Talk:Mitch McConnell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Conservative Principles

Rividian keeps deleting the following sentence regarding Sen. McConnell: "McConnell is a staunch advocate of conservative principles." This seems to me an accurate and relevant summary of the subsequent article, much of which regards his advocacy of conservative causes, including his opposition to campaign finance regulation, his support for overseas warmongering and domestic spying, and his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine. Rividian considers the statement "generic," which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Binarybits (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for explaining he has an extremely conservative record and is known for it, that particular language just seems rather generic and unhelpful. It's not very good writing, sorry. I don't oppose the actual content though, and have tried to rewrite to show what I mean. --Rividian (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that's an improvement, because you haven't really explained what your objection is. "Generic" and "unhelpful," are, well, generic and unhelpful criticisms. What, specifically, is wrong with my phrasing? Binarybits (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Staunch advocate of conservative principles" - what are conservative principles? That's what seems generic to me. Better to list what he's done that's conservative, or as you rightly did, point out a study of his voting record that classified him as extremely conservative. Why can't we just summarize that? It doesn't actually make the vague statement that he's a "Staunch advocate of conservative principles", it rates his voting record, which is a concrete thing. By analogy, it would be like adding "He is a bastion of liberal thought." to John Yarmuth or such language... it's just generic and not nearly as useful as actually summarizing information about what someone has actually done. --Rividian (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We do list what he's done that's conservative. That's what the article is about. The section at the top is an introduction, which is supposed to be a summary of what follows. I think "staunch advocate of conservative principles" is a reasonable summary of the conservative positions he's taken as a senator, which we detail later in the article. Binarybits (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a very good summary, though... it's generic and I've presented a better alternative. --Rividian (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What you presented wasn't a summary, it was a statement about his ACU rating. Which is fine, but it expressed a different idea from my version. And I still don't understand what you mean by "generic" or why that's a bad thing. Binarybits (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it would be like adding language such as "He is a bastion of Liberal Thought" to Yarmuth's article or "She is a woman who runs on conservative platforms whatever the odds" to Anne Northup. Just because it's basically true and sourcable doesn't mean it's good wording. --Rividian (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So your objection is to the positive connotations of "staunch?" Binarybits (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that anywhere... it's just generic and cliche wording, same as if we said a liberal candidate was a "staunch advocate of liberal principles". Please don't make up things I didn't say. --Rividian (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that it's generic and cliche. But feel free to suggest an alternative wording that expressed the idea more elegantly. Binarybits (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be worded American conservative principles? googuse (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace?

Do we have a source for his birthplace? Somebody changed it, and it's not cited either way, so I have no way to know which one is correct. Binarybits (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Until proven otherwise we should go with what his official bio says. --Rividian (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Binarybits (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

McConnell on economy in 2008

Should we mention that McConnell has become something like the media's go-to-guy on economy issues in 2008?--68.56.17.70 (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic heritage

Is he Scotch-Irish or Scottish or Irish? I'd have thought some kind of Scottish Protestant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baku&tblisi (talk • contribs) 10:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He is Scotch-Irish according to his own words and those of his immediate family.

NPOV

The article seems to have an anti-McConnell bias in the way that it focuses only on his controversies and criticisms. It is apparent, to me, when reading the article that the author(s) support the criticisms. WP:NPOV reviews the best practices of material and tone. 129.65.137.103 17:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few changes that might help. However, we're not mind-readers here. WP:NPOV covers a wide range of ways in which NPOVishness can be missing. Please cite specifics (for example, what matters you think are given undue weight, what information is missing that would help with balance, specific sentences or paragraphs that you think have improper tone, etc.). Please just list a couple, to start the discussion. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV tag because there was no response to my request for specifics. If it gets reposted, it is important - for improving the article - that the editor explain - HERE - what specifically is wrong - that is, provide at least a few examples. (Or, alternatively, cite a specific part of the NPOV policy as being violated; ideally, both.) John Broughton | Talk 15:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the "rumor" mentioned about McConnell getting special help getting out of the army is appropriate. It sounds like a very common attack, but lacks citation. Especially to the letter at Kentucky University (if there is such a letter). This letter is mentioned without a citation and doesn't explain what was in the letter. Sounds like rumor and insinuation rather than information.

Also, I don't understand the relevance of the comment that McConnell only won because Reagon was also running. It could also be said that the other guy lost because of the presidential candidate Mondale was so unpopular. Both suggestions would be POV and are pulled from thin ait. 1984 was a landmark moment in American politics when the Democrats suffered a drop in popularity. Please consider removing some of this information. 128.62.84.26 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much every single section detailing McConnell's politics on a particular issues ends with a negative quote from one of his legislative opponents. Several of the sections are nothing but negative criticisms. This article is biased against McConnell, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Many references listed are from groups or with an obvious political agenda opposite of his(of course every Senator has a political agenda), for example 'Source Watch', listed as reference 31. This is going beyond reporting and has obvious bias. There is a whole section that lists paragraph after paragraph of items from that source. Just the section that lists him supporting "big oil' has obvious. "big oil" is undefined, but is a often used term used to attack Republican energy policies. Those parts referenced need to be removed or have a valid source listed as Source Watch is a part of Center for Media and Democracy, which is a prominent Left-wing/Democrat think tank. Any right or left wing "think tank organization" is not a reliable source for a bio of any politician. I considered removing the whole section myself, but I am on another computer and can't sign in my account, plus I don't feel comfortable making such a big change to pages like these bios that repeatably get vandalized.

Someone please look at this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.232.192 (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajor#.22Big_Oil.22 Can you cite why products from think tanks are never reliable source for biographies of living persons?50.147.26.108 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

NAFTA

Will someone document Senator Mitch McConnell's role in the approval of NAFTA ... with any comments by Senator McConnell that indicate whether he still supports NAFTA or if he regrets having supported it ... and whether NAFTA, in his opinion, is in line with creating jobs in the US. - Senator McConnell's voice was a major one in the debate on NAFTA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.5.140 (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it true he had polio as a child?

As this article states? http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_16834262?nclick_check=1 If it's true, it is definitely notable to add. Apparently the only remainder of it is a limp he has to this day that makes it easier for him to walk up stairs than down. I did not know this. J390 (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

On Polio and Multiple Sclerosis

Ill try to adequately answer and source for the two different questions above.

Yes, Mitch McConnell did have polio when he was 2 years old. This information appears in his biography, although i have not personally read it. He apparently has confirmed this multiple times.

We Dont Know if he has Multiple Sclerosis. Kyle Simmons, his campaign manager in Louisville, had the following to say: "“Senator McConnell will not be available to discuss this,” Simmons said. “We have not and will not release Senator McConnell’s medical records.”"

Sources for the first: Basically everywhere, but nowhere on google that i can find would be any more trustworthy than any other. Its probably in his biography.

Source for the second: http://www.hillbillyreport.com/blog/2007/02/senator_mitch_m_1.html

Now clearly, that is a non-neutral source. However, the last paragraph contains the quote. I am not going to debate the validity of anything else on the page, one way or the other. I am a terrible, akward writer however. So if someone could compile this into a form that isnt marred with though train crashes, it would be much appreciated.

Ill try to find some better sources. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are no data on Multiple Sclerosis referred to with the optical condition and medical discharge, I recommend deleting the MS sub-clause.KSRolph (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the WP article on optic neuritis, it is most often, but not always, caused by multiple sclerosis. It could be syphilis, Lyme disease, or a lot of other things. The WP:RS says that it can easily be cured with steroids, and quotes an army doctor saying that it's usually not a reason for discharge.

The question is why he got an early discharge, and the mention of multiple sclerosis doesn't answer that question. It looks like a question that we can't answer. I would delete the reference to multiple sclerosis, since it's speculative. Pulling that one fact out of a long article is I think WP:SYNTH. We have the link to the original article, and we can give a wikilink to optic neuritis if people want more information (or speculation). --Nbauman (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to Chao Family

The unique relationship with the Chao family, a Chinese merchant family, well-connected to the Chinese Premier, is only referred to by his second marriage to the daughter.

There is a body of top-tier journalism about this relationship and its progression.

Example: http://www.kentucky.com/2006/10/20/197756/wedded-to-free-trade-in-china.html

Eight days after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, where China’s communist regime crushed a nascent democracy movement, McConnell collected his first $8,000 from the Taiwanese-born Chao, then just a friend, and her family. The Chao family is headed by James Chao, founder of Foremost Maritime Corp., a shipping company in New York that benefits from Chinese trade. It buys cargo vessels from China.

This topic is an obvious admission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leehenderson (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis

The section on the discharge from military service that he received during the Vietnam War states that "McConnell received a medical discharge for optic neuritis, which is a symptom of multiple sclerosis".

Ok, just checking here. Does Mitch McConnel have multiple sclerosis?

If someone familiar with the subject could confirm this, it would greatly contribute to the quality of the article. Mardiste (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done some searching and can find nothing to suggest he has MS. And while optic neuritis is a common symptom among MS sufferes it alone is not a sign of the disease.Coinmanj (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism

Hello, I work in Leader McConnell's office and was alerted to some obvious vandalism on this page, so I reverted the page to a prior version. Dchdc (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You call him "Leader"? --91.10.44.82 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be aprapo to do so... him being Minority Leader and all... it's just a shorter way of saying it.Exo212 (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-filibuster

I think this is significant and should be included in the article. Thoughts? --91.10.44.82 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel that unless he had a history of such action, this would not be noteable enough of an event to include in this article about him... rather a note in a cronicle of parli-pro stunts.Exo212 (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Least Popular Senator in the Country

A source that might be worth mentioning, I can't see where to add it appropriately or I'd do it myself. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/12/11/mcconnell_is_least_popular_senator_in_the_country.html Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"with a lowly 37% to 55% approval rating, the worst favorable/unfavorable numbers of any senator the country." <(taken from source website) with such a large margin of error, the validity/accuracy of this poll would be put into question. Not a valuble addition to the page in my opinion.Exo212 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think its safe to remove the incomplete summary warning.

Im pretty sure no one's gonna think that whats up there is a very good lead...But (and maybe this is just me) I couldnt help but laugh when i saw that it was immediatly over the single sentence. Its like a really well timed joke. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed. But if there's any dissent on that part, I'd want some notice of that. Exo212 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal Wealth

How did he acquire such wealth as a lifetime politician? Please add any information available on this.101.51.137.122 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletions

Any support for Middleground09's deletions [1]? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss any of the deletions.--User:middleground09 —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you deleting all this sourced text in the first place? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

90% of the sources are to the same wiki page, which is itself unsourced. --User:middleground09 —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's incorrect. None of the sources are from a wiki. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to SourceWatch? If so, the number does not come close to 90%. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to the references to sourcewatch.org. --User:middleground09 —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Which of my deletions specifically do you disagree with?. --User:middleground09 —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're deleting content sourced to CNN, CBS News, Washington Post, the Senate site, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss any of the specific deletions you disagree with. --User:middleground09 —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the edits make the article more accurate, objective, and relevant. --User:middleground09 —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please explain point-by-point why you want to make the changes you propose. It is not enough to say you are willing to discuss specific deletions NeilN opposes. You want to make this change, so you have to explain why. It is also not enough to make vague claims about making the article more "accurate, objective, and relevant". In fact, it looks like you are trying to remove passages that show any inconsistency in McConnell's positions over time and any criticisms of him. It looks like an argument could be made to delete some of the criticisms for being too detailed, but you have to make the arguments for deleting what you think should be removed. -Rrius (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The content I deleted is either unsourced or poorly sourced, inaccurate or irrelevant. The users who added them did not justify their actions. Why is the onus on my to justify my deletions?. --User:middleground09 —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an issue removing content sourced to SourceWatch as it doesn't seem to be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. The other content has been there for a period of time and no one objected to the additions (or consensus was reached). You need to justify "inaccurate or irrelevant". You can't just portray your opinion as fact. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My focus in editing was to remove inaccurate, irrelevant, and poorly sourced content. I actually spent quite a bit of time looking at sources and making careful edits to improve readability and objectivity. Have you read the article with and without my changes? Have you compared it to other biographies of politicians? Do you feel the original article was well written and accurate? Your argument that the existing content has been there for quite a while and therefore is by default good or correct is specious. Here's just a couple of examples of errors in the article: 1) The 1991 Crime Bill contains NO references to a waiting period for handgun purchases; 2) McConnell voted to TABLE Boxer's Trigger Lock Amendment. Do you understand the difference between voting for an amendment and voting to TABLE it? Also SourceWatch is NOT a valid source. Most of the content there is itself unsourced and the page is clearly intended to be an attack on McConnell. Can I reference my blog as a valid source? Since you've set yourself up as the arbiter of content on this article, you need to be able to justify it yourself. Refusing updates to inaccurate and scurrilous information in the biography of a living person is potentially defamatory. --User:middleground09 —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you not read my first sentence right above your reply where I agreed with you that SourceWatch is not a valid source and material using it as a source could be removed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the guidelines for Biographies of Living People: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. --User:middleground09 —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, did you follow the link in the passage you quoted? "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." CBS, CNN, the Senate site, the Washington Post are all reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Neil: the guidelines for Biographies of Living People clearly state that the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with person who adds or restores material. You have not justified adding back the content that I have disputed via removal. Although sources may have been provided for some of the content that I removed, they are not necessarily accurate. I provided 2 specific examples of inaccuracies above which you have continued to restore to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleground09 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

1) Waiting period for handguns - your assertion seems incorrect. 2) Trigger Lock Amendment 3230 - You are correct. I will remove that sentence. Next? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

1) There is no reference to waiting periods for handguns in the bill. 2) There is no precedent for pre-clearing edits to this page with you. 3) You are still not addressing my assertion that (based on the guidelines for Biographies of Living People on this site) the onus is not on me to justify content deletions. The onus is on you to justify retaining the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleground09 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you did not follow the "burden of evidence" link you are talking about (or are ignoring it). Let me quote it for you, "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this." As the material has cites, it's up to you to explain why they're not valid. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. After reading the section you're referring to more carefully, I agree that you are correct and that I was mistaken. Sorry for my confusion. Here's the rationale for my edits:

1) Claim that McConnell is widely considered a kingmaker in his party is not sourced. 2) Claim that McConnell has distanced himself from the majority in his party is supposedly based on support for earmarks and vote against the Flag Amendment. The former is not sourced and not correct based on his support for earmark reform. The latter is not sufficient basis for making such a blanket claim (particularly when his rationale is included). 3) Gun control: Bill referenced does not mention waiting period for handguns. 4) Protect America Act does not specifically mention warrantless wiretaps INSIDE the US. 5) Conversation with Chris Wallace is not sourced. 6) Claim that McConnell aid that any Republican health care plan would not attempt to provide care to all Americans is not accurate based on the source. 7) Paragraphs re Baker-Hamilton Study Group and speech to troops deploying to Iraq seem to have no relevance to me in this article. But I'll retract my deletion of these if there's no consensus on this. 8) CREW reference seems completely subjective and not based on any specified criteria. However I'll also retract this deletion if there's no consensus on that. 9) Top industry contributors is inaccurate based on the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleground09 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. As you've probably noted, I reverted my addition some time ago. Before I put anything back, I will discuss it here first to get feedback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

SVG Map

The text in the SVG file for the 2008 electoral map is significantly different and frankly doesn't look quite as good as the other files. Someone who is able should probably edit the file to match the others. Machdelu (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out who someone is (Wilbur Ross)

While this article is about Sen. Mitch McConnell, a short description of any particular person he associates with, like in any Wikipedia article, is the norm. A short description of Mr. Ross is for contextual purposes, and the idea that one must always click a wikilink to find out anything about that person doesn't seem like the norm of encyclopedic writing I've ever seen here. Would the reverter care to point to a specific guideline, not just a link but the paragraph or section where we are not to describe an associate in context? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As you know, content on WP must be WP:verifiable. In addition, in order for content to be relevant to an article, and not WP:original research, the sources provided should mention the subject of the article. The source provided in this case does not say anything about Ross's profession. Also Wikipedia itself is not a WP:reliable source. Editors don't get to make up subjective descriptions and insert them into articles.CFredkin (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that mentions that Ross has contributed to McConnell AND that Ross is a "coal billionaire", then I think you can make such a statement.CFredkin (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As you may well see in my comments for the contextual description I added for Wilbur Ross, I am making it very clear that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source as I stated that if I needed to import cites, I could do that. Further, the idea that I inserted subjective descriptions is preposterous and inaccurate. I inserted wholly objective descriptions from the lead of the Wilbur Ross article, descriptions I had found were backed up by references. Ross is a billionaire in objective terms. Ross is an investor in objective terms. Ross is involved in steel, coal and other industries, again in objective terms. I did not cast one ounce of subjectivity into that description, perhaps save for not listing additional industries and possibly giving undue weight to the two I did list. The content I added is verifiable based on references in the Wilbur Ross article. The only statement you have made here that possibly has any pertinence to this matter is the idea that the article that spoke of the meeting must have described who Wilbur Ross is to be able to mention it in this article. While I don't find this idea preposterous on its head, I do find that it, in my 10+ years of experience editing here to go against the nature of article development in the Wikipedia -- to combine information from more than one source in the writing of content. A sentence can indeed be built from two sources, one clause from one source and one from another, as long as they support what is being written. After all that is left from your baseless accusations, what we are left with is that what I did was the norm except 1) I didn't include references for the clause I added (easily fixable); and 2) you were apparently of the mind to disallow the material as subjective even though it is thoroughly objective, with an inexplicable impatience for allowing a normal contextual description of an associate of the subject. I conclude that if I add the contextual description back, with citations, it is entirely legitimate. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(post edit conflict) I never added content that Ross was a "coal billionaire", so I'm entirely lost on that conjecture. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As you can see here, Curtster3 added the "coal billionaire" textual combo. My leaving it the first go-around isn't the same as inserting it (it seemed to be somewhat within reason and I was merely attempting a cleanup). The thing is -- I didn't add it back after you removed it, so why would I need to find a reference for something I wasn't even writing? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a slow-motion edit war about addition and removal of the description of Wilbur Ross. Either reach consensus on this talk page, or get a third opinion, or publish a request for comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence for an "edit war" between myself and CFredkin. I agree however that the conflict resolution tools you have mentioned may be worth pursuing at some point. However, at this time, I have decided to put that on hold as the current sentence in question isn't "wrong", it's just not complete in my view. I am trying to figure out whether the point of contention (whether a sentence can have two parts, each referenced by separate sources) is truly based on Wikipedia guidelines. Once I have figured that out for myself, I will see what can be done here. No rush is necessary. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone point out the "edit war" in this article's recent history?

As you will see in the edit history of this article, the following events occurred:

• Curtster3 added material that had significant POV and other issues.
• I reduced this material in an attempt to make it closer to neutral, assuming good faith on Curtster3's part. One may call this a "partial revert" but as you will see, it wasn't part of the later disagreement. (I'm not claiming what was left here was perfect by Wikipedia standards)
• I edited my own change to make it more accurate.
• CFredkin removed some of this new material. This is a minor partial revert.
• CFredkin removed most of this new material. Clearly this is a partial revert.
• I added an objective description about Ross that didn't bring back any of the previous content. Some have been suggesting I brought back "coal billionaire". Didn't happen. What I added is straight from the Ross article, and it's referenced (in the Ross article).
• CFredkin did a full revert of my addition.

So, to total it up, CFredkin did two partial reverts and one full revert. I did a partial revert before the editing back-and-forth/disagreement between myself and CFredkin. Note that I have not accused CFredkin of "edit warring" and I don't even think he deserves that accusation. So, with me engaging in no reverts (unless you count my partial revert of someone else's material), what gives? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Also of possible interest is that Robert McClenon left a warning in my talk about edit warring but not in the talk for CFredkin. He accused someone with no reverts but didn't accuse someone with 1 revert and 2 partials (again, I am not accusing CFredkin of edit warring). This matter is starting to have an unusual smell to it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant POV-SYNTH Deleted

Irrelevant material about one of McConnell's supporters has been deleted, and should not be re-inserted. There is no reason to mention a mine disaster. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was removed by CFredkin, and there is currently no disagreement over this particular removal. Since there has never been a "re-insertion", I am puzzled as to the alarm seemingly expressed here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, the point of contention above is about including a short, objective, referenced blurb about who this supporter/associate is. That's the only point of contention. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Context is essential in an article. Think of the reader! Of course they can always click on a wiki link to get more info, but why force them when you can help them with some context? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Context is useful when it's reliably sourced.CFredkin (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

So, do the work and find a source. Here is one [2]. Feel free to update the text to better describe the person. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is that sentence in there at all? Is this the only fundraiser even held for MM? I doubt it, so why is this one important? The sentence itself is undue weight. The apparent reason for the original inclusion is because Wilbur is "controversial" in which case the addition itself was a violation of NPOV. Arzel (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, the source provided by Cwobeel doesn't mention McConnell. User:Cwobeel, once again, it's not my responsibility to find sources for content that you want to add to the project. You can find your own damn sources.CFredkin (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

my own "darn sources"? You are on your own with that attitude. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Characterizing Wilbur Ross - RFC

Since there are different opinion as to how to identify Wilbur Ross, I think that a Request for Comments is in order. What should the options be? One is to include no characterization, because the link is available. Another of them is to identify him simply as an American industrialist. A third that has been proposed is as an American billionaire investor in coal, iron, and steel. Are there any other options worth !voting on? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Eliminating the individual fund-raiser entirely as one of hundreds, with no demonstrated special biographical importance. 2600:1006:B121:B01E:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

One can argue that McConnell had a fundraiser with a notable person (Ross) and that it was important enough to be reported by the mainstream press (referenced). And it's in a section about fundraising during McConnell's tenure. The only salient argument I see is whether it carries a similar weight of other content in that section, and if that section were to become "too long", would this fundraiser be one that is trimmed? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The sentence violates undue weight as it is. Why is this the only fundraiser mentioned? The OP added it because Wilbur is "controversial" (apparently because he is rich), thus it should have been completely removed as undue weight and a NPOV violation from the beginning. Arzel (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Then, first, remove the mention of Wilbur Ross altogether. Second, mention the fundraiser, with no further characterization. Third, as an American industrialist. Fourth, as an American billionaire investor in coal, iron, and steel. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, since Ross is notable enough to have an article for himself, he is more than about being "rich". Nobody has suggested controversy over the man's wealth. As you can see in Wilbur Ross, the man is a highly accomplished investor in many industries, one which especially affects McConnell's home state and the political questions raised in the current U.S. Senate race. I think it's relevant. The defensiveness inherent in claiming controversy over wealth suggests a particular bias, and we're ultimately not interested in bias here (bias that includes material, or bias that removes it). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's an opinion that can be stated in response to the RFC, not a new suggestion for what the options in the RFC should be. The RFC will be posted shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If others can make arguments, I can too. Why the bias against my positions? If you object to mine, object to all of them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the content is kept, I am for any basic objective description, such as the one I added and was reverted using spurious reasons. But I would be content enough with "industrialist". All I was seeking was simple biographical context for the reader. The idea that a reader has to click a link to find out anything about a subject is preposterous and an idea I've never seen advanced by anyone (until now) in my 10+ years of editing here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If we are discussing options though, Ross does seem to be rather extraordinary for an investor, based on his accomplishments and controversies related to his investing. I know we cannot synthesize anything, but just based on his article, any number of objective descriptions can be drawn. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Another aspect of this is about Ross being a billionaire. Ross is objectively a billionaire, and it is very unusual and puts Ross in a small club of notability, not just based on the wealth, but on all the factors that provided such wealth (nobody becomes a billionaire without doing notable things). Some may suggest that applying this objective label is pejorative, while others may simply find it a descriptive aspect that makes the fundraiser worth mentioning. It's not putting down rich people to note those who are in a special tier of wealth. If this is seen as pejorative, who is seeing it? There are many kinds of objective descriptions that could conceivably turn people off about a person, but they are objective nevertheless. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The OP added the section including fundraiser with "Controversial" subject. What is controversial about him? I said it appears to be because he is rich. First you said that there is nothing, and it is not his wealth, but your last couple of statements seem to imply that that it is because of his wealth because of the controversies related to his investing. Arzel (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you are referring to. At any rate, I think you are making a strawman argument that doesn't reflect my position. Ross doesn't need to be "controversial" to be notable. McConnell had a fundraiser with a notable person -- a person notable for the various reasons described in his article. If there is any controversy, that is laid out in the Ross article. All I am interested in is an objective biographical context for the reader. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is about a Fundraising section, not a Controversy section. With the content as it currently is, there is no suggestion of controversy, only a suggestion of notability because Ross is notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

League of Conservation Voters

I restored the content re: League of Conservation Voters because this is a notable nonpartisan organization that has produced report cards on politicians for a long time. Perception of their political leaning is not a guidelines-based reason for the content's removal. A request for a secondary reference may be a reasonable guidelines-based request, but I don't find it sufficient for complete removal. I think the new section around the affected sentence should be expanded (otherwise, fold the sentence into more general Tenure content), so as to provide greater context of the Senator's positions on energy and the environment, which are certainly critical subjects. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I will also note that ratings or report cards from any major notable nonpartisan organization (no matter which way they lean) is fair game for inclusion in any politician's article. So, for instance, if someone wanted to include Sen. McConnell's A+ rating from the NRA, that would seem reasonable as well. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous user removed the material again with the reason "still no indication of biographical importance in secondary sources". This is included in a section about McConnell's tenure, and a report card about a range of issues McConnell has acted on or not acted on relates to his tenure. I fail to see the seemingly high standard being required to retain a report card from a notable organization, just as I would fail to see a similar standard for not including similar information (such as McConnell's A+ NRA rating). This seemingly high standard, which has yet to be correlated to guidelines, is why I am assuming at this point that the material was removed due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy? Well, I guess we should start with WP:PRIMARY & WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia articles, especially BLPs, are supposed to be a summary of what reliable secondary sources say about a subject, not a platform to echo the unnoted views of every single-issue special interest group that can afford a website. Now maybe if the. NYT were to publish an article on his environmental views, commenting on the LCV rating, that would meet WP standards for inclusion. 2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point with WP:PRIMARY but not with WP:UNDUE, as if I or someone else were to produce a reference of secondary reporting (and it doesn't have to come from the NYT -- your standard, not the standard), this is a section about McConnell's tenure, and the report card grade covers long stretches if not his entire tenure, therefore, it's of an equivalent weight, if not greater, than many items currently in the section (many of which aren't exactly highly encyclopedic items; i.e. the section is nearly like a laundry list). I am currently searching for secondary reporting, even though I think that for almost any other subject, this information would be included. I also note that your arguments include a put-down of a longstanding notable organization -- I'm sure that you are aware that rejecting content from that point of view has no basis in policy or guidelines -- that is where the WP:IDONTLIKEIT appearance comes from. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC - How to Characterize Wilbur Ross

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.

---

How should Wilbur Ross, a backer of Mitch McConnell, be characterized in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Options

The following !votes are recognized.

• Option 0 - Omit all mention of Wilbur Ross, because the fund-raiser is not notable compared to other fund-raisers.
• Option 1 - Include his name only. His career can be found in his own linked article.
• Option 2 - Describe him as an American industrialist.
• Option 3 - Describe him as an American billionaire investor in coal, iron, and steel.
• Other - Specify.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Instructions

Do not include anything but !votes in the Survey. Any comments may be deleted or moved to Threaded Discussion. Do not delete or edit anyone else's !votes (that is vandalism) or delete or edit anyone else's comments (that is either vandalism or disruption). Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 0 Arzel (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Option 0 (strike the entire content) due to WP:UNDUE (see my comments below) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Option 0 Seen a Mike (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Option 0. No good reason to include this, except for trying to smear McConnell. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 21:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

There must be some reason why this particular fundraiser is of note. The OP stated that Wilbur was "Controversial" yet there is nothing apparently controversial about him. The addition seems to imply that he is controversial because he is wealthy. Thus it would appear that the addition was made because he is wealthy. Welathy people throw fundraisers for politicians all the time. President Obama went to three of them just yesterday. Unless a valid reason can be stated for why this should be included at all it is in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, it may even be a violation of WP:BLP because the implication is that Wilbur is a bad person. Arzel (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The only place I see mention of Ross being "controversial" is where you stated that. If I'm missing something, please point to it. You seem to be expressing an idea that for something to be notable in a Fundraising section (not a Controversy section), that controversy must be involved. I don't find that to be true according to the wiki way. The main requirement is that the event material is notable. Based on the current content, the suggestion is that the fundraiser is notable because Ross is notable, and given Ross has a Wikipedia article chock-full of notable, referenced aspects (well beyond the notable aspect that Ross is a billionaire), I believe that is what should be concluded. There could be an issue of undue weight, however -- which could be addressed by removing said content, or adding other equally notable fundraisers. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just looking into why the original editor added the information. It happened well over a year ago and now is important? (question to the original adder not you). The editor said that Ross was controversial in their edit, and that is the only place where I have seen that. I am not implying that only controversial aspect should be added, only that the only reason it appears to have been added was because that editor believes it to be controversial. Unless something of note happens at a specific fundraiser I don't see any value in adding them anywhere. The other alternative is to add a lot of fundraisers to remove the implication that Ross is bad and weight issues, but that is a bad precedent in my opinion and adds almost no value and is likely to result in only a list of percieved bad people. Arzel (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The content added by Curtster3 isn't being discussed here. We are discussing the current content and a disagreement on how Ross should be described, or if the content, as it is now, should be removed for a particular wiki-reason. I was under the impression that it is already roundly agreed that the content Curtser3 added had serious NPOV issues and nobody has attempted to bring that content back or has advocated for such. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As I stated, I was interested in why they added it in the first place. The violations removed leave a sentence without any notable context other than the continued implied context. Arzel (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, despite the RfC starter's (I think, biased) attempts to disrupt my seeking assistance in the Help Desk for better understanding Wikipedia guidelines (that, combined with other biased actions against myself and others, may be deserving of an RfC by itself), I have come to some conclusions. First, I think that the sentence, taken in a vacuum, is notable for the flat reason that Wilbur Ross is notable for several reasons and that the press thought it was a notable enough event to report on it. I also think there is a possibility for future inclusion if public, well-reported controversies or other notable aspects were to ever swirl around this particular fundraiser. For now, I think WP:UNDUE must be applied and the entirety of this content be struck. If I were arguing for the content to be kept, I would have argued for a short, objective biographical description of Ross (like what I had added) for the sake of the reader, as the idea that a reader must click a link to find out anything about a person is preposterous. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to request that this RfC be closed with a clear consensus and the called-for edit executed. Any seconds or objections? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I executed the wishes of the clear consensus. Now, I will proceed to close the RfC as there have been no objections. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

NRA Endorsement

This endorsement is reliably sourced and as relevant as any of the other content in the section.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

One could apply WP:UNDUE, one could say it's promotional, one could say it shows an endorsement without including criticisms of the subject during the campaign (lack of balance). As other editors of this article have taught me well, it's that you can have a good reason for keeping something, but other good reasons for elimination take precedence. That's the underlying problem of having a protectorate around an article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are saying those things, please provide supporting information for each. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The entire section covering six Senate elections is just four paragraphs long and each election is covered in just a couple of sentences. Not only that, but no other endorsements are mentioned from any of his prior elections so of course it lends undue weight. There's an endorsement section at the appropriate election page, which is where it belongs, along with all the other endorsements. Of course, that the NRA endorsed a Republican is hardly surprising so why list this one and not the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee or TheTeaParty.net or Rick Perry? Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and "routine news reporting on things like announcements is not a sufficient basis for inclusion". Thus, endorsements like this belong in the endorsement section of the election article, and not on his BLP. Tiller54 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

How exactly does the fact that there are no other endorsements mentioned mean that mentioning this one is WP:UNDUE? What guideline says that endorsements can't be mentioned in a BLP? And finally, endorsements are mentioned on his opponent's bio. How is this one different?CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

endorsement is undue weight and recentism. Being from foreign country makes this perspective clear 93.35.81.13 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

McConnell's in his sixth Senate election. He'll have been endorsed by thousands of individuals and hundreds of groups, PACs and organisations. And yet only 1 is listed, by the NRA, for the 2014 election. What makes this endorsement worth noting? Nothing. It's WP:NOTNEWS ("routine news reporting on things like announcements is not a sufficient basis for inclusion") and WP:RECENTISM ("A political candidate's biography might become bloated with specific details related to a particular, recent election"). Tiller54 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh goodness, you've added another one. Like the NRA, Mike Huckabee's endorsement is not notable for McConnell's BLP. As I've just said, endorsements are the perfect example of WP:NOTNEWS - there's no enduring notability sufficient to warrant inclusion in a BLP. There's a brief media spike as x endorses y, then it goes away. There's a section for endorsements on the 2014 election page, which is where they're listed. They don't belong here and particularly not random ones like these. Tiller54 (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to reply to "endorsements are mentioned on his opponent's bio". I can only see 1, which I've also removed. Tiller54 (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Tiller54's position and reasoning, which is based on commonly understood Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Also note that CFredkin has been adding similarly unweighty critical items to the article for McConnell's opponent in the Senate race, and trying to maintain them via edit warring. Either way, it's undue weight. Also, there's at least a hint of a bias at play here, and the Wikipedia is not to be used for such purposes. This and Alison Lundergan Grimes are biographical articles, not electioneering tools. If there is anything close to electioneering, endorsements, significant fundraising events, what opponents say of each other, and similar laundry lists can go into United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Slow-Motion Edit Warring

There is slow-motion edit-warring over this article again. Please discuss specific items to be included or excluded rather than just reverting. Please be aware of WP:ARBAP, with the provision that any topic in American politics that becomes polarized or contentious can be placed by the ArbCom under discretionary sanctions. Limit yourselves to one revert a day as a matter of proper Wikipedia behavior, or you could be limited to one revert per week WP:1RR. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't occurring the first time. As was pointed out before, that was an imaginative finding. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Kynect

We need to improve the text about Kynect. McConnell said that he wants to keep the "website", but Kynect is not a website. Kynect is a state exchange where different insurance companies offer plans to consumers, many of whom will be given tax subsidies based on ACA (Obamacare). Kill Obamacare, and Kynect website will stop to work. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Senate Majority Leader

See also: Orrin Hatch

Can we not wait until the Senate Republican caucus atleast nominates him for majority leader, before placing it in the infobox? Remember, the US Senate of the 114th Congress elects the majority & minority leaders & the 114th US Congress doesn't take effect 'til January 2015. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Admin Action

Can any administrator who is watching this page please take action about the edit-warring here and at Harry Reid to change the Senator's job titles prematurely? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Semi-protection locks the page against IP vandals and very new editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014

Please change "Senate Minority Leader" in offices1 section to "Senate Majority Leader" because that will become his title following his induction as Majority leader to the Senate following the most recent election Spencier (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: He is not yet Majority Leader. The page will be updated when the new Senate actually takes office. Stickee (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Chao's Shipping Firm

Why do editors keep adding information regarding Chao's Shipping Firm into this article? This article is not about him. It is a BLP violation to try and make it look like McConnell has anything to do with it. Arzel (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If the irrelevant information is being added by unregistered editors, then the semi-protection will prevent that. I did see a lot of adding of irrelevant information to this article during the campaign, but the issue today was trying to change his job title to Majority Leader before the Republican Senate conference convenes. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It is in his personal wealth section right now. Arzel (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It was added here. Arzel (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant? He campaigned on keeping Kentucky's coal industry in business yet his family imports cheap coal into the US from Columbia, undercutting the industry he claims to protect. Sounds highly relevant to me. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

coal and the EPA

I'm surprised to find that there isn't a single use of the words "coal" or "EPA" in the entire article. Maybe the article should have more information on McConnell's political views? Givethemahug (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox order

His role as a US Senator, should be listed first in the infobox. Afterall, if he wasn't a US Senator, then he wouldn't be Sen Majority leader. What's the view of others? GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's clearly obvious, so people would know that if they scrolled down the page they would find his Senatorial details. His role as Majority Leader is more important so they should be listed first.Andreas11213 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

He wouldn't be Sen majority leader, if he wasn't a senator. BTW - Why aren't you pushing this at Harry Reid & the whips? GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What don't you get? That is obvious, everyone knows that so it isn't a problem to list his role as Majority Leader first. It s more important.Andreas11213 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

count-by-county svgs

great historic data. does anyone know if it accounts for redrawing of district lines or if the map is a current representation and the historic data was back-filled. thank you kindly. 2601:646:4100:93F1:D98E:CA50:B714:75E9 (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mitch McConnell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.washingtontimes.com/campaign-2012/candidates/addison-mitchell-mitch-mcconnell-210
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130929180731/http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jan/04/sen-mcconnell-called-obstructionist-by-critics/ to http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jan/04/sen-mcconnell-called-obstructionist-by-critics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The archived URL worked, but the first link was unsuccessful. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

First responders

Why no mention of Mitch defunding the health care for 9/11 first responders?204.11.142.106 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mitch McConnell. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.roth.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130830063617/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/29/flag.burn/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/29/flag.burn/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://politicalticker.blogs.com/2014/02/15/mitch-mcconnell-on-allowing-debt-ceiling-vote-i-had-to-do-whats-best-for-the-country/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826115628/http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headlines/6320197.html to http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headlines/6320197.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miamiherald.com/1395/v-fullstory/story/1010566.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/guantanamo/v-fullstory/story/1010578.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kentucky.com/2010/04/15/1224749/mcconnell-to-big-banks-rescue.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124055949/http://www.jeffersonawards.org/board to http://www.jeffersonawards.org/board

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal Wealth

This seems like a strange thing to include in this article. McConnell is not known for his wealth, nor is being the 11th wealthiest member of he senate really an important fact. This section is not included in other politicians articles, including politicians many times wealthier than McConnell. Does any one else think this section should be removed and the information contained merged elsewhere or removed entirely? Byates5637 (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal wealth indicates how well-connected the Senator is to corporate America. It should be included not only for him, but for every Senator, and Congressman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtherLetter (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Speaks strangely

His lips don't move. Did he have a stroke?

Mr. McConnell had polio as a child. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Biographical article unbefitting the subject's stature

All my political notions set aside (as that's what all wikipedians should do), the subject of this article has maintained a highly distinguished career for 30 years and has risen to a high position in the U.S. government. He is unquestionably a major power in Washington. I also care about this subject because he's from the same city as myself, and he's covered under WikiProject Louisville (a project I'm heavily involved in). So when I see poor structure and lack of completeness in this article, I have to raise concerns. The "Tenure" section is ridiculously awful. It reads as if someone decided to present a resume of impression-seeking length rather than using proper encyclopedic writing and structure. It looks like a laundry list of the subject's positions and acts, rather than doing the homework that would ordinarily lead to appropriate sectioning and including information of what others thought of his work over these 30 years (which, yes, includes criticism). Also, I think there is such depth to McConnell's career that it would probably spill over into subarticles, given proper development.

The bottom line as I see it is that the Wikipedia's better editors (those who would work on these necessary improvements) are being scared away from working on this article. Who would want to work on an article where every little thing is challenged by what appears to be a protectorate? Whether these protectors are paid or just acting overzealous for political purposes, I will state in no uncertain terms these protectors are not doing the subject any favors. For a minority leader in the U.S. Senate with a distinguished 30-year career, this article is very crappy.

Good point, but pretty much all articles on Democrat politicians have a protectorate who won't let any changes be made. If you make any change, you are falsely charged with vandalism and the liberal editors revert it instantly back into a glowing article on the Democrat. That's why Wikipedia is called Liberalpedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.22.149 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What's especially humorous is that these protectors are making the subject's current political opponent look great in comparison (comparing articles, not the subjects themselves), even though she's comparatively new to politics and thus doesn't merit as much biographical content. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree this article needs a lot of improvement. I'd like to see more "big themes" rather than cherry-picked pieces of legislation that seem to lack particular notability (specifically when the only source is a roll-call vote). What do you think of the additions I've made? Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not long ago, this article bent over backwards to be complimentary. I worked out two sentences that broached some major and obvious negatives about his service. Since then they have been elaborated on. It is a fact that he is the only U.S. senator to be under water (to poll with a greater negative than positive) with his constituents. I also added one sentence about obstructionism and political courage. It was carefully balanced to include two opposing viewpoints. I don't dispute a thirty year career and the fact that Mr. McConnell has risen to be a leader of the Legislative branch of the U.S. government. I do, however, dispute the idea that this article must be 100% positive. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Favorability rating

Hi NPalgan2. Here is four years of data about McConnell's favorability ratings. I prefer the source used in the lead because the author is so clear, and he interprets one recent poll in the context of the whole Senate. Just thought you deserved a better reply than my edit to undo. I agree with some of your previous edits, especially removing that long paragraph from the lead about rushing through cabinet nominees. Thank you for this one! -SusanLesch (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

POV flag

Hi Stevietheman and NPalgan2. Forgive me if I confused you with other editors. How can I help you to resolve the POV flag on this article? As near as I can tell, NPalgan2 added the POV flag three days ago linked to Stevie's complaint dating back to 2014. Only a few months ago, the lead of this article was laughable in its contortions to be 100% positive. How can I help you guys work out a suitable biography that respects Wikipedia's BLP rules? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In delicate aspects of this subject, It may be best to develop changes in user space, making sure they are very well reliably sourced, before merging them into this article. I haven't paid much attention for a while, but in 2014 there was in my estimation an election-year protectorate atmosphere here, and it scared away editors simply wanting to improve the article, including reliably sourced criticism. At any rate, I don't want to touch this article (except for basic cleanups) myself. I got burned too badly when doing good-faith work previously. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Stevietheman. From past experience, I know the feeling of getting burned while trying in good faith to find some balance. OK with me if we wait for NPalgan2. Thanks again for your reply. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have done some editing and removed the pov flag. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

NPalgan2, great. Thank you for taking care of this. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Approval rating

It does not seem appropriate to say that McConnell has one of the lowest in-state approval ratings (in the lead) when he has been elected six times by increasing margins. The sentence should be removed under NPOV.Asburyparker (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I too vote that, although there is RS coverage of his low approval ratings, it doesn't belong in the lead. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it should stay. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I moved it. It definitely does not belong in the intro of anyone's article. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Vote on Betsy Devos

McConnell voted on February 7, 2017 to affirm Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education and manipulated his caucus to join him notwithstanding the near unanimous opinion of independent observers that she is supremely unqualified to fill the position.[90][91]

This seems like a very biased statement and frankly untrue. It was not a "near unanimous" opinion of independent observers that she is supremely unqualified. The sources of NYT and WashPost clearly lean to the left on the political spectrum. Also voting for Betsy Devos as a Republican senator isn't exactly controversial, only two Republican senators ended up voting against her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmu008 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence is very biased against McConnell and DeVos. I fixed it and removed the "supremely unqualified" garbage. Thanks for notifying us about it! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Polio Treatment at Warm Springs not government provided, according to Scopes

According to Scopes, the following statement about Mitch McConnell under ″Early life and education″ is inaccurate: ″He received government provided treatment at the Warm Springs Institute that saved him from being disabled for the rest of his life.″ [11].

Here is the Wikipedia citation for that statement provided in the Wikipedia article:

Here are the facts according to the Scopes article, with the url to the article following this excerpt from it:

″The Warm Springs center that helped in Mitch McConnell’s recovery was indeed founded by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was President at the time McConnell was struck by the disease, in 1944. Roosevelt was the driving force behind both the Warm Springs Foundation and its successor, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and used his political office to energetically promote fundraising for polio care and research. The funding came from the kindness and charity of the public, as well as wealthy celebrities and large corporations.

However, it was operated as an innovative, nationwide nonprofit organization, not a federal or state agency, and it was not taxpayer or government-funded. The Warm Springs center visited by McConnell remained owned and operated by a nonprofit organization until 1974, when the state of Georgia took it over, making it truly government-run. Since 2014, it has been owned and operated by Augusta University. ″

Gary Henscheid (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Gary HenscheidGary Henscheid (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Style: The article needs rewriting for tense consistency

The article has inconsistent tenses. It should be rewritten using past tense as historic present is likely to become inaccurate with passage of time. For example, Q: "On January 2, 2013, the Public Campaign Action Fund, a liberal nonprofit group that backs stronger campaign finance regulation, released a report . . . . /Q

The verb "backs" will become incorrect if that nonprofit goes out of existence. It may already be incorrect in 2017. I suggest that such verbs be changed to past with a time stamp, like: ". . . that as of March, 2013, was backing stronger . . . (PeacePeace (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC))." It could be that in 2017 the group changed what it backed. Who can keep checking on what it backs? (PeacePeace (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mitch McConnell. 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/20170113141629/https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/levin-3-15-16 to https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/levin-3-15-16
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miamiherald.com/1395/v-fullstory/story/1010566.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/guantanamo/v-fullstory/story/1010578.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170211075630/https://www.smith.edu/library/libs/ssc/news/redmon.html to https://www.smith.edu/library/libs/ssc/news/redmon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2017

This should have the more specific category Category:Spouses of United States Cabinet members. 69.112.85.16 (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Done The article is already in Category:Spouses of United States Cabinet members, so I removed the less specific Category:Spouses of American politicians. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren incident

Should the incident involving Elizabeth Warren be listed under 2016 presidential election section or should it be a new segment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneather (talk • contribs) 15:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

it certainly shouldn't be included in the 2016 presidential election section. It has nothing to do with the election itself. Whether or not it deserves its own subsection is a different story. Darryl.jensen (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018

"Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr. (born February 20, 1942) is an anthropomorphized turtle who enjoys eating ass [...] KingTurtle69 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a legitimate edit request. Dolotta (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Content sourced to political scientists and historians removed

The editor SunCrow removed a bunch of content sourced to recognized experts (political scientist and historians) with the following edit summary "rvt for multiple reasons, including balance, weasel words, undue weight, encyclopedic tone, and NPOV)". None of those reasons are substantive. The text mirrors the sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit made by Snooganssnoogans that I reverted can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=862609174&oldid=862253929. I stand by the revert and the stated reasons for it. SunCrow (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Issues with "reputation and transformation" section

The "reputation and transformation" section could use some "transformation" of its own. Recent edits by Snooganssnoogans have created major issues. I have tagged the section accordingly. The issues are:

• Balance. The section currently consists of a litany of criticisms and unfavorable characterizations of McConnell. It is appropriate for the section to include that information, but the fact that there is almost nothing else in the section is very problematic.
• Weasel words. Examples include: "McConnell has been widely described as...," "A number of political scientists and historians have characterized...," "Political scientists have referred...," "Democrats have chided McConnell..." The weasel words also give rise to potential WP:SYNTH and WP:OR concerns.
• POV. At this point, the section reads more like a partisan hit piece than like a portion of an encyclopedia article. The fact that the section is sourced does not solve the problem; if an editor includes reliable sources in an article, but only offers perspectives from reliable sources that match that editor's POV, the article or section can very easily end up with a massive POV problem like this one has.

There are some other issues, but I'll stop there. SunCrow (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

(1, 3) These are not "criticisms", these are descriptions and analyses by recognized experts and are in many instances peer-reviewed. If there is academic research and political scientists and historians that dispute these characterizations, then go ahead and add them. (2) The examples of weasel words are absurd. They are not weasel words, but simply reflect the content of the sources. When a dozen sources say X, we can say "multiple sources say X". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

(1, 3) You say potato, I say po-tahhh-to. (2) Disagree. When a dozen sources say X and you write "multiple sources say X," that's WP:SYNTH. Instead of doing that, it would be best to grab up a couple of significant reliable sources and say, "Reliable sources John Doe and Jane Smith say X." Also, if a bunch of sources say X and a bunch of sources say "not X", but only the sources that say X are included in the article, there is a balance problem and an NPOV problem. That's exactly what we have here in the reputation section, where you have collected a bunch of information that clearly matches your view of McConnell and thrown it into the article. It's not OK to load up the article with your POV and then tell me or others that if we don't like it, we can go find other information to balance the article out. It shouldn't be unbalanced in the first place. You may be absolutely right to have a low regard for McConnell, or you may not. Either way, expressing a high or low regard for someone is not what the encyclopedia is for. On a related note, I have just completely rewritten the lede, which had similar problems following your recent rewrite. It's no exaggeration to say that you are destroying this article. Please stop. SunCrow (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I went where the RS took me. If you can't be bothered to cite any RS that supported your contention that there is disagreement among RS as whether McConnell did X, then stop casting aspersions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Bologna. SunCrow (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

In "In popular culture" I would like to add: In Season 2 Episode 8 of Big Mouth the Shame Wizard tells Jessi he knew she was lying because she looked like Mitch McConnell. https://themuse.jezebel.com/big-mouth-maintains-its-gross-out-charm-in-season-2-1829534806 Goshdannit (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:POPCULT. A list of every time McConnell has been mentioned in any TV show would be unencyclopedically trivial. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Lede should summarize McConnell's career better

McConnell has been the most powerful Republican Senator for the last ten years, yet the lede summarizes nothing that he's done during that time. This includes highly consequential actions, such as stopping a Democratic president from seating a Supreme Court justice and refusing to take joint action to stop Russian interference in the 2016 election. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. SunCrow (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This lede[3] actually summarizes McConnell's career. This lede doesn't[4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, a lede should summarize the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Electoral History bizarre

I don't have the time to fix it, but the electoral history section on this page is bizarre. It lists Mitch Mcconnell's performance against the combined performance of multiple competitors (a Democrat plus third party candidates). That needs to be made into 3 columns and separated. Even very local congressmen have pages which do that. Look under the electoral history of any U.S. politician, I have never seen it done like this. So... let's have some consistency on this page. Someone needs to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.174.209.174 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove Time 100/negative approval rating from lede

Currently, the lede of the article contains the following sentence:

Time named McConnell one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2015, the same year he was the only senator with a negative approval rating.
— [5]

The caveat, "the same year he was the only senator with a negative approval rating," was added recently by User:SusanLesch (diff) with this justification: "if you're going to give Time, then you can give this."

I propose removing this sentence from the lede entirely. It is understandably perceived as an accolade, but the reality is that inclusion in the Time 100 is not a reflection of positive influence--just influence. In 2015, the Time 100 list also included the following illustrative entries: Vladimir Putin, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Raúl Castro, Kim Jong-un, and Abubakar Shekau ("the most violent killer [Nigeria] has ever seen" [6]). Thus, McConnell's being listed as influential is not in tension with his high disapproval rating.

What do others think? In the spirit of boldness, I will make this change in about 24 hours (assuming I remember) absent any objections. I am pinging the following editors who have been recently active on this page with anticipatory apologies for anyone inadvertently omitted, but of course anyone is welcome to participate in this discussion: @SusanLesch:, @Informant16:, @SunCrow:, @Snooganssnoogans:, @Calidum:. Thanks in advance for your time, good faith, and courtesy.--Rajulbat (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC).

I support removing the sentence in full. The lede already covers how McConnell is perceived as a good strategist, and the lede delineates how he's been extremely influential, which makes the Time designation redundant. I don't like the idea of including polls in a lede unless the polling indicates something truly remarkable, such as the atrocious approval numbers of Chris Christie and Sam Brownback. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not support removing this sentence. It encapsulates both sides of a complex character. Rajulbat pinging to be clear, I say no. Snooganssnoogans Mr. McConnell's rating is truly remarkable. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Thanks so much for your lightning response. You say the sentence captures "both sides." Do you have any comment on my assertion that being influential and disliked are not mutually exclusive? In other words, I would say that the sentence captures "two sides" of many regarding this undeniably "complex character" (McConnell).--Rajulbat (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC).

Nope. I object to removing his approval rating from the lead. (Using Mr. Snoogans's criteria it is indeed remarkable.) It may be a poor reflection on Time magazine but the first part of the sentence can be construed very generally as a positive balancing a negative. That's all I have to say except that your edits are valued. Keep up the good work. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: @Snooganssnoogans: -- All right. I reorganized the paragraphs without any substantial change to the contents (diff). I believe this revision respects both of your comments as well as my concern. While it maintains the Time reference, it moves the comment about his consistent disapproval rating over time to the bottom, as a counterweight to his longevity as the longest-serving KY senator and GOP majority leader. I agree that his rating over time is "truly remarkable" as evidenced by, e.g., this article ("He is consistently the least-popular member of the chamber, finishing last in every edition of the 100-deep list since its inception in late 2015."). I just don't agree, as I said above, that being disliked counters being influential. I do not hold out this change as perfect, but rather a step in the right direction, and welcome additional comments.--Rajulbat (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC).

Ok, I think it has been demonstrated that the approval ratings are remarkable. But if they should be in the lede, they ought not be presented as a juxtaposition to his longevity and influence. The text implies that McConnell ought to be more popular than he is. I made a bold edit removing the "despite". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Awesome; I like it. Thanks!--Rajulbat (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC).

• Since I was pinged here, I would not support the edit in question because it is sourced to a single poll. I’m neutral on keeping the Time 100 mention in the lead, because I don’t believe we include that information in the lead of other people who have made the list. Calidum 20:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If that's true that others aren't mentioned for Time (when I was a kid Time might have been significant but probably isn't nowadays) then I support removing it. Calidum, Mr. McConnell's rating is well known and supported by multiple polls over many years. Rajulbat, I like your solution although "among the lowest" is an understatement. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I’d be ok with a more generalized statement in the lead about his approval rating instead of a statement about his rating in any one year. Calidum 16:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Calidum: Rajulbat changed the statement to a generalized one in the article now. Can you approve the current wording? I think it is well done. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree the wording looks good. I wonder if the statement should be better sourced in the body, but I imagine those sources wouldn’t be hard to find. Calidum 17:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@User:Calidum: Agreed. It's a work in progress. We'll get it there.--Rajulbat (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC).

Senate career split

I'm not seeing any rationale for this edit. The sources there are largely news sources or high-profile scholars; it's not quoting opinion pieces or anything of that nature. The logical place to put reliable discussion and assessment of his time in the senate is in the Senate section. Also, per WP:CSECTION, criticism sections are normally considered a poor way to manage critical material; it should be covered with appropriate weight in the appropriate part of the article. But even if we had such a section, I would strongly oppose moving non-opinion pieces there, as that edit did. Facts are not criticism. --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, by way of explanation, the rationale for my creation of a criticism section was simply that the material I placed there (which originally came from the reputation and transformation section that does not exist anymore) consisted of criticism of McConnell. I agree that criticism sections aren't wonderful as a general matter; however, I believe that my section heading accurately described the content. SunCrow (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. These scholarly sources are literally the best sources, as the WP:RS guideline pretty much says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

POV and balance issues

I have just tagged the article for POV and balance issues. Some of my concerns are expressed earlier on the talk page. This article is now an example of Wikipedia's weaknesses. The article has been loaded up with negative information on McConnell, to the minimization or outright exclusion of other perspectives. While some of that information is relevant to the article, the intense focus on attacks on McConnell results in an article that--in some places--reads more like an attack piece than like an encyclopedia article. The "reputation and transformation" section is particularly egregious. I have been working on bringing the article back to neutrality, but there is some WP:OWNERSHIP going on and an unwillingness to acknowledge how far from NPOV the article is. The article could benefit from some attention from an editor with expertise on McConnell's full record. SunCrow (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been several weeks since the editor above first complained about the content on this page, falsely claiming that 'positive' content was willfully omitted. I asked the editor to present reliable sources, in particular peer-reviewed research, that conflicted with the abundant RS content on the page (i.e. the alleged 'positive' perspectives that were missing) and the editor has failed to do so. Instead, the editor added a bunch of spurious tags. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, your characterization of my objections is completely off base. There was nothing false about what I said. The truth is that you have been deliberately POV-pushing on this page and ruining it, and have been very determined to revert my efforts to make it into an encyclopedia article (instead of whatever it is that your edits have turned it into). SunCrow (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

SunCrow, while we may disagree about the POV, I'd be interested in collaborating with you on the addition of content relating to McConnell's full record. If you check the revisions, I edited repeatedly to include content relating to his role on immigration reform, foreign policy, and the ACA just to have another user delete over 30,000 bytes of content with the claim that I was turning the page into a timeline. My point is I think the article should be expanded with content pertaining to what he's done in office. Informant16 27 October 2018

I totally agree. McConnell is a highly consequential politician, and his involvement on topics such as immigration and ACA should be elaborated on. I added some content related to ACA reform in the 'reputation and transformation' section, but there was not a lot on the nitty-gritty on those topics in the political science literature. We'd have to rely on contemporary news reporting and analyses for that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

As I've said before, Snooganssnoogans, I have no problem with what you added. Given that I don't want a repeat of last month, how about I come up with some content that adds to McConnell's overall record that only gets posted if all three of us agree on it? - Informant16 October 27, 2018

Informant16, thank you for your comment. I am 100% willing to work with you on improving the article. I agree that it does need more information about McConnell's tenure; right now, the tenure section has a ton of subsections about various topics, but no broad summary or overview. Your offer to seek consensus on potential additions is appreciated, and I would be happy to do the same. What I want to avoid is (a) making the article a bunch longer than it already is; and (b) attempts by partisan editors (I'm not referring to you) to turn the tenure section into an unencyclopedic, unbalanced barrage of criticisms of McConnell. As long as we avoid that, I'm good. SunCrow (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Define a bunch longer. My perspective is that when you have someone who's been in office for over thirty years and is the longest serving Republican leader in a particular Chamber's history, it's bound to reach increasing heights of length. - Informant16 October 29, 2018

I don't have a specific definition. SunCrow (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there should be some mention of his role during the Kavanaugh confirmation. Here's what I've come up with:

In July 2018, after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy as an Associate Justice, McConnell accused Democrats of creating an "extreme" distortion of Kavanaugh's record with their rhetoric and compared their treatment of Kavanaugh to that of Robert Bork. In September, Christine Blasey Ford came public with allegations that she had been sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh in the summer of 1982. On September 18, McConnell warned Republicans that there would be a political fallout if they failed to confirm Kavanaugh, reasoning that it was one of the issues voters cared about, during a private meeting in his office. After a report came out of Democrats investigating a second allegation against Kavanaugh, McConnell stated, "I want to make it perfectly clear. ... Judge Kavanaugh will be voted on here on the Senate floor. Up or down on the Senate floor. This fine nominee to the Supreme Court will receive a vote in the Senate in the near future." Kavanaugh's nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on the condition, as stipulated by Jeff Flake, that "the final Senate vote [was] delayed for one week, during which time the FBI [could] investigate sexual harassment allegations against Kavanaugh". On October 3, in a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, McConnell declined a request to have the FBI brief all senators on its investigation into Kavanaugh, citing it as "unprecedented and irregular". Kavanaugh was confirmed on October 6. McConnell afterward admitted the confirmation process was a low point for the Senate but there had "been an awful lot of bipartisan cooperation" and claims that the Senate was "somehow broken over this is simply inaccurate." - Informant16 November 5, 2018

Thank you, Informant16. I played around with your proposed paragraph a bit. See what you think:

In July 2018, after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, McConnell accused Democrats of creating an "extreme" distortion of Kavanaugh's record and compared their treatment of Kavanaugh to that of 1987 Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. In September 2018, Christine Blasey Ford went public with allegations that she had been sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh in 1982. On September 18, during a private meeting, McConnell Senate warned Republicans that there would be political fallout if they failed to confirm Kavanaugh. After a report came out of Democrats investigating a second allegation against Kavanaugh, McConnell stated, "I want to make it perfectly clear. ... Judge Kavanaugh will be voted on here on the Senate floor." Kavanaugh was confirmed on October 6. McConnell afterward admitted the confirmation process was a low point for the Senate, but added that there had "been an awful lot of bipartisan cooperation"; McConnell opined that claims that the Senate was "somehow broken over this [were] simply inaccurate."

SunCrow (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. I would prefer including the part about him turning down the briefing for all the senators since it's something else that he in particular did, but I'll take the version you have. I also think there should be some material on Sotomayor's nomination.

In June 2009, following President Obama nominating Sonia Sotomayor as Associate Justice, McConnell and Jeff Sessions opined that Sotomayor's seventeen years as a federal judge and over 3,6000 judicial opinions would require lengthy review and advocated against Democrats hastening the confirmation process. On July 17, McConnell announced that he would vote against Sotomayor's confirmation, citing her lack of respect for equal justice and furthering that her confirmation would mean there "would be no higher court to deter or prevent her from injecting into the law the various disconcerting principles that recur throughout her public statements." In August, McConnell said, "Judge Sotomayor is certainly a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background. But a judge must be able to check his or her personal or political agenda at the courtroom door and do justice evenhandedly, as the judicial oath requires. This is the most fundamental test. It is a test that Judge Sotomayor does not pass." Sotomayor was confirmed days later.

Informant16 5 November 2018

Thanks, Informant16. I think the proposed paragraph on the Sotomayor nomination could be trimmed. I don't think we need the August quote; I think that makes the paragraph lengthier than it needs to be. Those are my two cents. SunCrow (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for doing away with the last quote. Maybe it could be replaced with something to effect of, "McConnell later said Sotomayor was 'certainly a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background' but did not pass 'the most fundamental test' of keeping her personal and political views outside of her profession." I have some proposed content for the foreign policy section on North Korea.

In April 2017, McConnell organized a White House briefing of all senators conducted by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Defense Secretary James Mattis, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford regarding threats from the North Korean government. In May 2018, after President Trump called off the North Korea–United States summit, McConnell said that Trump "wanted to make sure that North Koreans understood he was serious, willing to engage, provided they didn’t continue to play these kinds of games as they’ve historically done with other administrations and gotten away with it" and that further progress would be staked on the subsequent actions of North Korea. Trump shortly thereafter announced that the summit could resume as scheduled following a "very nice statement" he received from North Korea and that talks were now resuming. At the Greater Louisville Inc. Congressional Summit, McConnell stated the likelihood of North Korea pursuing "sanctions and other relief" while giving up as little as possible and that Trump would "have to not want the deal too much" to achieve a successful negotiation.

Informant16 7 November 2018

References

Thanks, Informant16. To me, this information does not seem important enough for inclusion, but I could be wrong. SunCrow (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This is Drimes 2.0. "Thanks for nothing", you meant to say. I'm supposed to believe that in a section for foreign policy, information about a region the US had tense relations with for decades "does not seem important enough for inclusion"? You were upset with Snooganssnoogans for taking the liberty of adding his content without consensus and then when you get someone that wants to compromise before additions, you tell them everything they wrote isn't worth keeping. That's the problem with this site. Everyone that adds content gets demonized for it because somebody didn't like it. I'm sorry I wasted my time thinking you wanted collaboration. I will not make the same mistake again. Informant16 November 9, 2018

Informant16, I just now saw your November 9 response. Sorry that you were offended. I do want to collaborate, but I just did not see the information on North Korea the same way that you did. I don't have a strong feeling about it one way or the other; I was just giving you my honest feedback. Not sure why you got so upset. SunCrow (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll explain, SunCrow. I thought when you were upset with POV it was because you thought the content had a biased perspective. This content was added after I had nearly quit the entire site over this particular article following a user deleting over 30,000 bytes of new material added by me. I thought you would not contest content that related to his record, aside from layout and length like the Kavanaugh addition. So when I write a paragrah relating to what he did in office on a particular issue and I'm told this is not relevant, by a person who complained about content that was just summarizing his role in general as opposed to policy specifics, I find myself between a rock and a hard place. Informant16 December 11, 2018

OK, Informant16. To be clear, I am not contesting the North Korea material, which you have since added. I just now tweaked one sentence a little bit. SunCrow (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Informant16, I just made some edits to the lede and would be receptive to your input on them. SunCrow (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with them. They seem to adequately summarize the key points of the article. Informant16 January 4, 2019

• Since discussions above seem to have largely died down following a few tweaks and fixes, would anyone object to removing the tags? --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. We've made some positive strides, but I think the issues remain and so should the tags for now. The section in question has been split, moved up, and moved down on the page several times over the last few days. There's not a consensus, in my opinion. I'm inserting a table below specifying the reasons I think each tag should remain.

Summary of POV and Balance Issues as of January 8, 2019

Imbalance	Weasel Words	Disputed Neutrality
11 of the 12 paragraphs pertain to the Obama era (McConnell has been in the senate for some 34 years). In October 2010, McConnell said that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." There is more to the story. McConnell said the Senate Republicans that swept in after the 2010 mid-terms wanted to make Obama a one-term president because they perceived that their policy initiatives would be vetoed so long as Obama was POTUS. In the same interview, McConnell said, "I don't want the president to fail; I want him to change." Of all the sources provided, not a single one has anything positive to say about McConnell. I simply do not believe that such reliable sources do not exist. I realize that there have been demands in this discussion that such RS be produced, and I intend to produce them, but have not yet had the time to do so. There are multiple block quotes slamming McConnell (launched a self-reinforcing antistatist cycle, made the government less functional, stoked hyperpolarization, gravedigger of American democracy, comparison to Weimar, stystematic obstruction...), and no block quotes (or any quotes) not slamming him. There are multiple instances of what I would call improper bolstering; i.e., implying that because a person is a historian or political scientist, or because a source is peer-reviewed, opinions should be taken as facts.	McConnell has been widely described Political scientists have referred to McConnell's use of the filibuster... Democrats chided McConnell for this, saying it...	Over time, he veered sharply to the right. During Obama's presidency, minority obstruction reached all-time highs McConnell justified the obstructionism by falsely claiming [i.e., lying] that the 60-vote threshold was the historical norm in the Senate. McConnell delayed and obstructed health care reform and banking reform... ... McConnell stymied the output of Congress... As part of his obstruction strategy and as the leading Republican senator, McConnell confronted and pressured other Republican senators who cared about policy substance [i.e., McConnell does not care about policy substance] and were willing to negotiate with Democrats and the Obama administration. However, this reputation took a hit after Republicans failed to repeal [7]

I hope to work on this when I have time over the next week or so.--Rajulbat (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC).

(1) Obviously, more space will be dedicated to the period in which McConnell was GOP Senate leader - just as a considerable portion of this article would be dedicated to his presidency if he had become President. The rest of his Senate tenure is neatly covered in political positions. For example, both the body and lede cover McConnell's influence on campaign finance, which is by far the most consequential thing he did prior to becoming GOP Senate Leader. (2) The quote does not need the second part. The first part, coupled with McConnell's actions which demonstrate obstruction, are sufficient. (3-4) This is a classic case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. (5) Stating that assessments by historians and political scientists are "opinions" is ludicrous, and the desire to frame top-tier academic publications as "criticism" is bizarre, in particular given that not a single assessment which differs from the rest has been provided. (6) none of those are weasel words. (7) the examples of "disputed neutrality" all mirror the large number of RS that have been cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: With respect to (3-5), I propose we revisit this once I've had a chance to produce countervailing sources. But I have a few preliminary comments. [a] How is it not an opinion to say, for example, that McConnell will go down in history as the "gravedigger of American democracy"? Regardless of how many degrees or agreeing peers a person has, that is clearly a subjective forecast. [b] Likewise, I am aware of no reason why "top-tier academic publications" are incapable of issuing criticism. I understand criticism, loosely, to be the expression of an opinion that something should have been done differently. [c] Also, I would like to point out that saying a proposal is "ludicrous" and "bizarre," without addressing the substance of the proposal, is neither helpful nor logically sound. [d] As for "not a single assessment" differing from "the large number of RS that have been cited," as far as I can tell, most of them were cited by you, and it appears clear to me that you strongly disapprove of McConnell's public actions and have added sources to back up that disapproval. There's no problem with that; all editors are humans with opinions. [e] But I find it far-fetched to compare, as an extreme example, an opinion that McConnell will not go down in history as the "gravedigger of American democracy" with an opinion that the Earth is flat or that the moon landing was a hoax. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. If we only cite sources that mirror one another, the natural consequence is uniformity.--Rajulbat (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC).

The "gravedigger of American democracy" is the attributed assessment of one historian and it's not a peer-reviewed publication. And no, the historian in question is a recognized expert and is perfectly capable of giving an expert assessment of whether McConnell's actions constitute a threat to democracy (just as a climate scientist can give expert assessments on climate risks or a professor of medicine can give expert assessments of the health risks of substances XYZ - note that scientists who raised awareness about climate change or the dangers of second-hand smoke were also derided by opponents of science as "political activists"). If that was the only source that substantiated the text on 'democratic erosion', then it would obviously be inappropriate for the lede. I consider your comment that I cherry-picked sources in a non-NPOV manner to be uncivil and casting aspersions, in particular as there is nothing at all to substantiate that an enormous RS literature contradicts the dozens of scholarly sources which have been cited. This is very simply what an exploration of the literature revealed - I note that I asked SunCrow three months ago to substantiate his slurs that the content was cherry-picked. The editor has not produced a single RS that conflicts with the assessments from the literature. WP:FALSEBALANCE is not solely about uncontested falsehoods, such as whether the Earth is flat, but very simply about presenting minority views (in this case: literally ZERO reliable sources) as equal to dozens of scholarly sources. We don't characterize climate change as an active dispute among scientists just because the science on the issue is not as uncontested as Heliocentrism or an Earth ellipsoid, or because it hurts the feelings of climate change deniers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, it is not my responsibility--or anyone else's--to find reliable sources to counteract the POV you have introduced into this article. If your desire to have me do more research and add more material to this article is sincere, I would invite you to consider ending your months-long efforts to POV-ify this article and others. If you did that, I would have more time.

Also, an assertion is not a slur if it is true. SunCrow (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If you insist that there is a large academic literature out there that disputes the literature cited in this article and that the existing sources have been cherry-picked, then you better back that assertion up. It is your responsibility to back your claims up. You've had three months to do so and have produced ZERO reliable sources of any kind that substantiate that sources have been cherry-picked - which says it all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for hurting your feelings regarding the cherry-picking. That was not my intent at all. I appreciate your contributions to the article; I just suspect you may be influenced by confirmation bias; happens to the best of us. I'll get back to you regarding the rest.--Rajulbat (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC).

Rajulbat, thank you for your detailed and excellent work setting up the table above, and for your contributions to the discussions on this talk page. Much appreciated. 22:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The user 'Rajulbat' changed the long-standing text noting that McConnell's reputation as a strategist "took a hit" or "dimmed" after the Republicans failed to repeal the ACA to this bizarrely written sentence: "the New York Times published an article in 2017 entitled "McConnell's Reputation as a Master Tactician Takes a Hit" after efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which McConnell supported, were unsuccessful." After I added three additional sources (Reuters, the Atlantic, Politico) that supported the long-standing version of the text, 'Rajulbat' edit-warred his bizarre version of the text into the article again and removed the three sources.[8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit by Rajulbat is an improvement and should stay. Snooganssnoogans, allow me to remind you of WP:OWN. SunCrow (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Reputation Taking a Hit/Dimming Upon Failure to Repeal ACA

[The following two comments by Snooganssnoogans and SunCrow were originally placed in a section further up on this page (# POV_and_balance_issues -- see [9] and [10]). I am migrating them to this section in order to facilitate a conversation about the edit-warring concerns Snooganssnoogans raised today. I am also incorporating by reference Snooganssnoogans' addition of the {{Uw-3rr}} (Violation/potential violation of the three revert rule) on my talk page.--Rajulbat (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)]

The user 'Rajulbat' changed the long-standing text noting that McConnell's reputation as a strategist "took a hit" or "dimmed" after the Republicans failed to repeal the ACA to this bizarrely written sentence: "the New York Times published an article in 2017 entitled "McConnell's Reputation as a Master Tactician Takes a Hit" after efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which McConnell supported, were unsuccessful." After I added three additional sources (Reuters, the Atlantic, Politico) that supported the long-standing version of the text, 'Rajulbat' edit-warred his bizarre version of the text into the article again and removed the three sources.[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit by Rajulbat is an improvement and should stay. Snooganssnoogans, allow me to remind you of WP:OWN. SunCrow (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans and SunCrow, I am mostly creating this section to document today's dispute over the following sentence: "However, this reputation dimmed after Republicans failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2017 during consolidated Republican control of government." See [12]. The sentence in question was originally added to the article on September 26, 2017, by User:Nick845 (diff). That user's last edit was in March 2018. He is welcome to participate here, though I'm not sure he logs in frequently enough to see this.

In any case, I removed that sentence altogether at 05:28, 9 January 2019. I then added the sentence in question to the "Disputed Neutrality" comment in the table above listing POV and Balance issues. The reason I removed that sentence is because the only thing in the article referenced to support the "dimming" of McConnell's reputation as a result of his unsuccessful efforts to repeal Obamacare was the headline ("McConnell's Reputation as a Master Tactician Takes a Hit"). The body of the article talks about how McConnell miscalculated the number of votes he could muster and alienated several more moderate Republicans. In addition, the placement of the sentence, in the level-1 heading purporting to summarize McConnell's senatorial career from 1985 to present, is disproportionate. If anything, a sentence to that effect should be incorporated in the Health policy subheading, which goes into detail about the unsuccessful attempts at repeal ("Numerous attempts at repeal failed.") Plus, that McConnell's reputation "took a hit" is the opinion of one New York Times reporter. It should not be adopted by Wikipedia as if it were the gospel truth. There is no objective measurement proffered in the article to verify the "dimming" or "taking a hit," if any, that resulted from the failure to repeal. Lastly, it is not logical say that "Republicans failed to repeal" the ACA, because, obviously, only some Republicans supported the repeal. Granted, those supporting repeal were mostly, if not all, Republicans, but if each and every GOP senator supported the repeal, it would have passed. That is the whole point of the article: that McConnell was not able to muster every Republican vote, particularly those of Senators Murkowski, Kasich, and Collins, among others.

At 11:25, 9 January 2019, Snooganssnoogans re-added the same sentence, verbatim, with the edit summary: restored rs ["reliable source"] text.

Although my opinion remained that the sentence should be removed entirely--because of its not being supported by the linked article text, its disproportionate placement, its presentation as a fact despite being derived solely from a headline, the unverifiability of its assertion, the lack of logical grounds for the assertion, and the reverting editor's failure to explain why the sentence should be included--in good faith I attempted to compromise by leaving what the reference actually supported, i.e., that an article with that title was published by the New York Times on that date in relation to that unsuccessful attempt at repeal. Thus, at 13:32, 9 January 2019, I modified the sentence, leaving the source untouched, to read: However, the New York Times published an article in 2017 entitled "McConnell's Reputation as a Master Tactician Takes a Hit" after efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which McConnell supported, were unsuccessful. (diff). In the edit summary, I explained: regarding headline about rep taking a hit, left only what the RS actually supports, though I still think the whole thing should come out.

Twelve minutes later, at 13:44, 9 January 2019, Snoogans once again replaced the sentence, with a slight tweak to the effect that his reputation "took a hit" instead of "dimming." In the edit summary, Snoogans wrote: removed poor writing. added more sources.

After I got out of the shower, at 14:02, 9 January 2019, I undid Snoogans' second undoing, explaining: That is edit warring. If you think it's "poor writing," take it to the Talk page.

At 14:17, 9 January 2019, Snoogans undid my undoing of his second undoing, with this edit summary: you're not only changing the long-standing version of the text, but you're mass-removing citations to RS in order to support your skewed and poorly written version of the text. follow WP:BRD and stop edit-warring this unencyclopedic writing into the article.

At 14:26, 9 January 2019, I re-re-re-re-verted, or whatever, and that is where the article stands now.

At 14:30, 9 January 2019, Snoogans added the {{Uw-3rr}} (Violation/potential violation of the three revert rule) to my talk page, supplementing the template warning with: The content that you're removing is long-standing content. This content was put into the article in 2017 and was essentially unchanged until you drastically changed it. Follow WP:BRD and stop edit-warring.

In my opinion, the presumption of good faith has been rebutted. The issue is bigger than this sentence, obviously. The issue is User:Snooganssnoogans. Snoogans either does not understand what NPOV is,--despite being registered since September 2015 and being instructed on it many, many times--or Snoogans is simply not interested in adhering to this pillar of Wikipedia. Snoogans appears to take the position that, so long as some source somewhere can be found to support what Snoogans wants to say, it must stay. There is no compromising. If Snoogans found a link that says X, then X is law, and any statement to the contrary is "bizarre," "ludicrous," "poor writing," "casting aspersions," a "slur," etc. Snoogans likes Democrats. Good for Snoogans. There are many blog websites where Snoogans can express Snoogans' opinions for free. There are also web hosting services, like GoDaddy (no affiliation), where Snoogans can obtain Snoogans' very own domain in exchange for a minimal monetary investment. For example, "snooganssnoogans.com" is available to register for $2.99. Nevertheless, the biographies of living persons on Wikipeida are not an appropriate place for Snoogans to smear individuals who criticize or are adversarial to Democrats. Wikipedia is not partisan, at least theoretically.

I will continue my efforts to shape up this article. If Snoogans continues to "engage in obstruction," I will invoke dispute resolution, administrator noticeboard, arbitration, or whatever else I see fit. I am confident that I have acted in good faith, been civil, compromised, discussed changes, adhered (the best I can) to Wikipedia policies, etc. Snoogans has not. Snoogans was warned, Snoogans was given an explanation; nevertheless, Snoogans persisted.--Rajulbat (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

I started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard[13]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:. Thank you. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NPOV_and_balance_issues_at_Mitch_McConnell--Rajulbat (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

What is missing in this wall of text is policy-based reasons for removal of the text.

Multiple quality sources have been added support the text ("But this rocky run calls into question McConnell’s reputation as a master tactician and deal-maker that he earned as Republican minority leader under the Democratic Obama." "The Senate majority leader’s failure to pass health-care legislation last month not only dashed the Republican dream of repealing the Affordable Care Act, but it exposed the fragility of his reputation as a brilliant tactician who could keep his caucus in line."). So per WP:YESPOV there is no need for attribution -sources agree that his reputation was affected by the failure, and failing to repeal the ACA - failing to pass an monumental shift in healthcare policy which has been drummed by Republicans (and McConnell) for 8 years - is certainly very significant and so becomes an important part of McConnell's reputation.

Per your comments on "objective measurement" etc, you clearly misunderstand the NPOV policy; we care about what reliable sources say, not editorial opinion of whether what they're saying is justified. (is there an objective measurement to say that McConnell has a "reputation as a skilled political strategist and tactician"? Why accept very similar quality sourcing for saying McConnell has such a reputation but not for the dimming? Why ask for objective measurement for the dimming of the reputation but not for saying there's a reputation itself?) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019

The word "aid" should be "aide" in the following sentence: From 1968 to 1970, McConnell worked as an aid to Senator Marlow Cook (R-KY), managing a legislative department consisting of five members as well as assisting with speech writing and constituent services.[16] Maezeppa 23:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Already done by User:SunCrow. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 00:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2019

There is a word missing. Under immigration.

Change "McConnell opposed the bill on the grounds of it not including sufficient border-security measures that would future illegal immigration." to "McConnell opposed the bill on the grounds of it not including sufficient border-security measures that would prevent future illegal immigration." 71.40.21.239 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Notable?

https://www.newsweek.com/moscow-mitch-mcconnell-now-ben-folds-song-1452374 Victor Grigas (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)