Talk:Vice President of the United States

message: I didn't open a WP:BRD discussion simply because I don't see any way a reasonable observer would describe my edit as "bold". I added a relevant and encyclopedic sentence about the Vice-Presidency with citations to two highly reputable publications. The phrasing was modest and avoided using Wikipedia's voice for the observations of journalists. I do not understand the basis for your edit summary removing the material ("Sentence offer nothing of substance"). As I requested, please explain your thinking here and let's see what we can figure out together. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was objecting to a vague supposition by unnamed journalists in opinion piece articles. I did keep the first source as it verified information already in the paragraph (the second is behind a paywall). The first source also got me focused on Mondale not wanting to be pigeon-holed into specific responsibilities, which I have added. Drdpw (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying. I suppose "vague supposition" vs "observation" is a matter of opinion, so no point going back and forth on that. But while the journalists may have been unnamed in the sentence as I wrote it, they are both individually notable and experienced journalists, not total unknowns, and they were publishing in two highly regarded publications. At the time of writing, each was the designated Washington correspondent for their news organizations. And to be clear, neither piece is marked as Opinion - they are in-depth analytical news articles focusing specifically on the role of the Vice-Presidency. These seem like reasonable sources for a statement about the Vice-Presidency, especially since I carefully avoided giving it in Wikipedia's voice directly. Finally, the second piece is available via archive here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Drdpw, any others, any further thoughts? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A specific example from either article of how recent VPs with few specific assignments were still/yet able to be powerful presidential advisors and/or governing partners could be added in the proper subsection. Drdpw (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you oppose adding the more general observation about the modern role of the Vice Presidency to the 'Modern roles' section? I hope I answered the concerns you raised in your prior comment. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement not supported by either source. The New Yorker article makes the point that VP candidate Biden appears to understand "what might be called the Mondale Rule: that the most powerful Vice-Presidents are those who take on the fewest assignments." The Financial times article makes the point the VP Biden "is following what some have called "the Mondale rule": that the best vice-presidents are those who take on fewest tasks and avoid being restricted to ceremonial duties only." Neither article makes a general observation about the modern role of the vice presidency. Drdpw (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is a general observation of the modern role of the Vice Presidency! What else would it be? I think you are misreading the articles. They are both stating that Biden is adhering to an adage which applies to the modern Vice Presidency generally. The statement, as I wrote it, was that "Some journalists have suggested that the most powerful vice presidents have been those with the fewest specific assignments." Some journalists have said that - the statement is 100% supported by the sources, whose reliability we have already discussed. I'm sorry, but your explanation for why this sentence should not be added keeps shifting. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Drdpw, any further discussion? I'd prefer not to reinstate the addition unilaterally - it would be great to come to consensus on this if we can. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinstating the change, as there has been no further discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Drdpw, if you don't wish to discuss further, just let me know, and I'll seek a third opinion to try to achieve consensus. But days of silence followed by an immediate revert is frustrating. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are too quick to reinstate the addition unilaterally. Sometimes it takes more than a few days for others to weigh in on the statement. Drdpw (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have anything else to add yourself? This talk page has over 400 watchers and it's been a week - of course, someone may weigh in at any time, but no one has so far. I'm happy to wait a few more days, but if no other comments are forthcoming here I think WP:3O would be a reasonable option to try and seek consensus. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What I hear the two journalists saying is: "The most influential vice presidents in recent decades have been those who were given the fewest bureaucratic assignments, and more involved with policy development and promotion alongside the president." A statement along those lines would work. Drdpw (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable to me - do you want to add that to the article? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion per [[WP:BRD]]  

message: Updated, as Gore was honoured with a bust, in 2017. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veep Bust collection 

message: In the Election section, the first sentence states "The vice president is elected indirectly by the voters of each state and the District of Columbia through the Electoral College ... ". Anyone who is elected to anything is elected by voters, so the "by the voters" part doesn't confer any new information. The "voters" could be a group of twelve oligarchs for all we know. I changed it to "by the citizens" and it was reverted. We should specify who is doing the voting. The point that the sentence is supposed to make is that the vice president is being elected indirectly by popular will. We can do better to convey this understanding in the reader than to just say "elected ... by the voters". I welcome any input and suggestions. 24.155.192.61 (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The voters elect the Electors. Then, the Electors elect the president & vice president. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "elected ... by the voters"