Talk:Russell Vought

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russell Vought article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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 supported by the politics and government work group.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

add this one of ... House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas to three of Trump's top officials?

Acting budget director Russ Vought, Michael Duffey, a senior official in the Office of Management and Budget, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, counsel at the State Department, all previously declined requests by investigators to testify voluntarily.

X1\ (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add Mulvaney ally promotes defying Congressional subpoenas?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/03/mulvaney-allies-lead-stonewall-against-democrats-impeachment-inquiry

X1\ (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of this hidden camera interview in which Vought was very up-front about his plans for the United States. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Rvryx6A-0 98.123.38.211 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

use of the term "conservative"

Right wing individuals continue to become more extreme & move farther to the right. Is it time to stop using the term "conservative" & instead use the more accurate, realistic, & practical term "right wing" or "far right" to refer to these people who are obviously pushing the extents of fascism.

They like to refer to themselves as conservative, & that to begin with is not accurate except for a few socially related topics - there's nothing more liberal than giving millions of $ to billionaires, so when you use the term they want you to use you are only adopting & supporting their warped propaganda. In addition, their propaganda frames the term "liberal" as a negative & dangerous word, another reason to not use the term conservative because it is less accurate by the day. Steeviansj (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the necessity to cite a change for the word or term "conservative" - that is an opinionated term which IMO is incorrectly used. In the past the term referred to fiscal conservatives which if you read the news does not apply since a long time to people such as Vought - the term has also been used to describe a few positions on "morality" related subjects such as marriage etc, this IMO is also inaccurate because all people will have a conservative & liberal view on various subjects. I could say Vought is extremely liberal as far as supporting tax cuts for millionaires & billionaires - this is a very liberal policy giving $ to wealthy people. Using & associating the traditional term "conservative" with Vought is at best inaccurate & inappropriate. Vought & Trump et all support fascist policy & are fascists which is a more appropriate term. A top US Army General has officially referred to Trump as a fascist - https://www.axios.com/2024/10/11/mark-milley-trump-fascist-bob-woodward-book Using the term "conservative" to describe Vought is like using that term to describe Putin or Hitler. Steeviansj (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sourced version?

This is related to the use of the term "conservative" section, but also relates to sources and citations. So I've started a new topic.

I see that Marquardtika reverted Steeviansj's wording change, with the comment "restored sourced version," by changing the wording far-right wing individuals back to conservatives. Yet the only relevant cited source that I see uses neither wording, instead referring to hardcore disciples. Is there another cited source that I've missed? Trackerwannabe (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the other citation in that section, Politico. Marquardtika (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So “woke and weaponized” comes from this citation, and conservatives from this one? Okay.

Trackerwannabe (talk) Trackerwannabe (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it. It's pretty clear that this IP editor just made some random changes without sourcing them. Marquardtika (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence Referencing "Various Christian Organizations"...

...might be fleshed by naming or categorizing those orgs, as it specifies The Atlantic Magazine, not just "a magazine"...

The actual sentence, " The Atlantic magazine and various Christian organizations denounced Sanders's questioning as a violation of the No Religious Test Clause. 2601:601:4085:BE10:6C77:8594:B82B:919F (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]