The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
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 sourcedmust 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
PRehse the last line of WP:NPOL is such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". and WP:BASIC says People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Do you dispute that james has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]? ResultingConstant (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marquardtika, I'm OK with about 85% of your recent edits, but there are a few points that I disagree with here:
Addition of this text: James' top stated legislative priorities are improving educational outcomes... - That is a pretty generic statement rather than a political position; it's like saying that a candidate's "top priority is job creation," the kind of generic promotional statements that are routinely removed from biographies of figures of both parties. But I'm OK with conceding the point if we can come to agreement on the next two points.
Removal of this text: In a recording of a meeting with African American leaders in Michigan, James expressed the view that it was pointless to publicly condemn racist statements by Trump; comparing himself to the biblical figures Moses and Esther, James said that it was better to be publicly silent to gain influence in the corridors of power, rather than risk alienating Trump. The two questions you raised were (a) is the source sufficient? and (b) is "corridors of power" language supported by the source? The answers are yes and yes.
As to (a), Detroit Metro Times is an alt-weekly, but that doesn't mean that it's not RS. The Metro Times is used more than 800 times across article space; the article is categorized as news and not opinion (so the Metro Times's progressive editorial line doesn't seem to make a difference); and there is no dispute about the authenticity of the audio.
As to (b), the language is a fair representation of the source, which states: "James defended himself, saying he felt like it was better to be silent in public to gain access to Trump, comparing himself to the biblical figure of Esther" and quotes James: "Do you think that Moses was able to speak to the pharaoh multiple times? No, it's because he was raised in those and was able to get into those chambers." That clearly supports the "corridors of power" paraphrasing.
I'm completely open to alternative formulations, but James' position on this is pretty significant. (And is also necessary for balance, given the expansion of some text on areas in which James has expressed disagreements with Trump.)
Allowing this text to stand alone: He opposes the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to strike down the ACA because there is no "plan in place" to replace it. This is not a fair representation of the source material; it makes James' position seem much more definitive than it actually is. The sources emphasize that James stayed silent for many months about the lawsuit and then has hedged on it:
Free Press: "James ... has been careful not to take a position for or against the administration’s stance on that lawsuit while still saying he’s for repealing and replacing the ACA. And while he has maintained that he would also protect preexisting conditions — going so far as to tell the Free Press he would not support any proposal that could raise costs because of age or preexisting illness — he has also declined to say how that would be accomplished beyond saying he supports market-based reforms and incentives for people to keep themselves healthy."
WZZM: "After months, John James says he is against ACA lawsuit without a 'plan in place' ... When asked about the lawsuit, which is being pushed by the Trump Administration, James said he does not support the move without a plan in place. When pressed with the fact that there is no plan in place, James confirmed he does not support the lawsuit. When pressed about the people behind the effort - President Trump and fellow Republicans - he would not criticize them...."
MLive: "James recently opposed the lawsuit challenging the ACA after not taking a position on the issue for much of the Senate race."
(1) The generic statement should go. (2) The content appears to be sourced to a RS and there is no dispute as to the authenticity of James's words, so it shouldn't be removed. (3) If a person's position on a subject has changed over time, then we document that change (in particular when RS do and in particular when RS note that the change has been important). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some of the generic/vague statements that are not really about specific issues. Neutralitytalk 20:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2020[edit]
This edit request to John E. James has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It should be added that he refused to concede, and that Gary Peters called him Sad and Pathetic. JJames000454 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted an IP user's edit here. This removes a salient, high-profile example discussed in the source material, and leaves the antecedent clause ("or his actions") totally vague and undefined. I'm not seeing a real policy-based reason for the user's edit. Neutralitytalk 00:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020[edit]
This edit request to John E. James has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This page should be moved to "John James (Michigan politician)" in order to maintain consistency between page names. No other politician uses their middle initial in their title, and the new name would be more consistent with other pages. For example, Kevin McCarthy's page is not named "Kevin O. McCarthy", but rather "Kevin McCarthy (California politician)". -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
John E. James → John James (Michigan politician) – James has only been referred to as "John James" by most, if not all reliable sources, including himself. It is not Wikipedia's job to give an individual a unique name in order to differentiate them from a similarly named individual. EdrianJustine (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)}[reply]
Support. This is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. I don't think I've ever seen him referred to as "John E. James" outside of Wikipedia. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 18:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)