This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.
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.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.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
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.
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
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
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
The following discussion 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.
I propose splitting Thomas Massie into Thomas Massie and Political positions of Thomas Massie. The Political positions section has 15 subsections, and comprises 44.43% of the article. I believe the size of this section alone warrants a split; however, Massie's views and voting record also have a history of being unorthodox for a House Republican, which further warrants a separate article that can go into detail on his political positions. If agreed, I will do the split (but I wouldn't mind some help). — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs)04:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a size perspective, a split does seem logical. However, bear in mind that this article seems quite detailed for someone who sounds like a fairly minor political figure. That raises the spectre of editors questioning whether the split off section is sufficiently notable by itself, a concern that I share.
Also, care needs to be taken that it doesn't begin to read like an advertisement promoting the congressman, which articles like this frequently do precisely because they go into excessive detail about someone's accomplishments, beliefs, and personal life. I would need to reread it carefully to make sure of that, which I would prefer not to do as I'm not really that interested in this particular article or going to war over parts of it, but I was getting that impression by skimming it. It probably needs some trimming and a bit more neutrality even if it's not split, and if it is, these tasks will need to be done with each part. But there's no rush; let's see what other editors think. P Aculeius (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed down the "Political positions" section some and am thinking it is OK the way it is. To me it doesn't seem out of line with the length of a lot of other politicians' "Political positions" sections. I would really try to avoid the added complication of having an additional page unless it is really necessary. Because you know people are mostly going to want to edit the original page only because that is by far the one that gets the most views.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, article is not overlong. There's a lot of tables, refs and other non-reading text. There is also areas that can be trimmed. Massie is not a minor political figure, by the way. Given that the only thing that matters about politicians is their political positions, removing that material from the article would be a disservice to the readers. Abductive (reasoning)08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is not overtly long, and this is something you would expect to find in this article. What I agree is the article would benefit from good copyediting. Onikaburgers (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"* Oppose - Length does not meet criteria, see WP:SIZESPLIT (readable prose currently stands at 4966 words). To be frank, the items in the political positions subsection really seems scattershot. What the article needs more than splitting is good copyediting to make it coherent rather than a list of news items. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2024 (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.
This Wikipedia article in the current state uses "escalation" but he used the words "escalating". I think it is also important to provide additional context that he agreed with 90% of the bill (starting 3:45 in source 71) and at that time claimed to have never voted for any tariffs, which is the primary reason for the sole "no" vote. Crazyboytony (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
