Talk:Mitch McConnell

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)

AMEND INFO BOX for all office holders

Info boxes should include the term of office (length), the date of the most recent election or appointment, and the date of the next election.

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[1] actually summarizes McConnell's career. This lede doesn't[2]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [3]

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.[4] 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)

RfC: Mitch McConnell and obstructionism

Should the following text in bold be in the lede to this article (note that the references are already in the body and would not be added to the lede):

• McConnell was known as a pragmatist and moderate Republican early in his political career but veered sharply to the right over time. During his time in the Senate, McConnell gained a reputation as a skilled political strategist and tactician. McConnell led opposition to stricter campaign finance laws, culminating in the Supreme Court ruling that partially overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). During the Obama presidency, McConnell engaged in obstruction, working to withhold Republican support for any major presidential initiatives. 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." Throughout Obama's tenure, Senate Republicans made frequent use of the filibuster; this meant that any bill needed a supermajority (60 votes rather than 50) to pass the Senate. Senate Republicans also blocked an unprecedented number of Obama's judicial nominees, including Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland; McConnell refused to hold a hearing on the Garland nomination. A number of political scientists and historians have characterized McConnell's obstructionism and "constitutional hardball" as contributors to democratic erosion in the United States.

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. The content in question is extensively sourced and elaborated on at great length in the body of the article. Sources 1-12 and 18-20 are peer-reviewed research - the best possible sources. Sources 13-14 and 21-23 are not peer-reviewed (AFAIK) but the authors are all recognized experts (all have PhDs in political science, law or history, and they are all, with the exception of Mann and Ornstein (who are at think tanks), professors at top universities). Source 14 is a biography of McConnell by a ProPublica reporter. Sources 16-17 are news sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The bolded portions of the example posted by Snooganssnoogans are, IMHO, (a) too specific, and (b) overly critical in tone. The proposal is too specific to the Obama era (goal of rendering him a one-term president, withholding "support for any major presidential initiatives," overuse of the filibuster, blocking of Garland nomination and an additional "unprecedented number of judicial nominees"). The proposal contains negative judgments, but no opposing opinions: it charges that he "engaged in obstruction," whereas there certainly exist experts that would say that the structure of the U.S. Constitution is designed to encourage "obstruction." See, e.g., E.E. Schattschneider (1942), Party Government -- quoted here ("The authors of the Constitution set up an elaborate division and balance of powers within an intricate governmental structure designed to make parties ineffective. It was hoped that the parties would lose and exhaust themselves in futile attempts to fight their way through the labyrinthine framework of the government.") (emphasis added). The bit about a "number of political scientists and historians" agreeing that McConnell caused "democratic erosion" gives the impression that all agree that McConnell is a curse on American politics. Certainly there are those who have this opinion, but others do not. The introduction of the article should not hide that McConnell has been the subject of much criticism. But likewise the article should not be part of that criticism; it should simply summarize it.--Rajulbat (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Feel free to add opposing RS assessments from reliable sources, in particular peer-reviewed sources, that (1) disagree with the characterization of 'obstruction', and (2) dispute that McConnell's actions have contributed to democratic erosion. I've been asking for such sources for three months on this talk page and not a single one has been provided. Neither the Founding Fathers nor Schattschneider are commenting on McConnell's actions, and are certainly not endorsing his actions (even indirectly). Many of the two-dozen or so sources cited above, including by some of the foremost experts on democracy and american politics, go into great detail on why McConnell's actions go beyond checks and balances. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Snooganssnoogans: We can agree, I hope, that "he engaged in obstruction" is less neutral than "he obstructed", right? Can we agree that "he obstructed" is less neutral than "he led efforts to block Democratic measures," for example? To me, when I read your proposed introduction, I understand that the person who wrote it obviously dislikes McConnell. I believe it is well-established that an essential requirement of articles on Wikipedia is that they not appear partisan. The introduction you proposed appears (at least to me) very partisan. I am wondering whether you agree that it is partisan, but believe that since there are so many sources supporting the viewpoint the partisanship is justified, or whether you honestly do not believe it appears partisan. If you do not agree that it appears partisan, I'm happy to break down the parts that give me that impression. But if your opinion is that, despite being partisan, the tone you propose should be adopted, then what we are discussing is more of a meta-issue: whether Wikipedia should attempt to maintain a NPOV.--Rajulbat (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC).

• This is a question that comes up all the time: should we describe a racist as a "racist" even though "racist" sounds bad to many people, should we describe a climate change denier as someone who "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", and so on. And the answer is clear: it's not NPOV to opt for weasel terms and misrepresent what sources say just because some partisans may be offended by the bluntness. All politicians may be involved in "blocking measures" by the other party. There's a difference between obstruction and normal politics, which is what many of the two-dozen or so sources delineate. There's a reason why McConnell's actions have been widely characterized as "obstructionism" in the academic literature when other politicians' have not. Saying "he led efforts to block Democratic measures" is to misrepresent the RS and violate NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. I believe I understand your position.--Rajulbat (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC).

• I Oppose the use of “obstruction” because it is a loaded term (see WP:PUFFERY). The wording presently in the lead that describes his efforts to block Obama’s policies and nominees is fine, unless we start describing all opposition politicians as obstructionists. Calidum 20:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  All opposition politicians do not engage in obstruction, as a number of the cited sources clearly explain in great detail. The "loaded term" in question is one widely used by reliable sources (one of the exceptions for loaded terms under WP:LABEL). In fact, it's not just reliable sources but the best sources: leading historians and political scientists publishing in peer-reviewed outlets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support, although I would change "engaged in obstruction" to "relied on a strategy of obstructionism", which I feel is slightly more neutral / encyclopedic wording and which by my reading paraphrases the sources a bit more closely. --Aquillion (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, and WP:IMPARTIAL. SunCrow (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "obstructist" being in Wikipedia's voice. It needs to be quoted and attributed.--v/r - TP 22:16, 9 January 2019 (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)

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 [7] and [8]). 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.[9] 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 [10]. 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[11]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:. Thank you. See also [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#NPOV_and_balance_issues_at_%5B%5BMitch_McConnell%5D

|this entry]] on the admin noticeboard.--Rajulbat (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC).