trump supporters, but I doubt we'll get scholarly analysis connecting those for a few years, and without that it's just synth. —valereee (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No impeachment resolutions were voted on, in the state House. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/add content but not an entire section. This subject matter has received plenty of coverage by reliable sources, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned, regardless of whether there's been a vote. However a whole section seems like overkill. This can easily be included under 2020 without any sectioning. R2 (bleep) 20:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said for the Gretchen Whitmer article. But, there's nothing there, either. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know and don't care. Other stuff exists. If it comes up in an RfC then I'll take a look. R2 (bleep) 21:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — This was a press stunt, nothing more. It was not a notable event, and it did not have any effect.
    1. WP:NOTNEWS "Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."
    2. WP:BLP#Attack pages "... when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once...." This applies to attack sections.
    3. Moreover, there was no "impeachment", nor was there any "resolution". Both are actions by a legislature.
    4. Every legislature has thousands of submissions every session. Wikipedia rarely reports on them until they have been approved, and even then rarely includes them unless they have wide-ranging effect.
    5. Finally, this attack was coordinated by an interested party with an external site devoted to the topic. Although it was eventually disclosed on his user page, it was not disclosed in every argument (such as this). There should be a further RFC suspending the editing privileges of Elijahandskip (talk · contribs), a self-proclaimed senior in high school, who has demonstrated a meager knowledge of law, legislative procedure, and civics in general. But a prodigious amount of Wikilawyering.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on #3. I mean technically to file impeachment articles, a "House Resolution" must be created and filed. Also #5 was a personal attack...Too far. I am the lead coordinator of Wikiproject of Current Events....Please stop doing personal attacks. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning by Elijahandskip. GMPX1234 (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
  • Keep-It's obviously a notable event in DeWine's career. Display name 99 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for such a section This is just one more political stunt in a year of political stunts, not an "obviously notable event in DeWine's career". If it develops into something, fine. But if it goes nowhere, if the rest of the state legislature just yawns and bats it aside, it's a nothingburger. The result of the AfD is irrelevant here, as the AfD didn't discuss creating a named subsection. —valereee (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call it fully irrelevant. The Afd didn't talk about a named subsection, but the afd did deem it notable enough for a merge. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Elijahandskip, but this RfC isn't about the information being in the article, is it? It's just about having a named subsection, isn't it? So to me that would mean the AfD is irrelevant for the question in this RfC because the AfD didn't get into that question. —valereee (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The section as it currently exists gives way too much weight to what looks like a minor event with no lasting consequences. It made a splash in the news for a single day three weeks ago and has basically disappeared from the news since then. Maybe it's worth including a single sentence in the 2020 section noting that a few Republicans in the state legislature filed articles of impeachment, but definitely nothing more than that. If things change and it seems like this impeachment has a chance of actually going through, or of affecting his political career in any substantial way, then this can be revisited then. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Whoops. Fixing a broken sentence. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The redirect to this section has been deleted.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this event is not notable. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not the news. Non-event media stunt. GenQuest "scribble" 01:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean encyclopedias state factual information. Technically it is a fact that an impeachment effort took place against Mike DeWine, so an encyclopedia reason should be a keep. Could you possibly explain what your reasoning was for the delete vote? Elijahandskip (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness gracious, please look up the meaning of "technically". A press release or even a paper submission is not technically an action of the legislature. The legislature has adjourned without taking action. It is true that some folks believe in "alternative facts", but that doesn't make the "alternative facts" truthful or reality based.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    According to (Govinfo.gov) A house resolution can be created once the process starts. He created a house resolution for the 12 impeachment articles. I think you are missing some info about the resolution being created. A house resolution is part of the process. Yes it was adjourned, but it is still part of history. No matter what the outcome of this RFC (Admin above believes it is about a section for it, not the info itself), a mention about the attempt is highly notable as it was a multiple month long ordeal under Governor DeWine's administration. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no "ordeal". It was laughable. It did not last months or even days. Trying not to engage, but this uninformed tenditious argument wouldn't stand in even the most basic polisci class. Please note that the reference is for the US House, not the Ohio House. Also that's a misreading of US House rules. Assigning the HR number is a clerical task. It is not a "resolution" until passed by the House. As a personal note, I'm fairly familiar with the US House, having lived with a now-former Member for nearly two decades.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Relationship with Ohio GOP" or "Relationship with Legislature" or something similar. As pointed out by others, this was a press stunt and was newsworthy more for what it said about those filing the articles of impeachment than about Mike DeWine. As such I would suggest renaming the section appropriately. Short of that, I would be for deleting the section. --Tserton (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as obviously of significance to this politician and his notability and why people may be looking him up on WP. I have no objection at all, though, to repurposing the section to be more general, per Tserton, as long as the information is not lost. That is, it need not have "impeachment" in the section heading.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I edit-conflicted with the close, but wrote this while it was still open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

[edit]
  • Nota Bene: Much to my surprise, as I'd only observed actions on Wikipedia, the administrators found that Elijahandskip was hosting attack pages on DeWine and Whitmer, an alternative Wikipedia website (and Twitter account). And a view that mainstream media, or what Wikipedia would consider "reliable sources", is biased. Also, that Wikipedia is inciting racism. After discovery, the blog entries were deleted (or hidden from administrators). Now, spamming this notice into every dispute. Don't feed the trolls.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you being a hypocrite? You just got all upset because some things weren't mentioned in every discussion, now you are upset because something that is highly important to the discussion was added in all the discussions. Just saying, you need think before typing. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]
off-topic, both of you just drop the stick

Can William Allen Simpson's fifth point be classified as disturbing and that point (plus my comment to the fifth point) be added to the distribution section? Elijahandskip (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution section? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section just above this one. It is a drop down tab.Elijahandskip (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Disruption section. You posted Distribution. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I hate typing on my phone. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can Elijahandskip's posting this outside the administrator mandated hidden section be classified as a violation? If anything, my #5 point needs to be expanded. An RFC asking that Elijahandskip have editing privileges suspended isn't a personal attack, that's part of our long-standing process. Administrators discovered that in addition to Elijahandskip hosting those attack pages, there was outside coordination, plus blog and twitter entries attacking wikipedia reliable sources as "biased" and wikipedia itself as "inciting racism". Each and every one of those has been a reason for suspension. Anybody participating on this RFC needs to know.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a hidden section. The section was pulled out of the RFC because the whole topic about me and you fighting isn't a part of the RFC. Also an administrator told you to communicate with me and you haven't. The topic of an RFC about me was basically stopped as we both got warned. Please just drop that topic. I was asking a simple question. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

[edit]

We need an administrator to close this expired-tag RFC. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Governor of Ohio

[edit]

The current status was vandalised by Keeb wiki (talk · contribs). Most was restored.

After I fixed the remaining missing text, I was reverted (Not a complete sentences.) by Cullen328 (talk · contribs).

"... is an American politician and attorney. Currently serving as the governor of Ohio." Clearly, two complete sentences.

The current state is a run-on "... is an American politician and attorney and governor of Ohio, since 2019."

Would somebody else please fix the lead.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but "Currently serving as the governor of Ohio." is not a complete sentence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A complete sentence always contains a verb, expresses a complete idea and makes sense standing alone." The verb is "serving" and the object is "governor of Ohio." In English, the subject is often implied: "An implied subject is not explicitly stated in a sentence but is understood from context." Please re-read a handy copy of Strunk and White. Also, Google is your friend.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a complete sentence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proof by assertion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen is correct. In formal English grammar, every sentence needs at least one independent clause. An independent clause has a finite verb as its root. "Serving" is a non-finite verb, a present participle. "Currently serving as the governor of Ohio" has no finite verb, and thus no independent clause, and therefore is not a complete sentence. This kind of writing is common in newspaper headlines and image captions, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. As an aside, The Elements of Style is a style guide, not a grammar book, and I would recommend against using it as such. But in this case, Strunk agrees with me. See section II, item 6, "Do not break sentences in two" [1]. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
English isn't Latin. Perhaps "serving" could be "serves" in this case. But then we start arguing about gerunds. That was a long run-on sentence, and doesn't meet any of the examples of splitting sentences in Strunk and White. (It also has commas in the wrong places.)
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does Latin have to do with anything? In formal English, the kind used in Wikipedia, a sentence requires a subject and a finite verb. "Currently serves as governor of Ohio" also isn't a complete sentence, since it lacks a subject. Sentences without finite verbs or with implied subjects are perfectly acceptable in many contexts, but they're not appropriate for Wikipedia. They read like bullet points on a resume, not an introduction in an encyclopedia. In any case, I rewrote the lead sentence, modeling it after other similar articles like Greg Abbott and Gavin Newsom. Also, I felt that it went into excessive detail on his past offices (those should be limited to the most notable ones per MOS:ROLEBIO), and it also included some details that weren't in the body of the article, so I removed them. I think the current lead works as a decent first paragraph, but ideally it should be expanded now to summarize more of the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fixing the lead is what I'd asked originally.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No more proposal to add any information about the impeachment resolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Impeachment resolution mention (3 sentences, not a section) proposal

[edit]

I understand that the impeachment resolution shouldn't have it's own section, however, it is very wrong to exclude it completely from his history as governor. I am proposing to add 3 sentences to his 2020 section.

"On August 24, 2020, state representative John Becker, co-sponsored by representatives Candice Keller, Nino Vitale, and Paul Zeltwanger, drew up articles of impeachment on DeWine over disagreements he had with how DeWine had handled the COVID-19 pandemic. Becker, Keller, Vitale and Zeltwanger officially issued 12 articles of impeachment against DeWine on November 30, 2020. The impeachment resolution never went to a vote, and died in a "lame-duck" session."

Of course sources will be added for citations, but that is my proposal since the attempt to impeach him is a part of his governorship history, it should have a mention. The RFC above, the way I understand it, was to not have a large section about it. But the history aspect should still be mentioned.

(Pinging relevant users from the Rfc: @GoodDay:,@William Allen Simpson:, @Red Rock Canyon:, @TheDreamBoat:, & @Valereee:

Anyone agree to this? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - We had an RFC on the matter & the result was to exclude. Continuing to push for its inclusion, will be seen as disruptive. Unless the stat House has voted on impeachment articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will never understand why Wikipedia editors want to re-write history on their own. But you have your opinion. Sad that people will 100% forget that there was an attempt to impeach a sitting US governor. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just like with Gretchen Whitmer, there wasn't much of an attempt. If the state House votes on any impeachment article(s), then inclusion would be proper. Until then? nope. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The Oppose vote is very clear. Won't mention this ever again. Closing now. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Unemployment

[edit]

Being cut off unemployment for not going to workforce ohio. Don’t know suppose to go. Don’t have laptop or computer or internet or WiFi. Have outdated cellphone unable to get on websit at workforce ohio. So unemployment checks are cut off. Employee at workforce told us that it was their problem not ours but was nothing she could do about it. How many people either give up or don’t get their unemployment money. Is this why both unemployment is going down but ohio poverty rate is increasing. What happened to ohio population being first concern 2607:FB91:16D5:4D48:D534:F66D:5B99:C80B (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_DeWine&oldid=1235921296"