User talk:RogerYg

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, RogerYg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Thanks, I have over 1000 edits now. RogerYg (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Noticed your reply now and got confused for a while, totally forgetting that it was me who welcomed you a few months ago. Happy editing! Cheers. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I understand as I replied after few months (when I got to 1000 edits). RogerYg (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk page section collapsing

Hi. We do not collapse sections randomly unless there is a strong reason. Read more at WP:TALK — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Interested in systematic article draft expansion?

@RogerYg I am working on 1) Draft:Ramalinga Vilasam palace 2) User:Bookku/Indian sceptre.

If you have very long term patience for all Wikipedia policies, reliable source and book research, article expansion by writing in your own words and if above mentioned drafts interest you then you can join them updating. Bookku (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I can try to use my research on Sengol to add some relevant summarized content on Indian Sceptre page RogerYg (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Bookku (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bookku (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not to say you have broken any rule, but this is a friendly advance intimation to be aware of ".. editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. .. Violations of this rule often attract blocks.." more info @ WP:3RR. In case of content disagreements users are supposed to follow WP:DR. Bookku (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I avoid reverts in general RogerYg (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Do you mind summarizing or fixing your comment on the RfC? The long block of text break the formatting for the next comment. Much of what you wrote is from the previous discussion which can be viewed as per the RfC. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nemov, Okay, I will try to fix that. Meanwhile, could you clarify the Rfc topic with some specifics, such Whether Agreeing to keep the language NPOV , such as Some of Vivek's statements may be considered Climate change denial by some fact checkers, avoiding strong "defaming" label as "Climate change denier". RogerYg (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a separate topic and I suspect that will be clarified by other comments. The section is about policies and opinions of Vivek. There's no need to get into the weeds about what some people think about his opinions in a biography of living person. Nemov (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I still think the current Rfc topic will get lots of Yes, as many news articles have said that Vivek's comments are about Climate denial, so the Rfc should be whether to use Balanced Neutral language or have put strong CLimate denial opening or closing statements from News articles RogerYg (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If that's how the RfC goes so be it. I didn't create it with a single objective in mind. The previous discussion was going on and on and this is a reasonable way to find a solution. Nemov (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hi RogerYg! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Hardeep Singh Nijjar several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Re [1]. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr (talk), I am regularly involved in TALK page discussions on the Hardeep Singh Nijjar page based on WP policies, since that page was created, and trying to make the page WP:NPOV with WP:RS sources. I am aware of edit warring policy and mostly avoid reverts, instead I focus on developing balanced & agreeable neutral language. Also, restoring the previous Consensus based on TALK page discussion is generally not considered edit warring. THe change "head of gurdwara" was made by an editor, who did not discuss it on TALK page, and only came on that Wiki page one day. Reverting such a change cannot be called edit warring, as that editor has not come back on Nijjar page till date. Meanwhile, I am involved in improving some parts on Indian allegations and pointing out Unsourced material as per WP:RS. But, I appreciate your point and will try to have better dispute resolution going forward.RogerYg (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus for either formulation of the first sentence. It is the subject of active discussion on the talk page. Claiming "consensus" where none exists is poor form. But to be clear, "restoring the previous consensus" absolutely is still edit warring. The exemptions at WP:3RRNO are intentionally very narrow. VQuakr (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note tHe change "head of gurdwara" was made by an editor, who did not discuss it on TALK page, and only came on that Wiki page one day. Reverting such a change cannot be called edit warring, as that editor has not come back on Nijjar page till date. RogerYg (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it can be called edit warring because that is what it is, you enforcing your preferred version. Multiple other editors have expressed agreement with the inclusion on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that it is under Discussion on TALK page, and we can raise RFC for the same if needed RogerYg (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

But I appreciate your point and I generally avoid "restoring the previous consensus" if the edior is active on the page, I agree that we need to try to find agreeable language and avoid edit warring. RogerYg (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Air India Flight 182. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear Ghost of Dan Gurney, Well, I appreciate your note on Canvassing and I respect Consensus building as per WP:CON and regularly engage in constructive discussions on TALK pages to develop WP:NPOV with WP:RS sources. I have only informed 2 or 3 engaged editors about Rfc as friendly notices. I assume your message is also in good faith, but I hope you know that it's against Wikpedia policies to intimidate another Wiki editor, as it can be a violation as per Wikipedia:WikiBullying policies.

I assume good faith as of now. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

HAF

Hello, I'm HaeB. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hindu American Foundation without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. One example of content that you removed without adequate explanation is the mention of opposition to legislation of anti-caste-discrimination laws as one of the organization's areas of activism. HaeB (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi HaeB, I appreciate your concern on WP:NPOV, but we also have to take note of WP:RS, WP:Priority among others. I have tried to explain each edit, though I am happy to explain again, as needed. I have tried to give priority to Well cited content over Opinion as per WP:RS, while also including balanced view as per WP:NPOV. About the example, One example of content that you removed without adequate explanation is the mention of opposition to legislation of anti-caste-discrimination laws as one of the organization's areas of activism.. As per WP:LAYOUT the lead can have broader overview and specific details can go in the body. Following that guideline, I have replaced it more broad language: opposing any legislation that unfairly targets the ''Hindu community''., which is also cited in a WP:RS source that I was about to add. I will try to give more details on edits and also we can discuss the same on the TALK page of HAF.

I appreciate your suggestions, and hope we can edit with consensus and avoid any edit warring. Thanks again RogerYg (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Look on this

Have a look on this Solblaze (talk · contribs) is pov-pushing on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 article. 103.251.217.233 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics alert - BLP & American politics

You've recently made edits about post-1992 politics of the United States and living or recently deceased people. Just letting you know that these two topics are designated as contentious topics. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I sincerely follow WP policies citing High quality WP:RS sources, using WP:NPOV neutral language, and avoid any Edit-warring or Reverts. I provide WP policy and reasons for any contentious update.RogerYg (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation of said policies is incorrect and consequently your edits to the Vivek Ramaswamy article have been undone. Note that WP:NPOV does not mean we have to use non-discriminate language. It means we present facts with weight that reflects their coverage in reliable sourcing. Please read WP:DUE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update. I agree with your points and suggestions on WP:DUE. RogerYg (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello, I'm Grabup. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Grabup (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Grabup, I think this message is more appropriate for new editors. I already have over 1500 edits and have also created several new Wikipedia articles, but I appreciate your kind suggestions, and probably I am relatively in-experienced with Movie articles. RogerYg (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello RogerYg! Your additions to Consecration of the Ram Mandir have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's elegibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Moneytrees🏝️, I appreciate the information on Copyright. I did not copy the material as such, and I had paraphrased the content, which is from a HT Newspaper article, but as it was mostly factual details, I probably did not paraphrase enough.

I think the issue you are pointing is: "Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing."

Thanks for bringing up the issue, and I will take even more care on paraphrasing in the future.

The 'pran pratishtha' of the idol of Ram Lalla (childhood form of Lord Ram) will be attended by people from all walks of life, including representatives of major spiritual and religious sects of the country, representatives of various tribal communities and prominent personalities, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi presiding over the grand ceremony. A team of priests led by Lakshmikant Dixit will perform the main rituals.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ram-lalla-idol-sculptor-arun-yogirajs-first-reaction-after-reaching-ayodhya-for-pran-prathistha-ceremony-101705902603643.html

Thanks, RogerYg (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Science of Identity Foundation

In Special:Diff/1224100092, Special:Diff/1224100838, and Special:Diff/1224101264, you added your own opinion, including the words "unproven", "libelous", "unsubstantiated", "malicious", and "legitimate", to the Science of Identity Foundation article. None of these words were supported by the cited reliable sources. Several editors objected to your edits at Talk:Science of Identity Foundation/Archive 1 § "Criticism and Defense" Section Wildly Opinionated.

Please note that, per the verifiability policy, "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" and "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable." Please do not add your personal opinion to Wikipedia articles, as original research ("material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists") is prohibited in article space.

The standard warning message is reproduced below. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Newslinger, I am no defender of Butler, but as I take WP:BLP seriously. I think WP:BLP applies to this article as SIF is closely linked to Butler. Most of the discussion above is disregarding WP:BLP considerations. In WP:BLP articles, words such as ''unproven", ''unsubstantiated'' can be added to provide WP:NPOV and neutral view against unproven charges being put on a Living person. Many charges in the source are potentially "libelous" charges, which has not been proven in any court of law. Infact, as cited in the sources, Butler has never been charged with any offence, and has been cleared of the charges. My intention in adding those words was WP:NPOV based on source "Christensen, John (November 23, 1982). "Chris Butler: About this guru business". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. p. B-1.". Again, my intention was only to follow WP:BLP sincerely, along with WP:NPOV and WP:Neutrality. Anyway, I am happy to follow the consensus on the issue, and open to healthy discussion. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi RogerYg, I've responded at Talk:Science of Identity Foundation/Archive 1 § "Criticism and Defense" Section Wildly Opinionated. Thank you for agreeing to follow consensus. — Newslinger talk 06:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying about WP:BLP. I appreciate the guidance from an experienced editor.

Also note, my last edit to SIF was May 16th, and the TALK page discussion on this issue began on May 19th, so I have not made any edit after the discussion began on the issue. I am happy to follow the consensus on the issue. RogerYg (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Standard warning message

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Science of Identity Foundation, you may be blocked from editing. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Newslinger , While, I was sincerily trying to follow Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons along with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy in the SIF article, I will take note this warning and try to avoid any comments that are not cited in WP:RS sources. All my entries are with cited WP:RS sources, but in SIF article, I tried to provide a WP:NPOV balanced language, which has been interpreted as commentary or personal analysis. Anyway, I take this warning seriously, and would limit anything that is not directly supported by WP:RS sources. I will try to sincerely follow verifiability policy going forward.

Also note, my last edit to SIF was May 16th, and the TALK page discussion on this issue began on May 19th, so I have not made any edit after the discussion began on the issue. I am happy to follow the consensus on the issue as per TALK page discussion. If you see my contributions, I spend a lot of effort in healthy TALK page discussions, and happy to follow consensus view. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tulsi Gabbard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at J.D. Vance

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on J.D. Vance. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Horse Eye's Back (talk),

Well, I am discussing every JD Vance edit on its TALK page trying to build consensus, so I disagree that I am edit-warring. But, I will take a break from JD Vance page for next 2 days, to avoid any edit warring, if perceived.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned on Talk page there, we must be reminded that this is a WP:BLP article, and contentious claims about living persons have higher level of WP:RS and WP:NPOV consideration.

I have no intention of edit warring, just to keep the article per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and try to build consensus per WP:TALK, as you may see, I have much more entries on TALK page than in the article. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If this is indeed a contentious claim about a living person then you should not be restoring it without a clear consensus to do so... I'm not sure I understand that argument (but I also don't think that any of the claims are contentious). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I agree about "pornography ban" (social issues), there is no consensus, and you can restore your version including pornography ban, preferbaly with sources, if you want. I will not change it unless there is a consensus against it, though I still lthink it appears to be contentious for the Lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-NPOV removal of sourced content

Hi Roger, I was the the original person to add JD Vance's article on Obama.
Your removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._D._Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1235482657
Your removal of sourced content seems to be Non-NPOV.
Regards, Alexysun (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Alexysun (talk),

I read the source article, and found that the way we were including the content was misleading as it did not clarify that his repect of Obama was only about their childhood struggles, while he disagrred with his politically.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/opinion/barack-obama-and-me.html

Also, Clinton was initial influence on both him and his grandmother in the article as:

Still, I admired President Clinton in a way that happens when someone like you really makes it. He was a poor boy with a vaguely Southern accent, raised by a single mother with a heavy dose of loving grandparents. As my grandmother told me, presidents were almost always rich people, but Bill Clinton was one of us.

Therefore, I felt the including Clinton reflected the article better.

Finally, I felt that including both Clinton and Obama may be WP:Undue as the point was already made with Clinton as a poor boy, and it may be misleading to include that he was influenced by 2 presidents, both Democracts.

Therefore, I mentioned my reasons for the edit: misleading and WP:UNDUE detail

I did not want to be WP:NPOV.

I am happy to revert that edit to include Obama mention, but as per WP:NPOV we should add a qualifier that he disagreed politically with Obama, though he respected his childhood struggles.

Best regards RogerYg (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am happy to include the Obama mention, but adding it in Personal life section, seems overloading the section, and somewhat misleading. Probably Early life, or "Relationship with Trump" sections are more appropriate, as the Obama comment was in contrast to recent Rebuplican presidents, such as Trump.

It is one of the great failures of recent political history that the Republican Party was too often unable to disconnect legitimate political disagreements from the fact that the president himself is an admirable man.

On Jan. 20, the political side of my brain will breathe a sigh of relief at Mr. Obama’s departure. I will hope for better policy from the new administration, a health reform package closer to my ideological preferences, and a new approach to foreign policy.

But the child who so desperately wanted an American dream, with a happy family at its core will feel something different. For at a pivotal time in my life, Barack Obama gave me hope that a boy who grew up like me could still achieve the most important of my dreams.

RogerYg (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hi Alexysun (talk),

I have added it back in the personal section, just in the different paragraph, where it fits best. Thanks.

In a 2017 New York Times article, he noted that as a child who wanted the American dream, the personal success story of Barack Obama, growing up in a low-income family with a single-mother, gave him hope; and Vance felt that he had achieved something similar to Obama's early personal accomplishments: "a prestigious law degree, a strong professional career and a modicum of fame as a writer."

RogerYg (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added "though he also mentioned his political disagreements with Obama." to have balanced and more WP:NPOV language. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Catholic influence

What specific portion(s) of the Dreher source article do you consider show an acknowledgement of 'influence' by Catholic theology? Most of the source is Vance's own words, so we would need to apply those words (or any applicable by Dreher) rather than our own interpretation. —ADavidB 06:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's not argue about 1 article (Dreher), but the Lead needs to have a summarized view based on several sources used in the body.

Also, more relevant AP source has been added in lead too, which mentions his acknowledgement of "influence" as below:Ohio Sen. JD Vance’s 2019 conversion to Catholicism helped shape his political worldview, he has written.

September 4, 2024

https://apnews.com/article/jd-vance-catholicism-postliberals-social-policy-a82350ba78148ab24748c3fe0a20eabe

Also, many Wiki editors are allergic are any hint of Puffery language, especially for Vance, and the entire statement would have been removed by other editors. If we want your point not be reverted, we need to use a neutral non-puffery language. RogerYg (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)