This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
-- Oxenriver ( talk) 03:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Youngkin is a nominee/candidate, not an elected politician. He has never held elected office, and therefore he requires the Template:Infobox_officeholder#Nominee/candidate. Please see the example set forth at Template:Infobox_officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate. Pinging KidAd. Thank you. Oxenriver ( talk) 02:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Glenn Youngkin | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Republican nominee for Governor of Virginia | |
Election date November 2, 2021 | |
Running mate | Winsome Sears |
Opponent | TBD |
Incumbent | Ralph Northam |
Personal details | |
Born | Richmond, Virginia, U.S. | December 9, 1966
Political party | Republican |
Residence(s) | Great Falls, Virginia |
Education |
Rice University (
BS,
BA) Harvard University ( MBA) |
Occupation | Businessman |
Website |
www |
Should this Glenn Youngkin article have a nominee/candidate infobox ( Template:Infobox officeholder#Nominee/candidate)? The nominee/candidate infobox would look like this (shown on the right), matching the example set forth at Template:Infobox officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate. Youngkin's Democratic opponent will be announced and filled in after the Democratic primary on June 8. Oxenriver ( talk) 00:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Why did the editor PerpetuityGrat remove content about Youngkin fearmongering about how the right-wing boogeyman George Soros was ruining education in Virginia? One of the key themes in Youngkin's campaign revolves around education in Virginia. I fail to see why we should note that Youngkin attributes the poor states of education in Virginia to George Soros. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a political soapbox please provide rs before posting hitjobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.109.224 ( talk) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The lead should summarize points that are already discussed in the body of the article. The gubernatorial election section of this article discusses Youngkin's views on Trump, vaccines, and critical race theory, and so I summarized those points in the lead. The body of the article currently says nothing about Youngkin's views on the economy or on law enforcement, so I left those topics out of the lead. Something should certainly be said about those topics in the body of the article, but even then, whether or not they should be discussed in the lead depends on how central they are to the news coverage of Youngkin's campaign.
The goal shouldn't be to split the difference between how Youngkin would characterize the campaign and how Youngkin's opponents would like to characterize the campaign. The goal should be to explain how mainstream news sources have characterized the campaign. I've seen countless news stories from major publications that have focused primarily on Youngkin's education policies, but I have not seen the same amount of news coverage about Youngkin's economic policies. So it seems to me that the education policies are worth highlighting over other policies in the lead. Jpcase ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
References generally aren't used in the lead, but everything that I added to the lead is extensively referenced within the body of the article. The topics that I chose to highlight are the topics about Youngkin that have received the most news coverage. They are also the topics that the body of the article discusses in the greatest amount of detail.
The lead could potentially be expanded to also discuss other topics, but there don't appear to be any other topics discussed at any great length within the body of the article, so there really isn't much else to summarize. Jpcase ( talk) 15:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
There're several excessively negative fact-checks in the politics section that discusses education which makes this article read quite unbalanced and to make matters worse a few fact-checks were removed from his opponent's page, if fact-checks are allowed they should either be on both pages or none at all. 70.191.130.23 ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I removed the net worth parameter from the infobox, as it's now deprecated. If anyone wants to add that content elsewhere in the article, you can find what I removed in this edit. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 17:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
I believe the lead could use a more neutral term. Instead of saying "rising to become its CEO", I think it should be "later becoming its CEO". I have tried to do this myself, but it seems that the same wording keeps being added back in. So, I am seeking consensus and discussion. "Rising" has a more positive connotation, while "becoming" states just what happened: he did become its CEO. I do not think "rising" is a neutral term to use. WhoAteMyButter ( 📨talk│ 📝contribs) 22:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I went ahead and changed it back to how you had it. Jpcase ( talk) 23:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
A compromise: Leave it as person for now. Then (only) change it to 'politician' if he's elected Virginia governor. GoodDay ( talk) 04:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I noticed a few odd choices of words. I know it's deliberately ambiguous political-speak, but don't we have reliable sources that are willing to call a spade a spade?
Youngkin supports the COVID-19 vaccine, but opposes mask and vaccine mandates.
This statement is an oxymoron. He either supports or opposes vaccines. Both cannot be true at the same time.
Asked if he accepts the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change, Youngkin said he does not know what causes climate change and that the cause ultimately does not matter.
The causes of climate change are not in any sort of dispute and feigning ignorance on the subject, or pretending that it's a controversial topic is a standard dodge used by climate change deniers, and his later comments on the clean economy act erases all ambiguity as to what his position is.
There seems to be a distinct lack of scrutiny for these two particular positions, which is a shame, since the article does a pretty good job tearing apart his other positions. 46.97.170.79 ( talk) 13:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
It is possible to support vaccines themselves, and oppose vaccine mandates.Uhm... not it isn't. That's literally the position of right wing antivaxxers who are smart enough to know that insane conspiracy theories about population control and chinese microchips will only get them laughed out of the room, so they instead pretend to be the "moderate" middle ground, between the mainstream consensus and fringe quackery on completely black and white issues, such as vaccines, climate change or even the holocaust.
If you believe that Youngkin is an antivaxxer, please provide a source. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 16:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Why are Youngkin's rather lackluster college basketball statistics included? Had he been a notable college player it might make sense. In this case, on the verge of Virginia's gubernatorial election, it almost seems they've been included to make him seem a lackluster individual. Goodtablemanners ( talk) 02:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Dave Wasserman has called it for Glenn Youngkin. Should we wait for an official call or can we put the Governor-elect title in the infobox. https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1455692529790328835 RandomUserGuy1738 ( talk) 00:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Anybody know how to place the lieutenant governor-elect in the infobox 'above' the outgoing governor? GoodDay ( talk) 05:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
You are portraying youngkin's win in a completely negative light. Can you please change that? 107.77.204.79 ( talk) 10:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Lower taxes, reducing government footprint, and putting parents in charge of their kids education seems pretty positive to me. I don't see the problem here, what am I missing? Are you suggesting the Wikipedia is left-biased? No way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.133.250 ( talk) 11:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this some sort of cruel joke? Is in lede. Just say "who is governor-elect of Virginia". 2600:1012:B04E:336D:BD84:DB05:E949:5B00 ( talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mention Youngkin won the Governor election in Virginia 47.186.67.121 ( talk) 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Washington Post writes today that he now says he's 6' 5"--seems to be what they're using now: [1] Not sure his height is relevant anyway.-- Bill Harshaw ( talk) 21:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
References
It was reported in numerous major reliable sources: Newsweek, Washington Post, CNN, etc. It keeps being removed by two conservative editors (supposedly) as per WP:UNDUE.
I vote that it should be included with one sentence in the article, but I'd like to know other opinions before doing so again. Omnibus ( talk) 00:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
You have mischaracterized the event a number of times. Secondly making assumptions about other editors motives is a personal attack, and says more about your motives for the inclusion of this information. If you read the sources the boy though he could vote because another 17-year old did, he presented ID and was turned away. It is a minor incident that is only tangentially related to his father the subject of this article. Hardyplants ( talk) 00:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. And this isn't his son's page. KidAd • SPEAK 01:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not written in news style. In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context. There isn't any "encyclopedic context" for this news story. KidAd • SPEAK 03:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"It was just weird ... Teenagers do stupid things". Cilidus ( talk) 12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Those are better comparisons, although I'm still not sure that they're completely analogous, as they were unrelated to Kaine and Paul's respective political careers. The Youngkin situation is, I think, relevant to Youngkin's political career, because it involved an election that Youngkin was a candidate in.
I'm more or less an INCLUSIONIST, and so if a news story has been the primary focus of articles published by numerous different mainstream news outlets, then I generally feel that it should be included on Wikipedia. So the Tim Kaine situation, I think, would be relevant for Wikipedia; the Paul situation, probably not.
I recognize that there's currently a soft consensus against including the information about Youngkin's son in this article, and so unless others weigh into the conversation to support the information's inclusion or unless further news stories are published about the incident, then I'll support leaving the information out. My view hasn't changed though, and I do still feel that the information would be relevant to the article. -- Jpcase ( talk) 15:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article."The claim needs to be verified in the body of the text. In fact, reliable sources verify that the incident was not an example of voter fraud: "The man did not vote. He made no false statements. He did not disrupt voting. Based upon information available to me now, it appears that he committed no election offense as defined in Chapter 10 of the Elections Code." Cilidus ( talk) 15:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I share the concern that PerpetuityGrat brought up in the edit history: the article seems to be getting bloated and this is especially a concern if each new event is going to be added in similar detail as recent ones. There definitely seem to be potential issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. For instance, the section "Campaign Twitter attack on teenage activist" is primarily about the actions of Youngkin's campaign, and his direct involvement comes from his reaction after the situation had occurred. It could be worth including, but I don't think this event is nearly as relevant to the long-term view/notability of Youngkin as, say "Day One executive actions" or perhaps "Tipline for 'divisive practices'". Fiwec81618 ( talk) 05:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed the section, the whole section screams 'got you' and trys to make a case for something that isn't a big deal that his campaign staff did. There's legitimate things going on like the mask mandate ban passing through the legislature that aren't even mentioned. The article, particularly with this section, is beginning to read like a hit piece. There's no way this should get ~10% of his page, frankly it shouldn't even be mentioned. It doesn't involve him directly and it's attacking in nature for no reason (like no laws were broken). I can't think of a reason why this should be included, unless you just want to play 'got you.' 107.77.241.60 ( talk) 01:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Comparing a Youngkin campaign staffer's tweet showing hypocrisy from a prominent Democratic activist and legislative aide to Trump et al. is ridiculous. The four of them you mentioned have personally sent out extremely hideous statements via Twitter which in many other democracies would be classified as either outright defamation/hate speech or borderline (particularly in the case of Trump's repulsive behavior). Unless his campaign Twitter use becomes a regular fixture of his administration, I think it's irrelevant in the scope of a four-year administration and places undue influence in the article. I'm completely against any mention of it given the present circumstances. Also, I'd like to mention that many progressives support reducing the voting age to 17 or 16, yet sadly too many are now supposedly outraged by this Twitter response. The whole thing is just politics. I wish our society was more consistent and principled. We need to move on from 'got you' culture. I only replied because of that ridiculous comparison. 107.77.241.60 ( talk) 02:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.-- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Just a question. Why don’t we use Governor Younkins official picture? For example we use President Biden‘s official picture on his Wikipedia page. 96.255.140.83 ( talk) 08:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ PerpetuityGrat: - Pinging to discuss your concern that the article is too long. As I've expressed before, my belief is that many Wikipedia articles on governors, including most articles on prior Virginia governors, are far too short. If there's specific information that you think should be cut, then I'm open to spinning some details off into a separate Governorship of Glenn Youngkin article, which is an approach that has been taken with lots of other articles about governors.
It should be noted though, that Virginia has a part-time legislature, which generally meets only for the first few months of each year. So there's naturally going to be a flurry of activity in Virginia politics from January through about April, followed by a lull throughout the rest of the year. The concern was expressed that this article is currently too long for someone who's only been in office for a few months. But, due to the divided legislature, most of Youngkin's actions have come through executive orders, which tend to be most prevalent during the start of a politician's term in office. And there's likely to be a minimal amount of legislation getting passed next year, since - barring special elections - the makeup of the state legislature won't change until 2024. So the article's current length shouldn't be viewed solely through the context of how long Youngkin has spent in office to-date, but should also be viewed with the understanding that these past few months are likely to have been the most active part of what will be Youngkin's first two years in office.
There are still a few big topics that haven't been covered in this article yet that I'd like to add, but after that point, the article is unlikely to require any big expansions for quite awhile. Jpcase ( talk) 02:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Dronebogus thanks for the explanation for the reversion you gave on my talk page, however I must respectfully disagee.
The section about abortion policy is about biological motherhood, not the human construction of gender, so it does not make sense to use vague language for a sex specific medical issue. "Mother" refers to the female parent of offspring (see Mother article). So there is no reason to use such language in a purely physical, not social medical context. Especially if sources themselves don't say it.
24.44.73.34 ( talk) 15:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Jpcase Youngkin failing to comment on the 2020 election isn't a political position that is still substantially covered in the media and therefore does not belong in that section. It was a matter of the 2021 campaign, and it is covered in that section in detail. After the 2021 campaign the issue was irrelevant to him, Virginia, the media, and his political opponents, while his views on abortion, taxes, race, covid-19 etc. are all still discussed. Bill Williams 12:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The New York Times and The Washington Post report the following:
If "working to earn Trump's favor", saying that he was "honored" to accept Trump's endorsement, arranging to have Trump speak at a campaign rally for him, and coordinating with Trump on strategy doesn't mean that Youngkin has, at least at one time in his career, treated Trump as a political ally, then...how should one view all of those details about Youngkin? That Youngkin has never "called himself" an ally of Trump is irrelevant. The lead never stated that Youngkin "called himself an ally of Trump". The lead stated that Youngkin "positioned himself as an ally of Trump", and those quotes I just shared very clearly describe Youngkin treating Trump as a political ally.
That Trump "has criticized Youngkin a number of times in the past month" matters even less. Trump has criticized a lot of his political allies. He's even criticized Mike Pence. Would you argue that it's inaccurate to describe Pence as a Trump ally simply because Trump has made some statements criticizing Pence?
all it adds to the lead is "Youngkin disagrees with this one specific person" - this statement you made completely ignores the fact that Youngkin waited until almost half a year after the election before disagreeing with Trump on the election results. You may not consider that fact to be relevant. But news sources do consider it to be relevant. I've pointed you to several sources from mainstream news outlets that treat it is relevant. I've pointed you to recent sources from mainstream news outlets that treat it is as relevant. If you personally consider it "absurd" that news outlets continue to treat it as relevant, then well, that's your right. I'm not trying to convince you that it's relevant. I'm not asking you to agree with news outlets about what is and isn't relevant. I'm just hoping that you'll agree that when news outlets consistently treat a topic as relevant, we should consider that topic as relevant for the purposes of this article, even in cases where we may disagree with which topics those outlets choose to prioritize.
As for Amanda Chase, the source that was provided states that Youngkin "has nurtured a bond" with Chase and "treated Chase to an unorthodox, private bill-signing" even though Chase had been "on the outs" with most other Virginia Republicans. Then there's also the fact that Youngkin employed Chase as an official campaign surrogate, well after she had already been censured by Virginia Republicans. So again, the fact that Youngkin himself has never used the word "ally" to describe his relationship with Chase matters far less than the fact that news articles clearly and consistently describe Youngkin treating Chase as a political ally.
But as I've already said, I'm willing to leave mention of Chase out of the Political Positions section. I'm willing to leave statements about political positions taken by Youngkin during the campaign out of the Political Positions section. But I'm not okay with removing any mention of Youngkin's political association with Trump from the article's lead. -- Jpcase ( talk) 02:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The reality is the Youngkin campaign was trying to stop Trump from having a primary role in the campaign and they convinced him to do the phone rally to shut him up. Now Youngkin is thinking about a run for the presidency and Trump's attacking him. Seems like a stretch to call them allies. This page also seems like it's overly negative towards Youngkin by repeatedly bringing up things he's done and juxtaposing it with how Democrats disagree, unions disagree (who are generally Democratic proxies like business groups are with the GOP), and 'look we found some experts who do as well' when you can find some sort of expert to agree or disagree with just about any remotely non-extreme position. The page brings up Youngkin's predecessor too much as well. Other political pages don't harp on about their predecessor like this one. I feel like a neutral set of editor(s) need to come in and correct some of this bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.116.83.14 ( talk) 16:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The lead says, "As governor, Youngkin has focused heavily on culture war issues pertaining to race and gender identity in public education." We could phrase that more neutrally if it were true, so that it doesn't paint him as divisive, contentious, and confrontational. For example, something like, "As governor, Youngkin's legislative priorities have focused on issues pertaining to race and gender identity in public education." But, anyway, it's not correct; his priorities, agenda, and accomplishments have been more wide-ranging.
I recommend this detailed analysis: Rankin, Sarah and Price, Michelle. “Youngkin scores some legislative wins as he eyes White House”, Associated Press (12 Mar 2023).
Lots and lots of issues and accomplishments are discussed by AP, with only a little bit about race and gender or the like. According to the first three paragraphs of the AP analysis (emphasis added):
The remainder of the article described the rest of his priorities and agenda, not including those described above:
Our lead says, "As governor, Youngkin has focused heavily on culture war issues pertaining to race and gender identity in public education." The term "culture war" isn't even mentioned in the body of the article, and I think this sentence of the lead is misleading and ought to be removed or rewritten. I would suggest something like, "As governor, Youngkin has taken a generally conservative stance, addressing culture war issues, toughening measures with regard to China, prioritizing tax cuts, tougher penalties for criminals, regulatory efficiency, educationsal and mental health initiatives, and fighting fentanyl and antisemitism." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The point I'm trying to make is that there is more reporting on Youngkin's cultural policies than there is on his other policies expressly because reporters consider the cultural policies to be the ones that Youngkin has prioritized. If he hadn't placed a heavy focus on the topic, then there wouldn't be much to report on. If it would help to see a news article explicitly stating, without any ambiguity, that Youngkin has focused on culture wars issues pertaining to education, then I can understand and address that concern. Here are two more Washington Post articles, each published a year into Youngkin's term. [18] [19] In the first article, the reporter writes about Youngkin, "He has leaned into culture wars in K-12 education." In the second article, the reporter discusses Youngkin's stances on cultural education issues such as race and gender, then writes that Youngkin "has continued to center those stances in office". I can go ahead and work these sources into the body of the article. -- Jpcase ( talk) 22:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
-- Oxenriver ( talk) 03:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Youngkin is a nominee/candidate, not an elected politician. He has never held elected office, and therefore he requires the Template:Infobox_officeholder#Nominee/candidate. Please see the example set forth at Template:Infobox_officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate. Pinging KidAd. Thank you. Oxenriver ( talk) 02:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Glenn Youngkin | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Republican nominee for Governor of Virginia | |
Election date November 2, 2021 | |
Running mate | Winsome Sears |
Opponent | TBD |
Incumbent | Ralph Northam |
Personal details | |
Born | Richmond, Virginia, U.S. | December 9, 1966
Political party | Republican |
Residence(s) | Great Falls, Virginia |
Education |
Rice University (
BS,
BA) Harvard University ( MBA) |
Occupation | Businessman |
Website |
www |
Should this Glenn Youngkin article have a nominee/candidate infobox ( Template:Infobox officeholder#Nominee/candidate)? The nominee/candidate infobox would look like this (shown on the right), matching the example set forth at Template:Infobox officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate. Youngkin's Democratic opponent will be announced and filled in after the Democratic primary on June 8. Oxenriver ( talk) 00:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Why did the editor PerpetuityGrat remove content about Youngkin fearmongering about how the right-wing boogeyman George Soros was ruining education in Virginia? One of the key themes in Youngkin's campaign revolves around education in Virginia. I fail to see why we should note that Youngkin attributes the poor states of education in Virginia to George Soros. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a political soapbox please provide rs before posting hitjobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.109.224 ( talk) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The lead should summarize points that are already discussed in the body of the article. The gubernatorial election section of this article discusses Youngkin's views on Trump, vaccines, and critical race theory, and so I summarized those points in the lead. The body of the article currently says nothing about Youngkin's views on the economy or on law enforcement, so I left those topics out of the lead. Something should certainly be said about those topics in the body of the article, but even then, whether or not they should be discussed in the lead depends on how central they are to the news coverage of Youngkin's campaign.
The goal shouldn't be to split the difference between how Youngkin would characterize the campaign and how Youngkin's opponents would like to characterize the campaign. The goal should be to explain how mainstream news sources have characterized the campaign. I've seen countless news stories from major publications that have focused primarily on Youngkin's education policies, but I have not seen the same amount of news coverage about Youngkin's economic policies. So it seems to me that the education policies are worth highlighting over other policies in the lead. Jpcase ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
References generally aren't used in the lead, but everything that I added to the lead is extensively referenced within the body of the article. The topics that I chose to highlight are the topics about Youngkin that have received the most news coverage. They are also the topics that the body of the article discusses in the greatest amount of detail.
The lead could potentially be expanded to also discuss other topics, but there don't appear to be any other topics discussed at any great length within the body of the article, so there really isn't much else to summarize. Jpcase ( talk) 15:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
There're several excessively negative fact-checks in the politics section that discusses education which makes this article read quite unbalanced and to make matters worse a few fact-checks were removed from his opponent's page, if fact-checks are allowed they should either be on both pages or none at all. 70.191.130.23 ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I removed the net worth parameter from the infobox, as it's now deprecated. If anyone wants to add that content elsewhere in the article, you can find what I removed in this edit. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 17:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
I believe the lead could use a more neutral term. Instead of saying "rising to become its CEO", I think it should be "later becoming its CEO". I have tried to do this myself, but it seems that the same wording keeps being added back in. So, I am seeking consensus and discussion. "Rising" has a more positive connotation, while "becoming" states just what happened: he did become its CEO. I do not think "rising" is a neutral term to use. WhoAteMyButter ( 📨talk│ 📝contribs) 22:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I went ahead and changed it back to how you had it. Jpcase ( talk) 23:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
A compromise: Leave it as person for now. Then (only) change it to 'politician' if he's elected Virginia governor. GoodDay ( talk) 04:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I noticed a few odd choices of words. I know it's deliberately ambiguous political-speak, but don't we have reliable sources that are willing to call a spade a spade?
Youngkin supports the COVID-19 vaccine, but opposes mask and vaccine mandates.
This statement is an oxymoron. He either supports or opposes vaccines. Both cannot be true at the same time.
Asked if he accepts the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change, Youngkin said he does not know what causes climate change and that the cause ultimately does not matter.
The causes of climate change are not in any sort of dispute and feigning ignorance on the subject, or pretending that it's a controversial topic is a standard dodge used by climate change deniers, and his later comments on the clean economy act erases all ambiguity as to what his position is.
There seems to be a distinct lack of scrutiny for these two particular positions, which is a shame, since the article does a pretty good job tearing apart his other positions. 46.97.170.79 ( talk) 13:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
It is possible to support vaccines themselves, and oppose vaccine mandates.Uhm... not it isn't. That's literally the position of right wing antivaxxers who are smart enough to know that insane conspiracy theories about population control and chinese microchips will only get them laughed out of the room, so they instead pretend to be the "moderate" middle ground, between the mainstream consensus and fringe quackery on completely black and white issues, such as vaccines, climate change or even the holocaust.
If you believe that Youngkin is an antivaxxer, please provide a source. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 16:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Why are Youngkin's rather lackluster college basketball statistics included? Had he been a notable college player it might make sense. In this case, on the verge of Virginia's gubernatorial election, it almost seems they've been included to make him seem a lackluster individual. Goodtablemanners ( talk) 02:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Dave Wasserman has called it for Glenn Youngkin. Should we wait for an official call or can we put the Governor-elect title in the infobox. https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1455692529790328835 RandomUserGuy1738 ( talk) 00:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Anybody know how to place the lieutenant governor-elect in the infobox 'above' the outgoing governor? GoodDay ( talk) 05:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
You are portraying youngkin's win in a completely negative light. Can you please change that? 107.77.204.79 ( talk) 10:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Lower taxes, reducing government footprint, and putting parents in charge of their kids education seems pretty positive to me. I don't see the problem here, what am I missing? Are you suggesting the Wikipedia is left-biased? No way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.133.250 ( talk) 11:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this some sort of cruel joke? Is in lede. Just say "who is governor-elect of Virginia". 2600:1012:B04E:336D:BD84:DB05:E949:5B00 ( talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mention Youngkin won the Governor election in Virginia 47.186.67.121 ( talk) 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Washington Post writes today that he now says he's 6' 5"--seems to be what they're using now: [1] Not sure his height is relevant anyway.-- Bill Harshaw ( talk) 21:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
References
It was reported in numerous major reliable sources: Newsweek, Washington Post, CNN, etc. It keeps being removed by two conservative editors (supposedly) as per WP:UNDUE.
I vote that it should be included with one sentence in the article, but I'd like to know other opinions before doing so again. Omnibus ( talk) 00:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
You have mischaracterized the event a number of times. Secondly making assumptions about other editors motives is a personal attack, and says more about your motives for the inclusion of this information. If you read the sources the boy though he could vote because another 17-year old did, he presented ID and was turned away. It is a minor incident that is only tangentially related to his father the subject of this article. Hardyplants ( talk) 00:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. And this isn't his son's page. KidAd • SPEAK 01:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not written in news style. In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context. There isn't any "encyclopedic context" for this news story. KidAd • SPEAK 03:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"It was just weird ... Teenagers do stupid things". Cilidus ( talk) 12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Those are better comparisons, although I'm still not sure that they're completely analogous, as they were unrelated to Kaine and Paul's respective political careers. The Youngkin situation is, I think, relevant to Youngkin's political career, because it involved an election that Youngkin was a candidate in.
I'm more or less an INCLUSIONIST, and so if a news story has been the primary focus of articles published by numerous different mainstream news outlets, then I generally feel that it should be included on Wikipedia. So the Tim Kaine situation, I think, would be relevant for Wikipedia; the Paul situation, probably not.
I recognize that there's currently a soft consensus against including the information about Youngkin's son in this article, and so unless others weigh into the conversation to support the information's inclusion or unless further news stories are published about the incident, then I'll support leaving the information out. My view hasn't changed though, and I do still feel that the information would be relevant to the article. -- Jpcase ( talk) 15:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article."The claim needs to be verified in the body of the text. In fact, reliable sources verify that the incident was not an example of voter fraud: "The man did not vote. He made no false statements. He did not disrupt voting. Based upon information available to me now, it appears that he committed no election offense as defined in Chapter 10 of the Elections Code." Cilidus ( talk) 15:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I share the concern that PerpetuityGrat brought up in the edit history: the article seems to be getting bloated and this is especially a concern if each new event is going to be added in similar detail as recent ones. There definitely seem to be potential issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. For instance, the section "Campaign Twitter attack on teenage activist" is primarily about the actions of Youngkin's campaign, and his direct involvement comes from his reaction after the situation had occurred. It could be worth including, but I don't think this event is nearly as relevant to the long-term view/notability of Youngkin as, say "Day One executive actions" or perhaps "Tipline for 'divisive practices'". Fiwec81618 ( talk) 05:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed the section, the whole section screams 'got you' and trys to make a case for something that isn't a big deal that his campaign staff did. There's legitimate things going on like the mask mandate ban passing through the legislature that aren't even mentioned. The article, particularly with this section, is beginning to read like a hit piece. There's no way this should get ~10% of his page, frankly it shouldn't even be mentioned. It doesn't involve him directly and it's attacking in nature for no reason (like no laws were broken). I can't think of a reason why this should be included, unless you just want to play 'got you.' 107.77.241.60 ( talk) 01:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Comparing a Youngkin campaign staffer's tweet showing hypocrisy from a prominent Democratic activist and legislative aide to Trump et al. is ridiculous. The four of them you mentioned have personally sent out extremely hideous statements via Twitter which in many other democracies would be classified as either outright defamation/hate speech or borderline (particularly in the case of Trump's repulsive behavior). Unless his campaign Twitter use becomes a regular fixture of his administration, I think it's irrelevant in the scope of a four-year administration and places undue influence in the article. I'm completely against any mention of it given the present circumstances. Also, I'd like to mention that many progressives support reducing the voting age to 17 or 16, yet sadly too many are now supposedly outraged by this Twitter response. The whole thing is just politics. I wish our society was more consistent and principled. We need to move on from 'got you' culture. I only replied because of that ridiculous comparison. 107.77.241.60 ( talk) 02:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.-- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Just a question. Why don’t we use Governor Younkins official picture? For example we use President Biden‘s official picture on his Wikipedia page. 96.255.140.83 ( talk) 08:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@ PerpetuityGrat: - Pinging to discuss your concern that the article is too long. As I've expressed before, my belief is that many Wikipedia articles on governors, including most articles on prior Virginia governors, are far too short. If there's specific information that you think should be cut, then I'm open to spinning some details off into a separate Governorship of Glenn Youngkin article, which is an approach that has been taken with lots of other articles about governors.
It should be noted though, that Virginia has a part-time legislature, which generally meets only for the first few months of each year. So there's naturally going to be a flurry of activity in Virginia politics from January through about April, followed by a lull throughout the rest of the year. The concern was expressed that this article is currently too long for someone who's only been in office for a few months. But, due to the divided legislature, most of Youngkin's actions have come through executive orders, which tend to be most prevalent during the start of a politician's term in office. And there's likely to be a minimal amount of legislation getting passed next year, since - barring special elections - the makeup of the state legislature won't change until 2024. So the article's current length shouldn't be viewed solely through the context of how long Youngkin has spent in office to-date, but should also be viewed with the understanding that these past few months are likely to have been the most active part of what will be Youngkin's first two years in office.
There are still a few big topics that haven't been covered in this article yet that I'd like to add, but after that point, the article is unlikely to require any big expansions for quite awhile. Jpcase ( talk) 02:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Dronebogus thanks for the explanation for the reversion you gave on my talk page, however I must respectfully disagee.
The section about abortion policy is about biological motherhood, not the human construction of gender, so it does not make sense to use vague language for a sex specific medical issue. "Mother" refers to the female parent of offspring (see Mother article). So there is no reason to use such language in a purely physical, not social medical context. Especially if sources themselves don't say it.
24.44.73.34 ( talk) 15:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Jpcase Youngkin failing to comment on the 2020 election isn't a political position that is still substantially covered in the media and therefore does not belong in that section. It was a matter of the 2021 campaign, and it is covered in that section in detail. After the 2021 campaign the issue was irrelevant to him, Virginia, the media, and his political opponents, while his views on abortion, taxes, race, covid-19 etc. are all still discussed. Bill Williams 12:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The New York Times and The Washington Post report the following:
If "working to earn Trump's favor", saying that he was "honored" to accept Trump's endorsement, arranging to have Trump speak at a campaign rally for him, and coordinating with Trump on strategy doesn't mean that Youngkin has, at least at one time in his career, treated Trump as a political ally, then...how should one view all of those details about Youngkin? That Youngkin has never "called himself" an ally of Trump is irrelevant. The lead never stated that Youngkin "called himself an ally of Trump". The lead stated that Youngkin "positioned himself as an ally of Trump", and those quotes I just shared very clearly describe Youngkin treating Trump as a political ally.
That Trump "has criticized Youngkin a number of times in the past month" matters even less. Trump has criticized a lot of his political allies. He's even criticized Mike Pence. Would you argue that it's inaccurate to describe Pence as a Trump ally simply because Trump has made some statements criticizing Pence?
all it adds to the lead is "Youngkin disagrees with this one specific person" - this statement you made completely ignores the fact that Youngkin waited until almost half a year after the election before disagreeing with Trump on the election results. You may not consider that fact to be relevant. But news sources do consider it to be relevant. I've pointed you to several sources from mainstream news outlets that treat it is relevant. I've pointed you to recent sources from mainstream news outlets that treat it is as relevant. If you personally consider it "absurd" that news outlets continue to treat it as relevant, then well, that's your right. I'm not trying to convince you that it's relevant. I'm not asking you to agree with news outlets about what is and isn't relevant. I'm just hoping that you'll agree that when news outlets consistently treat a topic as relevant, we should consider that topic as relevant for the purposes of this article, even in cases where we may disagree with which topics those outlets choose to prioritize.
As for Amanda Chase, the source that was provided states that Youngkin "has nurtured a bond" with Chase and "treated Chase to an unorthodox, private bill-signing" even though Chase had been "on the outs" with most other Virginia Republicans. Then there's also the fact that Youngkin employed Chase as an official campaign surrogate, well after she had already been censured by Virginia Republicans. So again, the fact that Youngkin himself has never used the word "ally" to describe his relationship with Chase matters far less than the fact that news articles clearly and consistently describe Youngkin treating Chase as a political ally.
But as I've already said, I'm willing to leave mention of Chase out of the Political Positions section. I'm willing to leave statements about political positions taken by Youngkin during the campaign out of the Political Positions section. But I'm not okay with removing any mention of Youngkin's political association with Trump from the article's lead. -- Jpcase ( talk) 02:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The reality is the Youngkin campaign was trying to stop Trump from having a primary role in the campaign and they convinced him to do the phone rally to shut him up. Now Youngkin is thinking about a run for the presidency and Trump's attacking him. Seems like a stretch to call them allies. This page also seems like it's overly negative towards Youngkin by repeatedly bringing up things he's done and juxtaposing it with how Democrats disagree, unions disagree (who are generally Democratic proxies like business groups are with the GOP), and 'look we found some experts who do as well' when you can find some sort of expert to agree or disagree with just about any remotely non-extreme position. The page brings up Youngkin's predecessor too much as well. Other political pages don't harp on about their predecessor like this one. I feel like a neutral set of editor(s) need to come in and correct some of this bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.116.83.14 ( talk) 16:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The lead says, "As governor, Youngkin has focused heavily on culture war issues pertaining to race and gender identity in public education." We could phrase that more neutrally if it were true, so that it doesn't paint him as divisive, contentious, and confrontational. For example, something like, "As governor, Youngkin's legislative priorities have focused on issues pertaining to race and gender identity in public education." But, anyway, it's not correct; his priorities, agenda, and accomplishments have been more wide-ranging.
I recommend this detailed analysis: Rankin, Sarah and Price, Michelle. “Youngkin scores some legislative wins as he eyes White House”, Associated Press (12 Mar 2023).
Lots and lots of issues and accomplishments are discussed by AP, with only a little bit about race and gender or the like. According to the first three paragraphs of the AP analysis (emphasis added):
The remainder of the article described the rest of his priorities and agenda, not including those described above:
Our lead says, "As governor, Youngkin has focused heavily on culture war issues pertaining to race and gender identity in public education." The term "culture war" isn't even mentioned in the body of the article, and I think this sentence of the lead is misleading and ought to be removed or rewritten. I would suggest something like, "As governor, Youngkin has taken a generally conservative stance, addressing culture war issues, toughening measures with regard to China, prioritizing tax cuts, tougher penalties for criminals, regulatory efficiency, educationsal and mental health initiatives, and fighting fentanyl and antisemitism." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The point I'm trying to make is that there is more reporting on Youngkin's cultural policies than there is on his other policies expressly because reporters consider the cultural policies to be the ones that Youngkin has prioritized. If he hadn't placed a heavy focus on the topic, then there wouldn't be much to report on. If it would help to see a news article explicitly stating, without any ambiguity, that Youngkin has focused on culture wars issues pertaining to education, then I can understand and address that concern. Here are two more Washington Post articles, each published a year into Youngkin's term. [18] [19] In the first article, the reporter writes about Youngkin, "He has leaned into culture wars in K-12 education." In the second article, the reporter discusses Youngkin's stances on cultural education issues such as race and gender, then writes that Youngkin "has continued to center those stances in office". I can go ahead and work these sources into the body of the article. -- Jpcase ( talk) 22:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)