Talk:Ralph Northam

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ralph Northam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615234832/http://electionresults.virginia.gov:80/resultsCTY.aspx?type=SWR&rid=11&pty=DEM&osn=0&map=CTY to http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsCTY.aspx?type=SWR&rid=11&pty=DEM&osn=0&map=CTY
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109041620/http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=SWR&map=CTY to http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=SWR&map=CTY
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617084700/http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Election_Results/Index.html to http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Election_Results/Index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 1) The editor appears to be extraordinarily confused about WP:RS. A bunch of rubbish sources together do not equate reliably sourcing. Townhall.com and the like don't belong on Wikipedia. Richmond Times Dispatch and WaPo do belong.
2) The editor misleadingly suggests that the tightness of the race has something to do with the decision, which the sources don't say.
3) The editor repeatedly removes text that notes that A) this was on "some" flyers and B) the Northam campaign's rationale for removing Fairfax from some flyers.
4) The sources don't say that Fairfax was removed because he was black, but Wikipedia text strongly implies that was the case. There's nothing wrong with noting that Fairfax was African-American, but it's not WP:NPOV to only denote Fairfax's race. Especially, when the Northam campaign did provide a rationale, namely that Fairfax was removed on flyers in the counties where unions did not endorse Fairfax. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 8 or so reliable sources.  WaPo noted it was a tight race.  The text description is a fair, NPOV summary.  If you like, we can add quotes from the NAACP head from the WaPo article. How about:  .  Stop trying to spin it away from what all the sources have said.  --DHeyward (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seriously question your good faith and/or editing competence. If you can't distinguish a reliable source from some fringe crap, you shouldn't edit Wikipedia. That you keep edit warring out the Northam campaign's rationale, reported both by WaPo and RTD, as well as the fact that this only applied to some flyers, suggests that you're not editing in good faith. So what is it? Incompetence or dishonesty? You don't even bother to respond to my points. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  My text has always had the campaigns reasons.  was in there from the beginning.  And no, I'm not going to repond to ad hominem attacks.  They are not legitimate "points." --DHeyward (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warrior keeps adding rubbish sources to the article and misleading text 

message: This edit is classic undue weight - a lengthy quote on a transient campaign controversy, cherry-picked from the source. The change of the flyer was indeed controversial, and it's fair to point out that the campaign later said it was a mistake, but it is cherry-picking to present one critical quote from a county-level leader without presenting countervailing views in the very same article ("Some black leaders called the issue a distraction" and "Michael Halle said the omission of Fairfax from the palm cards was being blown out of proportion"). I question whether this mini-furor belongs on this BLP at all (rather than on Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017). But if we're going to include it at all, it must be proportionate.
And, moreover, some of the language inserted was not supported by the cited source. Fairfax's portrait and name was omitted from the palm cards distributed to the union because the union doesn't support him. He was not "airbrushed" or "retouched" (which wrongly implies some sort of Soviet-style manipulation of a photo
). Words matter. --Neutralitytalk 20:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. A brief mention of the controversy would be appropriate, but it should be reworked and would be more appropriate in the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017 article. --Jpcase (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. This is a notable event in Northam's political career and should be mentioned. I agree with last version that Neutrality edited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took a shot at reworking the information and put it back in - but I'm still not entirely convinced that it belongs in this article. Let me know if anyone has additional thoughts. --Jpcase (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flier controversy - undue weight 

message: : Please mind WP:BATTLEFIELD. The edits I made attempted to incorporate the new content with the old content in a seamless paragraph. If you read my edits you will find that I included the bit about there being no sanctuary cities. I did not include the FactCheck.org piece since it probably fits better in the Ed Gillespie article but I am not completely opposed to including it here. Your edits preserved the reliably sourced content I added but now includes multiple redundancies. Please assume good faith, I was not trying to whitewash anything but trying to reduce redundancies. Instaurare (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I seek resolution to a potential conflict in the faulty argument behind  edit (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). The title Excellency is definitively not used for US politicians, according to the US Department of State (see page 4). But a plethora of reliable sources show that the title of Honorable is indeed awarded to US politicians. Here are two samples of Northam referring to himself as Honorable: here and here. The Guide to Virginia Protocols and Traditions (page 5) explains: 
“In the federal government, The Honorable is used to address, by name, high officials and former high officials of the American government (this includes officials who have held a commission), foreign ministers, and heads of international organizations.”
For US official government publications suggesting the title of Honorable for certain elected and appointed officials:
*US Department of State
*USGS Correspondence Handbook
*Department of Interior
For other reputable sites:
*Emily Post
*Washington Life
*Slate
*Honor & Respect: the Protocol School of Washington
And though Wikipedia is not considered a RS, it strives to maintain consistency. See here for what it says about the use of Honorable for US politicians. 
 If you still think that this title does not belong in this article, please, bring your arguments and evidence to assess them here in this Talk Page. However, if you do not show WP:RS or are unwilling or unable to engage this conversation, I would kindly ask you to please return the article to its former  (self revert) or do not intervene on it when others would do it for you (WP:0RR). 
Cheers,  Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 07:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Honorable title

message: I attended an event where the governor spoke and asked an aide for a photo from their office to put on Wikipedia. I showed the photo which is currently there. The response I got was "Wikipedia? No."
This is fairly typical - I have asked hundreds of people and offices and almost always the response is either "no" or yes, then later they will not agree to a Wikimedia-compatible copyright license.
Maybe someday things will change!  Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governors office declines request for photo 

message: WaPo: "Va. Gov. Northam’s medical school yearbook page shows men in blackface, KKK robe". Should it be included on this Wikipedia page and how should it written up? As far as I can see, no RS has confirmed that Northam is on the photo in question, and Northam has yet to comment on the story, but it looks damning and will probably be a big story in his governorship (unless it turns out the yearbook editor added the wrong photo to Northam's page or some other far-fetched explanation). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah looks pretty bad but I think we give it a day or two to see if stronger sources pick it up. PackMecEng (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I think there is a strong consensus that the Washington Post is a strong source. See WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Washington Post  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they are a RS, but contentious claims I generally like to see two to three pick up the story per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I do not think it would hurt to wait a little bit for more to come out. PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times has picked up the story .  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Welp not much I can say at this point. As long as we include his statement on it I think it should be fine to include. PackMecEng (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I have no objections to adding content on this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

text: It is included in that section because the pictures/yearbook are from his time in medical school. It has nothing to do with his political career. – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 01:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, there was no controversy around it because he was just some random student, it's because he has a political career that it is even relevant. If he ends up resigning, it should 100% be moved. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely a big enough story to be mentioned in the article. But as I stated in my most recent edit summaries, I'm not sure that it should be mentioned in the article's lead (yet). And I'm not convinced that it needs to have its own, dedicated section in the article (as it was recently given), when it can simply be discussed in the "Governor of Virginia" section. When dealing with BLP articles, we need to take undue weight considerations seriously. This a significant chapter in Northam's political career, but it will take awhile longer before we know how significant it is. If the story continues to dominate headlines for awhile, then mentioning it in the lead would certainly be appropriate. But there are other major news stories from Northam's time in office (MedicAid expansion, Amazon's HQ, etc.) that aren't currently discussed in the lead - and I don't think that it would be appropriate to exclusively mention negative news stories in the lead, before we've even given them a few days to play out. --Jpcase (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I don't see why we need to even be concerned about the timing of this.  We are not doing original research nor investigations - we document what has occurred.  Drawing conclusions of this sort is speculative at best and outside WP editor purview.  If it is reported there is some ulterior motive and\or that this was somehow a smear campaign, then we can\should cross that bridge then.  In any event, Northam has already admitted he was in the picture so the timing really is a secondary point anyway. airuditious (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well stated.--Artaxerxes 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: The timing is suspect for sure. But apparently CBS went down there and confirmed it.  They also found in the yearbook his nickname was "Coonman". PackMecEng (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Well, I think the point here is that someone was using the slur in the context of Northam wearing blackface.  It appears the pejorative was being used as joke (albeit poor) for the costume Northam was wearing.  So in a sense, if we're going to square the corners here, yes it was being applied to a Caucasian but only because he was wearing blackface on at least one occasion.  I think one could also suppose that since people labeled Northam with that term, he possibly engaged in wearing blackface on multiple occasions - this is also something Artaxerxes alluded to as well.  Yes, we are speculating here on the last part but just noting for discussion purposes. airuditious (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still a little dubious about including this as yet given that the sources of the statements concerning the tipster's actions are not speaking officially for Big League Politics nor on the record.  I don't see any need to rush this aspect of the story if it actually comes to fruition.  Personally, I'd rather it mature a little more and get it right.  Just my $0.50.  airuditious (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ^note: one editor immediately called my comment, above, FORUM-izing as in NOTAFORUM. i disagree. i'm saying why the info should not be included here. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Agreed we can document the photo while including his statements regretting it and his statement that he does not remember if it was him. As well as the responses to the controversy. We cannot state for sure it was him in the actual photo. PackMecEng (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: The article should reflect only information that can be referenced as it becomes available.  So we definitely need to include that he initially admitted he was in the picture and then of course any follow-on retractions.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting some here - and apologies if I am - but we shouldn't remove his initial admission just because he may backtrack.  Even if he is ultimately shown to not even be in the photo, that admission is a very relevant part of the story. airuditious (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.--Artaxerxes 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackface/KKK photo in yearbook 

message: Why is this not in the Political Career section? It seems pretty out of place where it currently is.Nohomersryan (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is included in that section because the pictures/yearbook are from his time in medical school. It has nothing to do with his political career. – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 01:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, there was no controversy around it because he was just some random student, it's because he has a political career that it is even relevant. If he ends up resigning, it should 100% be moved. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely a big enough story to be mentioned in the article. But as I stated in my most recent edit summaries, I'm not sure that it should be mentioned in the article's lead (yet). And I'm not convinced that it needs to have its own, dedicated section in the article (as it was recently given), when it can simply be discussed in the "Governor of Virginia" section. When dealing with BLP articles, we need to take undue weight considerations seriously. This a significant chapter in Northam's political career, but it will take awhile longer before we know how significant it is. If the story continues to dominate headlines for awhile, then mentioning it in the lead would certainly be appropriate. But there are other major news stories from Northam's time in office (MedicAid expansion, Amazon's HQ, etc.) that aren't currently discussed in the lead - and I don't think that it would be appropriate to exclusively mention negative news stories in the lead, before we've even given them a few days to play out. --Jpcase (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Section?

message: The timing, makes it seem like an attempt to get rid of him, per his 'abortion' comments. But, we'd need a source for that. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we need to even be concerned about the timing of this.  We are not doing original research nor investigations - we document what has occurred.  Drawing conclusions of this sort is speculative at best and outside WP editor purview.  If it is reported there is some ulterior motive and\or that this was somehow a smear campaign, then we can\should cross that bridge then.  In any event, Northam has already admitted he was in the picture so the timing really is a secondary point anyway. airuditious (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well stated.--Artaxerxes 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: The timing is suspect for sure. But apparently CBS went down there and confirmed it.  They also found in the yearbook his nickname was "Coonman". PackMecEng (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing?

message: In what way is "coonman" a "racial slur" when applied to a white man? "Coon", when applied to a black guy, that would be clear. (Of course, he could have earned this nickname by appearing in blackface regularly at VMI or earlier).--Artaxerxes 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the point here is that someone was using the slur in the context of Northam wearing blackface.  It appears the pejorative was being used as joke (albeit poor) for the costume Northam was wearing.  So in a sense, if we're going to square the corners here, yes it was being applied to a Caucasian but only because he was wearing blackface on at least one occasion.  I think one could also suppose that since people labeled Northam with that term, he possibly engaged in wearing blackface on multiple occasions - this is also something Artaxerxes alluded to as well.  Yes, we are speculating here on the last part but just noting for discussion purposes. airuditious (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Racial slur?

message: We have a SFgate/WP source now: "The source of the tip appears to have been a medical school classmate or classmates of Northam who acted as a direct result of the abortion controversy that erupted earlier in the week, according to two people at Big League Politics, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. "The revelations about Ralph Northam's racist past were absolutely driven by his medical school classmate's anger over his recent very public support for infanticide," one of the two said". Iselilja (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still a little dubious about including this as yet given that the sources of the statements concerning the tipster's actions are not speaking officially for Big League Politics nor on the record.  I don't see any need to rush this aspect of the story if it actually comes to fruition.  Personally, I'd rather it mature a little more and get it right.  Just my $0.50.  airuditious (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing (continued)

message: *not include  we're not here to slam democrats! besides, this happened 30 years ago. decades-old allegations of college-age wrongdoing just aren't relevant if a leader is as potentially socially-useful as northam could be. the timing is smelly too: looks like an anti-abortion crowd astroturf campaign. if we ~must~ include it or if there develops a tidal wave of calls to resign such that he becomes a liability to 2020 , we should bury or delete entirely that he's a democrat in the manner of the associated press —always a reliable source. there's a widely-circulated AP story (see a great example: https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Photo-on-Northams-1984-yearbook-page-shows-KKK-robe-and-blackface-505213021.html] ) where at least as of 23:30 on 2 feb 2019, you can CTRL+F search that page allllll you want for "demo" and there's not a peep about him being D. the quoted people are all prominently party-sourced as republicans, and a casual news-reader (like most people/voters) will just assume he's another deplorable racist republican. that's how to do it, people. there's too much at stake this close to elections to muddy-up any prominent D's image. can we get some copyright-related takedown of that embarrassing image maybe if we need to say somewhere he's a D? surely the news-leaker didn't ask the college for image-use permission, 'm i right?  we need to get some damage control going and 3RR any infowars-addicted POV zombies into submission. Cramyourspam (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ^note: one editor immediately called my comment, above, FORUM-izing as in NOTAFORUM. i disagree. i'm saying why the info should not be included here. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Agreed we can document the photo while including his statements regretting it and his statement that he does not remember if it was him. As well as the responses to the controversy. We cannot state for sure it was him in the actual photo. PackMecEng (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: The article should reflect only information that can be referenced as it becomes available.  So we definitely need to include that he initially admitted he was in the picture and then of course any follow-on retractions.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting some here - and apologies if I am - but we shouldn't remove his initial admission just because he may backtrack.  Even if he is ultimately shown to not even be in the photo, that admission is a very relevant part of the story. airuditious (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.--Artaxerxes 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Include?

message: Pretty sure the school yearbook where the nickname appears is from the Virginia Military INSTITUTE rather than the "Academy", but I haven't got the power to change that. Can someone with more access make this minor alteration? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Military_Institute  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahtrap (talk • contribs) 19:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Institute?

message: We should 'maybe' point out that the mainstream media is incorrectly reporting that a Virginia governor can serve only 'one' term. Actually, a Virginia governor can serve an unlimited number of terms. Just not consecutively. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that really relate to this specific governor though?  Help me understand how to fit this into (A) Northam; and\or (B) it even being something that belongs on WP?  Please don't mistake me as being contentious - I genuinely don't see a fit but if you do, please elaborate. airuditious (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gubernatorial term limits 

message: Why does the initial description not mention that Ralph is a Democratic politician?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddsam (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned, some politicians do have it in the lede - others do not...so I see this as a style thing vs. being required.  In any event, someone (possibly you - not sure) did add it to Northam's lede so it's moot.  Enjoy wherever you happen to be. airuditious (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrat? 

message: Someone recently added this article to the Racism in the United States category, which while understandable, doesn't seem like a clear-cut decision to me. Northam's actions in college were certainly racist and may very well force him out of office - but I'm not aware of many people who are calling him a current racist. To the contrary, several of the people who have called on him to step down have said that they don't believe that the actions he took in college reflect who he is today. His decision to (so far) remain in office has caused the backlash against him to grow, but I still don't recall anyone out-and-out calling him a racist (It's admittedly possible that I could be overlooking some statements, but at the very least, the sentiment doesn't seem to be wide-spread). 
So it's a little unclear to me what the standards are for including a BLP article in the "Racism in the United States" category. If anyone should be included in the category who's ever done something widely condemned as racist, then sure, it would be appropriate to include Northam - but by that standard, Donald Trump, George Allen, Ed Gillespie, Corey Stewart, and arguably even people like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson should probably be included, and none of them currently are. Heck, Ted Danson was widely condemned for donning blackface in the 90s, but he isn't included in the category. And if someone wants to argue that all of those people should be added to the category, then that's fair enough. But without any definitive standard for which BLPs should or shouldn't be included in the category, it seems subjective and inconsistent to include Northam. --Jpcase (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a very valid point.  For example, if we classify Northam as racist solely based on his blackface missteps, then basically any comic who ever told a race-related joke is now racist including those who joke about their own race.  This would further include jokes made about Caucasians and their "Caucasian-ness".  Seems to me it is definitely premature to classify Northam as a racist despite his recently discovered poor judgement. airuditious (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to say that wearing blackface is as trivial as telling an offensive joke; what Northam did is a big deal. But there are definitely nuances to how Northam is perceived by those who are calling on him to resign - and so adding Northam's page to such a contentious category doesn't seem like a good idea, especially without consensus. I've gone ahead and removed the category. --Jpcase (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clarifying - My comment was not intended, nor should it be taken, to indicate any content involving race is "trivial" so please do not misunderstand what I'm saying here.  Context does matter and in the specific case here with Northam, I think it's safe to presume his contextual reference was that his "costume" (for lack of a better phrase) was essentially parody and therefore comical (again, from his contextual perspective).  To others - for example you, me, and likely many - it would not be taken as comedic.  However, similar contextual perspectives would apply from the standpoint of comedians or really anyone else telling racially-oriented jokes.  I think we do agree here and my additional comments are again more for clarification purposes.  Thanks. airuditious (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying! --Jpcase (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism in United States category 

message: The time has come for someone to propose that a new article be created on the Ralph Northam yearbook controversy. Rationale: per the essay known as WP:RECENT this bio article is now becoming bloated  with incident specific details out of proportion to the life and career of Governor Northam. Understanding that this is a dynamic situation, I would propose that a new article be created to accumulate the details of this "news-cycle-by-news-cycle" drama... possibly to include a background section on the previous week's abortion / infanticide controversy. I figured I would float it here before creating an article to avert a painful deletion discussion later. If there is editorial consensus I will create the article. Thoughts? Peace MPS (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: While I have not been involved in too many discussions as to when is the right time to split off a portion of one article for it to then stand on it's own 2 feet, I think your proposal makes sense.  In reading WP:RECENT, it does seem clear this article has suffered sufficient churn to qualify.  But then I would just ask do we think this controversy is one that merits its own article or would it be best kept here but we find a away to reduce the churn for a bit - perhaps protection?  I'm not advocating either way - just bringing it up for consideration. airuditious (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

text: , I think it would be better to address the recentism here by trimming out the non encyclopedic details, rather than creating a WP:CONTENTFORK that might be entirely made up of recentism. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be the first course of action. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think WP:CONTENTFORK is necessarily a bad thing, because sometimes legit articles are born through WP:SPINOFF process... agree that we don't need to be hasty, but just wanted to point out that the controversy is probably notable enough (given [ don't need to be hasty, but just wanted to point out that the controversy is probably notable enough (given Trumps mention of Northam in the state of the union address, for example) to have its own freestanding article.  I guess at this point the controversy isn't developing as much, but if it reaches the point where the event boils over with real consequences (such as the much-discussed possibility of Northam's resignation or the governor switching to become an independent) then I think we would see more desire to expand the current article section. Again, I don't disagree with leaving it as it is for now, but just wanted to put it out there that at some point the scandal section might get even longer, and at some point it would not be inappropriate to WP:SPINOFF. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any position on whether or not to create a standalone article for the controversy. Just thought I should note that I'm pretty sure during the State of the Union, Trump only mentioned Northam's comments on abortion. I don't recall Trump saying anything in the speech about the yearbook controversy. --Jpcase (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  My brief 0.25, I agree re: only hearing the abortion part of the Northam story - I was actually waiting for the yearbook comment but alas he held back - or possibly forgot. airuditious (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  Or perhaps on the existing WP blackface article?  I checked Blackface disambiguation and did not see any subset of blackface articles as it seems all similar content is consolidated in the main blackface article.  Or perhaps time to break up the main article as well? airuditious (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  "...blackface controversy might deserve a new article..." - Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, what would be the criteria here for not including this in the existing blackface article?  As I mentioned, I did not find any other Wikipedia articles that deal with specific incidents of blackface - for example, we don't have a specific article about Al Jolson's blackface performances.  That content is discussed both in the main blackface article and in Jolson's article but not also in its own article. airuditious (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be WP:UNDUE as there are too many instances of blackface. If it's listed there, it shouldn't be in its own sub-section because the level-4 heading is "21st century" under "United States" and we don't make level-5 headings. wumbolo ^^^ 20:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a really great discussion... I think the blackface article is currently long and bloated too... Ideally blackface should be short and sweet article covering the topic of blackface (what is it, what do people think of it) in a timeless way. We would then have a List of blackface scandals (perhaps in time order) that could be the long listing of every time some prominent figure received criticism or lost his or her job due to wearing blackface. Analogy would be how sexual harassment is a standalone article and then you have Me Too movement listing each and every time a famous person has a sexual harassment incident. That said, (back on the topic of Northam) I could see Wikipedia handling this whole week in Virginia Gubernatorial chaos (yearbook(s) scandal... admitting then denying then near-moonwalking, then Fairfax accusations, accusations about where the leaks came from, and now Mark Herring) as a unitary topic called 2019 Virginia government blackface controversy. The abortion/infanticide controversy (and SOTU piling on) is relevant, but really just context / background information, since some people have alleged that the leak was in retribution for the abortion/infanticide thing. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  I wholly concur that the existing blackface article is in need to some careful editing\dissection with the resulting goal to have a mini-library of sorts concerning blackface. As to the Northam + VA gov't scandals now in play...and especially if the # of incidents increases any further...then agreed...we probably need something akin to "2019 VA governmental meltdown" or similar.  So the moment this set of incidents crosses over into being relatively unique (which they may have already done), then to me it likely demands its own article - especially if we have a few resignations\removals as a result. airuditious (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't have a firm opinion one way or the other as to whether a standalone article should be created, but if we do decide to go that route, then I feel that the article should collectively focus on all of the scandals currently enveloping Virginia's executive branch, from Northam's comments on late-term abortions up through today's revelation that Mark Herring also donned blackface in college; and then any further developments that may arise could also be mentioned there. Creating an article exclusively about Northam's yearbook photo (and Michael Jackson costume) seems too narrow, considering how interconnected all of the various scandals are. With regards to Justin Fairfax, yes, we have to be extremely careful on how we address that aspect of the story - but the allegation is currently discussed in Fairfax's own article (by consensus), so if a new article is created for the collective scandals, then I don't feel that it would be inappropriate for such an article to briefly and carefully mention the controversy surrounding Fairfax. --Jpcase (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 2019 Virginia political crisis?  I would almost suggest "constitutional crisis", but most sources are saying that is as a threat of something that could happen, while many sources describe the current situation as a "political crisis".--Pharos (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article on the Ralph Northam yearbook controversy (or whatever you want to call it)  

message: I have started a minimalist 2019 Virginia political crisis article.  i leave it for others to link/merge/expand as appropriate.--Pharos (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this is a good start... I am ok with the title "political crisis" because it is specific enough for people to know what it is, but general enough that it will still apply even as the crisis continues to develop. Peace MPS (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Started [[2019 Virginia political crisis]] 

message: Our article presently contains this information:
The yearbook photo also brought renewed attention to a 2013 video clip in which Northam appeared unwilling to shake hands with his African-American opponent for lieutenant governor, E. W. Jackson, after a debate, though it was unclear whether Northam saw Jackson extending his hand.[92]
Watching the video one sees that the discussion had nothing to with race.  If there was an element of race in the discussion or even if it vaguely related to racial issues it might be reasonable to assume that Northam refused to shake the hand of an African American man. As I watch the video it is my impression he would have refused to shake hands regardless of race, if even it was his intention to refuse since we already state that it is unclear if he even was aware of the hand shake offer. Furthermore, this issue was not picked up by the major news sources but rather more tabloid type outlets. We need to be very careful about what we include in our BLPs. I have removed it while it is discussed.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hand shake incident 

message: The article contains the following:
:In June 2018, six months into Northam's governorship, a class action lawsuit was publicly disclosed, which had been filed the previous October, claiming that teenage detainees at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center had been physically abused by staff members there. Several of the plaintiffs were being held at the facility on immigration charges. The abuse described in the lawsuit was alleged to have occurred from 2015 through 2018. The Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center denied all claims in the lawsuit, while Northam called the allegations "disturbing" and directed state agencies to conduct an investigation.[142][143] Around two months later, the investigation concluded with no findings of ongoing abuse. Allegations of past abuse were not included within the scope of the investigation and the lawsuit is still pending.[144]
I can't see where this has anything to do with Northam's views on criminal justice.  Most of the claimed abuse went on previous to his time as governor and he responded as, one would assume anyone would, by asking for an investigation.  I think it should be deleted.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As the editor who added the content, I'd like to see it remain in the article. You make a valid point that the investigation isn't particularly relevant to Northam's views on criminal justice. But I do think that the investigation is relevant to Northam's term as governor. As far as I know, Northam hasn't ordered any other investigations during his time in office - and even if he has, this one certainly seems to have received the most news coverage. Perhaps it would be better to include the information in the "Tenure" section of this article, similar to how I've suggested we handle the WTOP abortion comments. But I've expanded the paragraph that you quoted above to include more information on how Northam's administration responded to the Shenandoah Valley incident. Northam has authority over the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, and so anything done by that department while Northam is in office should be considered a representation of Northam's views. I added a couple of sentences about how the department revised its practices in response to this incident, and hopefully, that should make the information more relevant to the "Criminal Justice" section of this article. --Jpcase (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  I would agree that the Tenure section would be better and I can see that broader coverage in that section seems reasonable.  I'll move it, OK?  Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to that! I'd slightly prefer leaving it in the "Criminal justice" section, since all of Northam's other actions as governor (expanding Medicaid, raising the felony threshold, implementing a new family leave policy for state employees) are discussed under "Political positions". So it seems like leaving the information where it is would be the most consistent approach with how the rest of the article is written. And as noted in my previous comment, I think that any actions taken by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice while Northam is in office could be considered a representation of Northam's views, so I'm not sure that this information is totally out of place under "Political positions". Having said that, I don't feel very strongly about which section of the article includes this information. Moving it to the "Tenure" section makes sense. So whatever you want to do is fine with me! --Jpcase (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll move it.  Actually that thought came to me, to move it to Tenure, when I first read the section, though at that time I was not as aware of the full facts of the situation which your posts and especially the latest information/refs that you have posted provided.  At this point, due to your information, I have come to believe that it does belong in the article. I can also see your reasoning for including it in the Justice section.  However since you do not feel strongly about that and I do, I will move it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a note on Northam and Juvenile Justice Reform... Virginia is currently changing its  Juvenile Justice system to be less like a prison and more rehabilitative.  While the previous governor began this trend by instituting reforms and closing Beaumont Juvenile prison in Powhatan,  Northam has continued to prioritize this, even visiting the Bon Air Juvenile Correctional Center within the first month in office.  Whereever you ultimately decide to put it, I think Juvenile Justice Reform should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal justice section 

message: Since last night, this article has undergone persistent disruptive editing from two IP accounts. The first of these edits can be seen here The first IP account reverted four different editors multiple times and has been warned twice on his or her talk page to refrain from disruptive editing. The second IP account has continued to add the exact same content as the first IP account. Neither of these accounts had ever been used before last night. 
I've always allowed other people to handle these types of situations, so I'm not really sure what should be done. Should both accounts be blocked? Or should the article be temporarily protected? Is there some other, third option that would be best? Thanks.  --Jpcase (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've semi-protected the page for 7 days - hopefully that is long enough for the editor to move on to something else.  With multiple IPs adding the same content, page protection is usually the way to go.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the help! --Jpcase (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for administrator 

message: On January 15, 2020, Northam declared a state of emergency before a peaceful assembly of Second Amendment activists protesting the Governor's prospective gun control measures.
The preceding November, Northam announced the introduction of eight gun control bills, including universal background checks and an assault weapons ban, among other measures. More than municipalities in Virginia declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” in response.  In subsequent reports, Northam said localities would face repercussions if law enforcement officers don’t enforce gun control laws.  “If we have constitutional laws on the books and law enforcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books, then there are going to be consequences,” Northam said.
Northam's executive order forbids the presence of any weapons on the capitol grounds during the proposed assembly.
108.26.183.108 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please append the text below to the "Tenure" section of the page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.183.108 (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Please provide reliable sources for any information you wish to add.  On a side note, I've combined both edit requests since they were essentially identical (hence the confusing "below" instead of "above").  You can reopen an answered request if there's reason to do so.  At the very least, putting the edit request template inside a section header is very broken.  If you really do need to make a brand new request, please just let the system fill that stuff out (you can click the view source tab and then the edit request button, and follow the instructions that appear). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Here is a NPR article link for some recent legislation occurring in Virginia dealing with some of the gun ban bills stated in the opening paragraph of this thread, I do think the Gun section under Northam's tenure header should be expanded upon, was pretty big national news and with the rally it should be recorded as it happened in the online encyclopedia. I might make another thread discussing this if we don't get any traction here. -- EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Tenure

message: That Ralph Northam's slave-owning ancestor freed one of them to serve in the Civil War sounds a little too politically convenient.  Is there a source for this?  Any way of demonstrating that was his motive? DanMarshCTR (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - welcome to Wikipedia! Based on your editing history, it looks like you're new. Everything in that section of the article has been sourced, so if you just click on the small bracketed number that appears at the end of any given statement, then you'll see the relevant source. In this case, the source is a 2017 Richmond Times-Dispatch news article, which you can read by clicking here. The news article explains where the information comes from. Hope this helps! --Jpcase (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for freed slave's Civil War service? 

message: I'd never expect that a one-term governor of a mid-size state with a mid-size population would have perhaps have a longer article than the average POTUS does. There is so much junk here that does not need to be included and I believe that this page should be short and sweet. Same thing with Charlie Baker. Ak-eater06 (talk)  22:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the information currently contained in this article is relevant to Northam's term in office, but I'd be perfectly fine with someone creating a separate Governorship of Ralph Northam article and moving much of the information currently contained in this article over to there. --Jpcase (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Agreed, and it's time to start trimming. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is uncomfortably long 

message: This section is excessively focused on a niche issue that the majority of Americans accept as a safe and legal medical procedure.  200 words about his position on abortion is undue, and shows the influence of minority religious political extremists at work. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on abortion  

message: I wonder. How many 'bleeping' times are we going to have to hide Northam's successor, between now & inauguration day. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox