Talk:Mitch McConnell/Archive 2

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.   

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 Sources 13-14 and 21-23 are not peer-reviewed (AFAIK) but the authors are all recognized experts (all have PhDs in political science, law or history, and they are all, with the exception of Mann and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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose except for one I think the obstruction one is obviously verifiable and neutral enough for the lead. Trillfendi (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposed text goes well into partisan political posturing, and is not NPOV. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Eliminate the estate tax
The following text was deleted,


 * In 2019, McConnell introduced legislation to eliminate the estate tax (which is a tax on inheritances over $11.2 million).

with the justification, "Remove info on bill introduction accompanied by cutesy potshot. the encyclopedia cannot recite every bill introduced over a multi-decade career".

(1) There is no "cutesy potshot" anywhere. (2) We do absolutely cover legislation that RS cover. Where politicians stand on the estate tax is in countless politician Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans, if anyone other than you had included this content, I probably wouldn't see it as a cutesy potshot. Given your long history of POV-pushing (especially in the context of this article), the reference to the $11.2 million threshold looks like a cutesy potshot to me. I am not going to argue further about the inclusion of this sentence. My bigger concern is that the article is overly lengthy and overly detailed, and contains an anti-McConnell POV that causes the article to be unbalanced. SunCrow (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The $11.2 million threshold is literally just the most rudimentary description of what an estate tax is. That the most basic description of a bill is seen as a "potshot" and POV-pushing says everything about the merits of your complaint. If you want and since you're casting aspersions, we can opt for the one most commonly used in RS: that the threshold is $22 million for couples. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing about McConnell's alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party?
...via his wife's family.

See: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3716721

and

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/us/politics/elaine-chao-china.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:F204:34E6:6D6C:C3E5:D39A:1457 (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Great, great, great, great grandfather?
Adding the slave ownership of someone’s ancestors to a BLP is inappropriate. Looking at other BLPs of nationally prominent political leaders shows that this is not the standard format or approach. Obama has slave owning ancestors, Carter has slave owning ancestors, etc, etc. None has their multi-great grandfathers’ added to the Biography of a Living Person. This looks to have been added to score some sort of ephemeral political point. Entirely WP:UNDUE Capitalismojo (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As the person who added this content, I think it's important to note that my purpose wasn't to score political points. For what it's worth, there are plenty of BLPs that reference slave-owning ancestors. See | Kamala Harris, for example.  What exact part of my edit was not appropriate for a BLP?  The tone was neutral, the source is verified, the information doesn't violate any privacy concerns.  Surely, the fact that McConnell's ancestors owned slaves in Alabama in the 1800s is just as appropriate as the fact that same family came from County Down in the 1700s.CarlsonC (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Add citation to addition of Moscow Mitch - Add
In late July of 2019, social media users began referring to McConnell as Moscow Mitch.

In late July of 2019, social media users began referring to McConnell as Moscow Mitch. PaulSpoerry (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2019
McConnell received criticism for his blocks, such as the treading of #MoscowMitchMcTreason on Twitter

Change "treading" to "trending" as it is a typo Ozbarramundi (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Injury
Not sure if this is worth mentioning... Mitch McConnell fractures shoulder 144.178.0.128 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Darwin

Additional entry for Pop Culture Section
Mitch McConnell, running for re-election for Jefferson County Judge/Executive at the time, was mentioned by Grady Nutt on Hee Haw, Season 12, episode 13, airing January 10, 1981. At the time he would have been politically unknown in most of the country. This episode recently aired on RFD TV, so a mention that would have gone unnoticed 28 years ago was easy to pick up on.

PrezGAR (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Disapproval rate
Hi. Just a spot check follow up. Has this article been "cleansed" again? For at least the second or third time, the country's most unpopular Senator has a beaming, positive lead in Wikipedia. The following sources have remained in the article for years now so evidently nobody has challenged their use. I will check back in a week, and re-add the Senator's disapproval rate to the lead at that time. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC) "'With a 49% disapproval rate in 2016, McConnell had the highest disapproval rating of all senators. McConnell has repeatedly been found to have the lowest home state approval rating of any sitting senator. '"

I re-added this to the lead. Per this discussion Talk:Mitch_McConnell/Archive_1 consensus was reached just a few months ago. Here's the state of the article then. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Polls change daily and the ones cited are years old. Perhaps a poll from the past 30 days citing his low popularity would be more informative.EdJF (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, EdJF. Sorry for the old ones. We had clear consensus on using them. Newer polls appear to be very easy to find. I will try to get back to this tonight. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A way to improve writing on controversial articles?
I realize it's exceedingly hard to get good writing on controversial articles, but this one does not read well. Specifically, the summary/lede fails to capture either the subject or to summarize the rest of the article in a useful way for readers, and it gets too hung up on recent events rather than capturing the entire scope of McConnell's career. I think there are certain summary statements about McConnell which would be agreed upon by observers from all political viewpoints. For example:

- McConnell is regarded by both Democrats and Republicans as an extremely skilled and successful partisan strategist.

- McConnell is better known for strategic victories, both achieving Republican goals and blocking Democratic efforts, than his viewpoints on particular policies.

- McConnell's strategic successes have been a part of a long-term escalation of partisan conflict in the US Senate.

What does everyone else think? Wcornwell (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Wcornwell (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Wcornwell, without reliable sources supporting these assertions, there's really nothing to talk about because they are all WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. With respect, I'd suggest that you find reliable sources for these assertions (assuming that such sources exist) and post them here before continuing this discussion. Otherwise, it's putting the cart before the horse. (For whatever it's worth, I think the assertions sound reasonable.) SunCrow (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The article is bad, it's difficult to know where to start. Compounding the problem are other editors who continue to block any improvements, leading to the usual mess of dysfunctional edit warring.EdJF (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Voting rights and election security
This section is written from an extremely partisan bent. I think it could be written from a more neutral point of view. Saying "In 2019, he falsely claimed that Democrats were at fault for election fraud in the 2018 North Carolina 9th congressional district election" is not supported by the attached source at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell#cite_note-283. What he was saying was that what occurred in NC-9 is no different than "vote harvesting" that Democrats made legal in California. And while it was unfortunately committed by a Republican, Republican election security proposals would have prevented it.

This entire section should be rephrased or removed. McConnell himself had nothing to do with the election fraud in North Carolina and 2018, and to include this section makes it seem like he did and falsely denied it. 108.183.22.133 (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Deleted the paragraph that was poorly worded and misleading. The video accompanying the biased HuffPost article did not support the claim that McConnell blamed Democrats, he was simply discussing voter fraud in America, a very real issue, in the context of the North Carolina election and the fact that Democrats were suddenly energized by voter fraud when a Republican won an election. Also deleted the inappropriate hashtag entry. Many politicians (e.g., Hillary Clinton) have demeaning hashtags associated with them but they are not mentioned in the respective articles.EdJF (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks 2604:2000:13C0:A1:3933:A3B7:6411:AD27 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This section is again a mess. Someone quickly reverted you on September 8. Now it has the sentence "Voter ID laws would not have prevented the ballot harvesting that took place." Isn't that violating WP:Crystal Ball? 2604:2000:13C0:A1:BCB8:6300:807E:2977 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"Moscow Mitch" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Moscow Mitch. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Cocaine
Apparently, McConnell is fond of the nickname "Cocaine Mitch" (originally bestowed upon him by Don Blankenship), so much so that he "sometimes answer(s) his phone, “Cocaine Mitch”", and his campaign sells cocaine-themed merchandise.

Given that this is a nickname of which he appears to approve, should it in some way be mentioned in the article? And if so, how? DS (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

General Comment
While no fan of McConnell, as an outsider its sad to see the complete inability of the community here to main objectivity on the subject matter.

The articles on nearly every other politician in Wikipedia, especially those of the darlings of the Left, have introductions exclusively focused on their positions and accomplishments. Uniquely, the intro to this article is full of subtle value judgements ("veered to the left", "refused to..." and discussions of controversies.

Remarkably, the overall tone here is more negative than that of the article on Confederate President and slavery champion Jefferson Davis.

For those interested in trying to write an objective, encyclopedic article on a controversial figure, I highly recommend reviewing the latter article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.6.102.170 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No question, it's an extremely biased article that reflects poorly on Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy.EdJF (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep. SunCrow (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Attempt to restore sanity to shamefully bad section
I have made some WP:BOLD edits to the initial portion of the section on McConnell's Senate career. I have done this in a valiant effort to make the section somewhat encyclopedic. Prior to my edits, the section truly was one of the most pathetic, POV-laden screeds imaginable. Worse yet, it wasn't even a well-written POV-laden screed. It was a disgrace to the encyclopedia, as are the POV-pushing editors who have made it what it is (my usual assumption of good faith has been conclusively rebutted when it comes to the behavior of certain editors on this page). If the section is going to read this way, we may as well just delete it. Better yet, we could remove the text and instead add an image of a Mitch McConnell voodoo doll being used as a pincushion. It would communicate the same message. Based on a great deal of unpleasant past experience on this page, I fully anticipate that my edits will be considered outrageous by those who deem themselves wise and who believe that the function of the encyclopedia is to parrot their collective wisdom. Let the hysterical screeching and hand-wringing begin! SunCrow (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, we are blessed in that academics (political scientists and historians) have written considerably about McConnell's tenure as the GOP's Majority Leader and Minority Leader in the Senate. The section adheres fully to how political scientist and historians have covered him, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a page for an American politician that it is as well-sourced with top-tier peer-reviewed research and academic assessments by the foremost academics in political science and history. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. The academics are a blessing, aren't they? Especially when liberal academics outnumber conservative ones by five to one, as per the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/11/the-dramatic-shift-among-college-professors-thats-hurting-students-education/). We can certainly rely on them for rigorous, NPOV analysis of a living Republican politician. Right. SunCrow (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * If you are of the view that contemporary scholarship is unreliable, maybe it would be a good idea to start a RS noticeboard discussion to have that determined by the community. I hold the other view: Wikipedia needs more peer-reviewed academic research and expert assessments, not less. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, if you have specific changes that you want made, please present them here. It's incredibly hard to understand what changes you made precisely when they are all done in one huge edit, and it's hard to keep specific wording changes that happen to be improvements when they are part of a huge edit where many of the changes are not improvements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Snoog, the content you restored was very poor from an wp:IMPARTIAL perspective. It's problematic when you choose to use the words of partisan, opposition sources to describe events.  "McConnell is notable for his opposition to the political agenda of Democratic President Barack Obama (2009-2017)." is impartial yet has the same effective meaning as, "McConnell has been widely described as having engaged in obstructionism during the presidency of Barack Obama."  Yes, if you supported Obama's activities he was obstructionist.  If you didn't then he was opposing Obama.  SunCrow is right about the serious issues with that material.  Springee (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Springee. SunCrow (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between opposition and obstruction, and the peer-reviewed research and academic assessments which the article is full of characterize McConnell's actions as obstruction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think your opinion counts as a RS so where is your evidence? Springee (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Text that McConnell engaged in obstructionism is supported by 17 (!) sources, including 12 (!) peer-reviewed sources and two sources which are not peer-reviewed but by recognized experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You made a claim that opposed and obstruction are not the same just viewed from two different POVs. Well show that.  That you could find a large number of sources that used one term doesn't mean that there aren't a large number of sources using the other.  You certainly haven't shown that there is a "consensus description". It's obvious the material was written with a deeply partisan POV by the involved Wiki editors.  That's not a good thing. Springee (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference between opposition and obstruction is not rocket science. Opposition is a broader term that can range from mild actions to extreme actions. Obstruction is a more precise term for an extreme action of opposition. McConnell both opposed the political agenda of the Obama administration and obstructed it. There is nothing notable about a politician opposing the agenda of a different party, but obstruction is (as documented by extensive academic sources) notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Clear as mud. SunCrow (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for your OR? Springee (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Read any dictionary definition of 'opposition' and 'obstructionism' - one is broad and one is narrow. And this is getting pretty annoying now. You had a bad day yesterday on the Wall Street Journal article and are now following me around from page to page to oppose whatever I do and post mind-numbingly pointless inquiries to that end. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Snoog, you shouldn't be accusing others of having a bad day or other editorial issues. Please read WP:CIVIL.  Springee (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans, as someone banned for life by Conservapedia I'm puzzled by your reverts. Rwood128 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Rwood128. SunCrow (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A peer-reviewed publication by one of the leading experts on Senate voting, the filibuster and political polarization describes McConnell's claim, "60-vote threshold is the historical norm", as false - therefore we describe the claim as false (rather than leave it unclear to readers whether it's accurate or not). What is it about this that you find puzzling? It's a clear violation of neutrality not to say that the claim is false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to be more explicit "but according to leading experts ...". And anyhow, as you must be aware, even a peer reviewed journal can be wrong/corrupt. This is odd, because politically I am well to the left!! Conservapedia's is probably right in thinking Wikipedia has a leftist bias, but at least WP tries for neutrality, unlike CP. As you can see I'm argumentative, but presumably you cannot ban me for this! Rwood128 (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Being slightly deranged I'm drawn back into this topic, about which I know nothing. But to someone who has no legal training or interest in political tactics the following seems to suggest that McConnell was correct, or at least matters are open to interpretation, depending on a person's political bias?


 * The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"ref name=rule22ref (usually 60 out of 100) bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII (my emphasis added; from Filibuster in the United States Senate)
 * See also: . Rwood128 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans has, of course, reverted my edits, restoring the section to its blatantly POV condition pursuant to WP:OWN. I just went through and re-edited it (using a series of edits, not just one big one!!!) in another attempt to restore some semblance of reasonableness. Snooganssnoogans, please take notice that I will not put up with any more global reverts. SunCrow (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * SunCrow maintains that text he(?) removed was not properly sourced, a common but dubious complaint SunCrow makes when massively scrubbing articles of content which possibly produces dyspepsia. Looks well-sourced to me, though.

The Promise of Party in a Polarized Age Also, major policy reforms (such as Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank Act) face much sharper attack and backlash than they otherwise might. Sen. Mitch McConnell insisted that no Republican support these reforms. Also, the House “repealed” Obamacare so many times that the actual count is still uncertain. Today these policies face unprecedented forms of administrative sabotage in violation of the Take Care Clause. A growing community of journalists, legal academics, economists, and political scientists are concerned, as well, by polarization’s effects on fiscal policy. Astoundingly, the United States has been brought to the brink of default several times – despite the self-evidence of the cataclysm that would ensue. The now seemingly routine fiscal disorder may all by itself have an independent effect on macroeconomic performance. and...Frances Lee has also forcefully argued that increased electoral insecurity, narrow presidential electoral victories, and the palpable possibility of turnover in congressional majorities have made it much harder for congressional politicians to resist constant attacks on their partisan opposition, obstruction, and a refusal to compromise.15 Exhibit A is Mitch McConnell’s vow to make sure that Barack Obama would have only one term in the White House. For a very important recent discussion, see the essays in Nathaniel Persily, ed., Solutions to Political Polarization in America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Kelly Williams, “The Brennan Center Jorde Symposium: “Ungovernable America? The Causes and Consequences of Polarized Democracy,” Apr. 22, 2010, http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/ungovernable-americajorde-symposium. See also Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism, rev. ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2016). For examples of work that finds silver linings in polarization or that caution that the pathology of polarization can be overstated, see Abramowitz, Disappearing Center; Thomas Keck, Judicial Politics in Polarized Times (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014); and Russell Muirhead,,  The Promise of Party in a Polarized Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014). The most sanguine statement is James E. Campbell, Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.)http://legislativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/legislative_scholar_fall_2017.pdf Will that do? Activist (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Activist, in response to your comments above and your snarky edit summary, I reviewed the edits I have made to this page so far this month. Unless my eyes deceive me, not one of my edits was made on the basis that the material being removed was unsourced. NOT ONE. If this were the first time you had falsely accused me of something, I might think it was an honest mistake--but it's not the first time you've done that. Do you care whether anything you say is true? If not, why should other editors pay attention to you? SunCrow (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In multiple edits, you dismiss peer-reviewed studies as "POV claims", you describe an assessment by two of the world'd leading comparative politics scholars (Paul Pierson, Jacob Hacker) as a "false POV claim" and "POV comment", and you inaccurately claim that the text here does not reflect the cited source (in fact, it mirrors it very precisely). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans, in hindsight, I should have described the Pierson/Hacker material as a debatable opinion rather than a false POV claim. Otherwise, I stand by the edits and comments you mentioned. My claim that one piece of disputed text did not reflect the cited source is accurate. The disputed sentence begins, "During Obama's presidency..." The cited source discusses a different timetable: "Since the 2006 elections, when Republicans fell back into minority status..." Obama did not take office until 2009. You should read more carefully. SunCrow (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I absolutely do have a problem with your editing and your casting of aspersions, Suncrow. You regularly insult the work of other editors, massively purge clearly careful, existing work, and sling accusations with seeming abandon. Your editing is persistently tendentious and violative of NPOV, IMHO. You erase the work of others seemingly without pause, sloppily sprinkling bare URLs when replacing the text you've deleted with your pap. I feel grateful that I don't encounter your editing often because I think it reflects poorly on Wikipedia and sincere editors. When you're purging, you use subject lines that grossly misrepresent what you've actually done.
 * I absolutely do have a problem with your editing and your casting of aspersions, Suncrow. You regularly insult the work of other editors, massively purge clearly careful, existing work, and sling accusations with seeming abandon. Your editing is persistently tendentious and violative of NPOV, IMHO. You erase the work of others seemingly without pause, sloppily sprinkling bare URLs when replacing the text you've deleted with your pap. I feel grateful that I don't encounter your editing often because I think it reflects poorly on Wikipedia and sincere editors. When you're purging, you use subject lines that grossly misrepresent what you've actually done.

For instance, yesterday you deleted this following ably written paragraph in this article leaving the following subject line:

Revision as of 06:51, 14 November 2019 (edit) (undo) (thank) SunCrow (talk | contribs) (→‎U.S. Senate (1985–present): remove awkward, useless sentence)
 * However, according to University of California, Los Angeles political scientist Barbara Sinclair, McConnell had to manage a balancing act where he "need[ed] to protect his party's reputation so he [did] not want to chance its being seen as responsible for a complete breakdown."(ref)(/ref)
 * The first twelve words you purged merely introduced the authority and her highly-ranked academic institution, named McConnell, then followed that with just eight words which I've bolded, plus a quote and citation added by the WP editor. That's it! Yet you characterize your edit of legitimate text and reference as "remove awkward, useless sentence." You struck an entire paragraph that included that citation from a highly respected journal. You do that so often I find it difficult to believe it's not simply a tactic used to cover your tracks. We disagreed about some editing you did a couple of months ago and I addressed the disagreement on the article's Talk page. You didn't like that preferring to carry on the discussion on our talk pages, but when I offered a compromise, you just ignored my outreach and abruptly terminated any possible colloquy. You have once again accused me of making false statements without any basis, as you did there, and characterize my subject line as "snarky" after you've disparaged the McConnell article and those who wrote it. Here's the a few of habitual terms you have just used to describe other editors and their work: (Your claimed) "Attempt to restore sanity to shamefully bad section." "most pathetic, POV-laden screeds," "POV-pushing editors," "voodoo doll being used as a pincushion," "...my edits will be considered outrageous by those who deem themselves wise and who believe that the function of the encyclopedia is to parrot their collective wisdom. Let the hysterical screeching and hand-wringing begin!"

You've made about 120 out of the last 600 or so contributions to this article (I've made just three additions), and perhaps dozens of yours have been deletions of the work of many other WP editors. You've even indulged in Alex Jonesian snarky conspiracy theorizing just above, to wit: "Ah, yes. The academics are a blessing, aren't they? Especially when liberal academics outnumber conservative ones by five to one..." (Eeek!! Academics under the bed? Leave the light on, mommy!) You emphasize your Christianity, but what about the Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour Commandment? Activist (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Activist, your screed of accusations is mostly exaggerated and in some cases is outright untrue (who have I borne false witness against, pray tell?). But you have lied about me before, so I'm not surprised. I am not going to continue the conversation. Based on my history with you, I don't trust you. If you really believe me to be a problem editor, you are free to take it up with the appropriate Wikipedia authorities. This talk page is supposed to be about the article. Let's keep it that way. SunCrow (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When you write, "You have lied about me before," you're lying. I've never done such a thing. In this article, you removed well-sourced text with the subject lines: "curprev 21:49, 14 November 2019‎ SunCrow talk contribs‎ 192,861 bytes -610‎  →‎U.S. Senate (1985–present): remove paragraph that--as previously noted--does not accurately reflect the cited source." Did you bother to read the source? It's rather extensive, and perhaps you share the condition with the Occupant of the White House, of being unable to read more than a single page at a sitting. Snoogans answered you: "curprev 13:47, 14 November 2019‎ Snooganssnoogans talk contribs‎  192,413 bytes +620‎  →‎U.S. Senate (1985–present):" "this peer-reviewed source and text by two leading political scientists was removed with the erroneous edit summary, 'nothing noteworthy about a legislative leader pressuring his/her members to vote with the party'." It's obvious, however, that you don't consider respected researchers writing in peer-reviewed journals to be reliable, characterizing their work as "POV." Your attitude reminds me of "When George Wallace ran for president in 1972, he blamed 'pointy-headed intellectuals' for everything from rising crime and changing sexual mores to busing and the stalemate in Vietnam," https://newrepublic.com/article/91589/the-washington-intellectual and Richard Hofstetter's Anti-intellectualism in American Life, a decade earlier. You then call me a liar when you write: "Unless my eyes deceive me, not one of my edits was made on the basis that the material being removed was unsourced. NOT ONE." "Not one?"  am reminded of HMS Pinafore, "Never?  Well, hardly ever." On this same page, an argument is made that "obstructionism" and "opposition," have the same meaning. No, they don't. I am reminded also of a quote from Lincoln, joking metaphorically that an opponent conflated a "flying horse," with a "horsefly."  Activist (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Activist, regarding the edit you mentioned above (13:47, 14 November 2019), please note that I have already explained that edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitch_McConnell&diff=926265191&oldid=926256111. ‎I stated that the paragraph did not accurately reflect the cited source because--newsflash--it didn't accurately reflect the cited source. Perhaps you are the one who should read more carefully.


 * Regarding McConnell "pressuring his/her members to vote with the party": Can you identify any legislative leader anywhere who doesn't "pressur[e] his/her members to vote with the party"? Does such a person exist on planet Earth? I'm sure McConnell also brushes his teeth and puts on a suit and tie in the morning, but I don't think we need a sentence about it in the encyclopedia.


 * You mentioned my statement that none of my recent edits to the McConnell page were made on the basis that the deleted material was not properly sourced. I made that comment in response to your attack/post dated 15 November at 1:20, in which you said, "SunCrow maintains that text he(?) removed was not properly sourced, a common but dubious complaint SunCrow makes when massively scrubbing articles of content which possibly produces dyspepsia..." Once again: I never said that the deleted material was not properly sourced. Every edit I have made to this page since Nov. 6 was made for reasons that had nothing to do with inadequate sourcing. You are making a straw man argument. I'd suggest that you check my edit summaries in the edit history for this page, starting with November 6, and then recant your accusation.


 * I have placed a strikethrough over the sentence in which you compared my attitude to that of George Wallace, who is chiefly known for having been a virulent racist for most of his life. While you didn't outright accuse me of sharing his racial sympathies, it's still unacceptable for you to compare me to a figure like that. I won't put up with you insulting me or any other editor in this way.


 * Regarding honesty and integrity, I first addressed you--in a civil manner--about false attacks back in October on your talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Activist#False_accusations_on_Susan_Wagle_talk_page). You dismissed pretty much everything I said (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SunCrow&diff=prev&oldid=921591417). Since then, you have doubled down by continuing to make false attacks and refusing to take responsibility for them. You take offense that I've accused you of dishonesty, but you are unwilling to admit that you've been dishonest. That's a problem. SunCrow (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Individual parts
If SunCrow wants to remove/include certain parts, it might be good for him to list them here so that they can be substantively debated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Given his attitude toward many if not most of the rest of us, that would be extremely unlikely. Activist (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The section is better than it was, but it's still slanted and unbalanced. It overemphasizes the POV of McConnell's critics and restates their criticisms again and again. Specifically, he following sentences are problematic:
 * "As part of his obstruction strategy and as the leading Republican senator, McConnell confronted and pressured other Republican senators who were willing to negotiate with Democrats and the Obama administration.[52]" (Loaded language.)
 * (quotation)"'Like Gingrich, McConnell had found a serious flaw in the code of American democracy: Our distinctive political system gives an antigovernment party with a willingness to cripple governance an enormous edge'.[49]" (POV and unnecessary to uncritically include the POV of the two scholars. They are not just trashing McConnell, but an entire political party as "an antigovernment party with a willingness to cripple governance".)
 * "In a book on the merits and pitfalls of partisanship, Dartmouth political scientist Russell Muirhead characterized McConnell's obstructionism as a corrosive form of partisanship, as the interests of the party displaced the pursuit of policy.[57]" (Repetitive of previous sentence.) SunCrow (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) The manner in which McConnell enforced unity on the Republican side is clearly relevant (as it's key to explaining how the obstruction was successful). (2) This quote by two of the world's foremost comparative politics scholars (Paul Pierson, Jacob Hacker) explains why obstructionism currently works within the US system of government (which is both of long-term encyclopedic value and of interest to a global audience whose democratic institutions would in many cases not provide these ways to obstruct). (3) The last quote is particularly insightful, given that it's by a scholar of democracy who is known for his work arguing that polarization, partisanship and party rule is healthy for democracy, yet who argues that McConnell's form of partisanship is uniquely deleterious for democracy (in line with numerous other political scientists), as policy does not inform the partisanship. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

South Park
What exactly about my South Park write-up in the Popular Culture section is 'not encyclopedic'?

Firegecko76 (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Different picture?
Maybe it's just me, but I think he looks like a clown in the top photo, and I know a full-body photo isn't standard for US politicians. Does anyone know a better picture of him? 96.19.8.227 (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * it is his official photo. Most of the stuff on commons is from 2012 or earlier.  What about this:  File:Mitch McConnell 2016 official photo (cropped).jpg ?  It is the same one, but cropped to be head and shoulders only?  --rogerd (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

MILITARY SERVICE INACCURATE OR MISLEADING
In the sidebar for this subject the military service section lists United States Army. When checking this against his record as indicated in the article, it shows he barely spenta month in the military and was unable to even complete basic training, which is the basic required training to even start being a soldier. As the record here shows, he began his service training and his family called to get him out with a medical diagnoses before he completed beginners training or was ever sent to any duty station. For this reason he never seemed to have actually been a service member, just a trainee who failed out. And as with any other professions, you don't call someone who failed schooling for that profession a member of it.

Someone who failed schooling for an electricians license is not an electrician. Someone who failed schooling and training to be a police officer is not still called a police officer or former police officer. And so on.

To say that Mitch McConnell's Branch of Service was/is the United States Army is inaccurate given the information and would actively mislead people into believing he completed soldier school when he clearly was incapable of doing so. It's also a little insulting as a veteran of the active component of that Branch to say that his failure to succeed and failure to even pass the basic requirements to be a soldier, is equal to all of us who did work hard and honestly during our service. So it is both misleading misinformation and insulting to those who had to actually stand up. MLysippe (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The info box clearly shows what happened, so not sure what the concern is. Once he took the Oath of Enlistment he was in the military, either with an immediate report date or as part of a delayed entry program, and legally fell under the jurisdiction of Title 10 of the US Code which does not apply to civilians.  Being discharged for medical reasons doesn't change that.  The analogy to electricians and police officers is not relevant since they are not under that part of the U.S. Code.EdJF (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

add Trump’s legal defense team have made thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to GOP senators overseeing the impeachment trial ?
Ken Starr and Robert Ray gave thousands to Mitch McConnell last year before joining Trump’s team, months before McConnell announced that he would be working in “total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate” during the impeachment trial. Star gave $2,800 to McConnell in July 2019 and Ray gave the maximum $5,600 to McConnell in September 2019. X1\ (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/01/senators-overseeing-impeachment-got-campaign-cash-from-trump-team
 * https://www.salon.com/2020/01/29/trumps-legal-team-gave-thousands-in-contributions-to-republican-senators-ahead-of-impeachment-trial

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020
Please change McConnell's name as written at the top of the article; his office ("U.S. Senator,") should not be part of his name. Keithshep (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
Just thought I'd check in here. I've made quite a few WP:BOLD edits to this article over the course of the last several hours. I admit they probably aren't all perfect, but I think overall they make this article better organized and more neutral. Please let me know if you disagree with any of them, and feel free to revert anything that you think was counterproductive to Wikipedia's mission.

Also, if someone can come up with a few more paragraphs of summary regarding McConnell's political positions, that would be much appreciated. As for me, though, I am kind of burnt out on it for now.

Trevdna (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Trevdna, thank you for all your hard work on condensing and organizing this page. SunCrow (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Great work, we finally have a bio page that looks like a bio page instead of whatever it was before ... the word "mess" comes to mind.EdJF (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead paragraph on Russian election interference
Clearly this could get contentious if we don't handle it well. So I'd just like to bring this up here first before we start revert wars.

I don't think that the sentence the following sentence belongs in the lead section: "In 2016, after being approached by U.S. intelligence community officials, McConnell declined to give a bipartisan statement with President Obama warning Russia not to interfere in the upcoming election." X1\ just recently put it back. The purpose of a lead is to "serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." My opinion is that this sentence neither summarizes a significant portion of the article nor - by itself - is among the article's most important points.

That said, if we can establish consensus here - and find a way to do so in a mutually acceptable (NPOV) manner - it may be worth saying something in the lead more generally about McConnell's obstructionism in the face of Russian election interference. What does everyone say? Is that one of the most important points in the article?

And I have no problems leaving the paragraph in for now, while we talk about it. --Trevdna (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like no one wants to talk. So, I've taken it out and we'll see how this plays out. --Trevdna (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been away due to other commitments. See within article's main body:
 * and in the Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day):
 * There has been significant other RS coverage of the topic, including within wp articles. If needed the topic can be expanded here; it belongs in the lede:
 * X1\ (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * X1\, I agree with Trevdna. Given the prominence and duration of McConnell's political career and the many, many things that have been said about him in the media, the fact that he declined to make a statement about something--whether it's Russian election interference or something else--isn't significant enough to appear in the lede. The information in the article body about this topic is sufficient. SunCrow (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * X1\ (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * X1\, I agree with Trevdna. Given the prominence and duration of McConnell's political career and the many, many things that have been said about him in the media, the fact that he declined to make a statement about something--whether it's Russian election interference or something else--isn't significant enough to appear in the lede. The information in the article body about this topic is sufficient. SunCrow (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * X1\, I agree with Trevdna. Given the prominence and duration of McConnell's political career and the many, many things that have been said about him in the media, the fact that he declined to make a statement about something--whether it's Russian election interference or something else--isn't significant enough to appear in the lede. The information in the article body about this topic is sufficient. SunCrow (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, how's that as the first step towards a compromise? I've put "Election security" as its own section and added more information to it. Personally, though, I still don't think it's significant enough yet to warrant its own paragraph in the lede. But, if there were more instances of McConnell allegedly obstructing election security, I think I'd agree with an additional sentence in the lede that summarizes them all. Right now, though, every sentence in the lede is either a summary or an encapsulation of something larger about McConnell. I think that's good form. Trevdna (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Describing peer-reviewed research by political scientists as "commentators say"
This is a clear NPOV violation. The authors are, with the exception of two law professors, political scientists. The attribution should be to "academics" or "political scientists", not "commentators" (which could anyone). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright. Trying to help on this one, but whatever.


 * You’ll still have to talk to whoever put up the “weasel words” tag though. Trevdna (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There should be no weasel words tag. It's not WP:WEASEL to describe the identity of those who are attributing statements to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed sentences for removal
I’d like to discuss the following passage:

"In 2012, McConnell proposed a measure allowing President Obama to raise the debt ceiling, hoping that some Democratic senators would oppose the measure, thus demonstrating disunity among Democrats. However, all Democratic senators supported the proposal, which led McConnell to filibuster his own proposal.”

Personally, I don’t think this belongs here. It doesn’t seem like it adds anything to the article, and seems like minutiae. Frankly, it seems to me like it’s just here to point out an embarrassing incident in McConnell’s career, and thus it seems POV to me. Yes, it seems pretty ludicrous- but there are likely many such episodes in the careers of most other politicians, and Wikipedia generally does not cover them in detail unless they have other merits. Therefore, I propose it be removed from the article. However I would like to seek consensus here first.

Thoughts? —Trevdna (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it's an excellent example of Constitutional hardball, and is absolutely not conventional behavior. It's notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It it not accurate to state that "there are likely many such episodes in the careers of most other politicians." I would object to removal of this text. Neutralitytalk 15:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, fair. I still think it’s excessive, but that’s fine. -Trevdna (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of peer-reviewed research because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
Two editors have removed long-standing text sourced to: (i) a peer-reviewed Oxford University Press by two leading political scientists (Harvard University's Theda Skocpol, who is possibly the most influential living comparative politics scholar, and University of Minnesota's Lawrence R. Jacobs. (ii) a book by UC Berkeley's Paul Pierson and Yale University's Jacob Hacker, who are possibly the most influential scholars on US social policy. The text was removed because quoting or paraphrasing the assessments of the books was in the words of one editor a " blatant NPOV violation" and in the words of another editor the text was "political potshot" and "inane" (because this editor knows better than leading experts). The text should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that this content seems appropriate for inclusion. Neutralitytalk 15:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The challenged edit is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=945315131&oldid=945314108. I stand by my edit. This section of the article has had POV and balance problems for years at this point, mostly because of certain editors attempting to load it up with attacks on McConnell due to their POV. We have had this conversation many times before. The section is better than it was, but it is still unbalanced and skewed. SunCrow (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As a relatively recent active contributor, I don't know the history of this one, but I feel like maybe I should weigh in. My thinking is that maybe we can come up with a way to word things that satisfies no one, but all can accept - in other words, compromise.
 * On the first contested sentence, my vote is to leave it, but tone down the wording. How about this: " As part of his obstruction strategy and As the leading Republican senator, McConnell confronted and pressured other Republican senators who were willing to negotiate with Democrats and the Obama administration."
 * On the second contested sentence, my vote is to take it out. While the general idea ("Mitch McConnell obstructed Obama all the time") is clearly peer-reviewed and accepted, this sentence seems like it is crossing into POV territory by giving WP:UNDUE weight to the issue when there are plenty of other topics to address in this article. In other words, without that sentence, I feel like the situation is already adequately addressed - no need to shove it down readers' throats. Trevdna (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions, Trevdna. I can live with them. SunCrow (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While the first suggestion is clearly better than whitewashing it in full from the article (it's of course extremely pertinent to delineate how the Senate Majority Leader managed to get other Senators to go along with the unprecedented obstruction), there is no dispute in the academic literature that this was "obstruction". It's WP:FALSEBALANCE and a NPOV-violation to try to find a middle ground between consensus views in the academic literature and the partisan grievances of random Wikipedia editors: that's not how we're supposed to judge the inclusion of content. The second suggestion is again False balance: it's obviously pertinent and of massive long-term encyclopedic value to connect how McConnell's obstructionism relates to the structures of US modern politics. It explains how this obstruction strategy is actually a functional viable strategy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems like partisan grievance of random Wikipedia editors or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to you. I feel like I am trying to work from a place of consensus here. I hope you can WP:AGF and work for WP:CON because otherwise these discussions probably won’t go anywhere.

In my view, this section already does a fine job of explaining McConnell’s obstructionism. It’s not like we are trying to censor that from the article. I simply think the article can be improved by being more succinct. It’s not an attack - at least not on purpose - at least not by me.

From WP:RSUW on undue weight:

"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

To me, removing the one sentence and trimming the other is an attempt to place the obstructionism in context. Although it’s a relatively large section of his career, it is my opinion that the very lengthy section on it currently gives it undue weight by giving it undue “depth of detail” and “quantity of text”. Not saying that there’s anything objectionable to the peer reviewed sentences per se, and if this article were 500 MB long and went into McConnells life in excruciating detail, sure. But you start to lose your reader after too long. Their eyes glaze over and they’ll reflexively reject your point for taking up too much of their time. Short is sweet. Trevdna (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying, Trevdna. SunCrow (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I’ve undone the reinsertion of the second paragraph.

I had assumed we had reached consensus on the compromise to include one of these sentences but not the other, since no one brought up any substantial disagreement to it. If you disagree with my points on undue weight, please respond appropriately and tell me how I’m mistaken. Let’s reach consensus on controversial material before we make the changes. I would like to think I’ve shown myself to be reasonable, accommodating, and well-informed. If you can show my points to be in error, I’ll gladly take up your side.

Also, I’d like to mention that I feel the edit summary has several flaws: one, saying the editor has “anti-intellectual gripes” is not the Wikipedia way. It’s name calling and condescending. Also, implying that the material should stay because it’s “long-standing” doesn’t make sense: consensus can change.

-Trevdna (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, the editors in question have a documented record of anti-intellectualism. One of the editors was just blocked for disruptive anti-intellectual, anti-science editing on abortion-related pages, and has a record of climate change denial beliefs. The other editor has added absurd weasel tags to attribution of statements to political scientists (as if professors of poli sci are not "political scientists") and ludicrously asserts that attributed statements from leading experts are NPOV violations (just because his personal politics flies in the face of reality). And no, you do not have the right to remove all long-standing content in the article and require that a new consensus be formed in favor of keeping all the content that you personally disagree with. If you want to remove long-standing content, you need to seek a consensus for your changes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel like I have been seeking a consensus here, but when I made some (what I thought were) valid points regarding undue weight and NPOV, as justification to remove that one sentence, as part of a compromise package, I just got radio silence. To me, I had assumed that means there were no objections to my points. From WP:CON: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Therefore, I had thought that consensus was achieved.


 * If you want to open up discussion about it, though, that's completely fine with me. Can you explain to me why you think this one section should stay? Do you feel that it's not giving undue weight to the viewpoint that McConnell is an obstructionist and is trying to subvert American democracy? NPOV requires a fine balance between opposing viewpoints and judicious decision-making, and I feel that the section in question pushes the article too much in that direction. Even though I didn't make the edit myself, I completely support the part of it that removes that section.


 * Let me level with you. I think the best way I've ever heard NPOV explained is located here. I read it over 10 years ago, and it's never left me. It says: "Raul's Razor – An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." I think it's brilliant, it's succinct, and it applies perfectly here. As I read through this section, can I tell where the author's sympathies lie? Yes, definitely. The author's sympathies lie against McConnell. Therefore, the section is not NPOV. Is the section accurate? Quite probably. But that doesn't necessarily mean it belongs here. --Trevdna (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

How to handle McConnell's coronavirus response in the article?
I think it's very important to handle the coronavirus response somehow in this article. But it's big, fast-moving, it could easily become a 10-page mini-article all by itself, and opinions about McConnell's handling of it are deeply divided. (So, par for the course on this article, right? :p) I don't even know where to begin, but I know there should be something.

Thoughts:
 * State bankruptcy comment and ensuing controversy - legitimate issue (include), or overblown partisan warfare (don't include)?
 * CARES Act - what can we actually say about the entire process and McConnell's role in it all?
 * What other acts have gone through Congress, and where does/did McConnell stand on them all?
 * Where does this section belong in the article? Subheader under "Relationship with Trump Admin" or just in "U.S. Senate"?

—Trevdna (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * All of the above to include the bankruptcy comment. As always, balanced (i.e., McConnell has stated reasons why he didn't want to bail out states), neutral tone, with RS.  Separate section under "U.S. Senate".  Thanks for raising the issue. EdJF (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess I was afraid of that vote. This article is already pretty long. And that mean I get to do research *siigh* -Trevdna (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020
First sentence refers to McConnell being a reptilian. Though I cannot confirm nor deny the accuracy of this claim, the pertinent factual material in this case is of a classified nature and it isn't ready for public dissemination. Please fix. 148.170.137.96 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  JTP (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mitch McConnell at a rally for civil rights in 1964.webp

Inconsistency in Supreme Court nominations
At least on the face of it, McConnell was clearly inconsistent in his approach to the nominations of Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett. I don't see any explanation of that at present. If there is any (either falsifying, qualifying or just confirming that he applies different rules for his own side and the Democrats), it might be relevant to put in. 151.177.57.31 (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course he applies different rules for his own side. So does any other side do the same.  That is politics.  If you can cite suitable citations, think it's notable, and can express your ideas with a neutral point of view, go ahead and add it in. Johnnie Bob (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the latter and if I had had time to delve into it, I would already have provided text and links. And yes, I know that politics leaves much to be desired, not least nowadays and in the US. But if this is just what it looks like, it's quite brazen anyway and it would also be relevant how he got away with it so easily. 151.177.57.31 (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020
Hello Wikipedia. Just a quick one: under 'Political party', the page says 'fascist', which is rather inappropriate.I'm not intending to edit this page but do think this one here should be changed. Thank you. FG FOX (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Fascism, he appears inconsistent on that one. Why, b/c he advocates against the 2 thousand dollar stimulus bill. Two thousand to each American is too much and is nothing more than a payoff to appease typical Americans while the Deep State continues to "pull the wool over their eyes"; aka, "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.198.123 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Extended-Confirmed Edit
Not now, but on Jan. 20, when Warnock and Ossoff take office, we need to change it to say Senate Minority Leader 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAwesomeAtom (talk • contribs)

== If you Google "turtle senator", the first website that pops up is this one ==

Also, if you google "Who's the turtle in the senate?" a Wikipedia table pops up. I'm not sure if that belongs here, or if anything can be done with it. Is this intentional or not?
 * We are not in control of Google; you should complain to them. Other search engines are available. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox fix
Can someone adjust the infobox for his Minority-Leader designate filled with the adequate information such as how his predecessor would be Chuck Schumer not Harry Reid. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please present reliable sources and present the request in a clear "Change wikitext X to wikitext Y" format. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , "Minority Leader-designate" is not a real position. That is made up. The Senate votes on its leaders; no one "designates" them. ― Tartan357  Talk 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Electoral History Should Be Changed
i know political articles are useless in general on wikipedia, but the electoral history box in particular here is revolting. why show his opponents losing vote percent at all?

it makes no sense. it should be redone to show HIS and only his percentage of the vote. it's his article after all, as awfully and one sided as it's written. besides, if you can't get their percentages from subtracting his from 100.... it's an unnecessary add-on.

2600:1700:5E40:7190:48C3:D755:53A5:7EB1 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2021 (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.

He hasn't been the senior senator from Kentucky since 1985. He became the junior Senator in 1985. For McConnell's first 14 years, Wendell Ford was the Senior Senator. You were so concise that you were wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.82.103.86 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

add controversy re: McConnell's speech claiming obstruction by Democrats
In a speech 7/29/19, McConnell claimed "Democrat obstructionism" despite earlier expressions of pride in preventing Democrat-sponsored bills from reaching the Senate floor and his "proudest achievement" in blocking hearings on a legally nominated Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. His claims of working against Russian President Vladimir Putin while thwarting two bills in July 2019 that would protect US elections from Russian influence caused the Twitter hashtag "#MoscowMitchMcTreason" to trend for two days, July 29-30, 2019.

"obstructionist" in lead
The lead should plainly say that he was an "obstructionist" or engaged in "obstruction", as the body does and as more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies and expert assessments do. There is no justification for omitting it from the lead, as this edit does. It is decidedly non-NPOV not to characterize McConnell's actions like the body and the extensive list of high-quality sources do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Just want to jump in with a point of order here. The litmus test for NPOV should be Raul's Razor: "An article [or, I would say, a section or paragraph] is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." So, whether a particular item has well-sourced, peer reviewed expert assessments is kind of beside the point for saying NPOV. Finding high quality sources and NPOV are generally separate issues. If the article seems like it exists just to talk about how mean of a guy McConnell is, that's POV, even if there are lots of sources talking about the mean things he's done.


 * In this case, I think either phrasing could qualify as NPOV, so I'm not going to jump into the diffs or take a side on this or anything. But I think that's an important point to bear in mind going forward.--Trevdna (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Raul's Razor's is a bad way to determine NPOV when one side of the political spectrum in one country has normalized actions that could only be described in negative ways if expressed objectively. For example, describing the claim that the 2020 election was stolen as "false" would be a violation of Raul's Razor, yet that is how all RS characterize that claim. Applying Raul's Razor in practice means violating WP:FALSEBALANCE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I disagree. The “false” election claim is a clearly exceptional case. Most of your run-of-the-mill article points will not have such clearly defined “right” and “wrong” as that.

So with that said, I think the article as it now stands probably strikes a pretty good balance. It states the controversy and is very well sourced (thanks), but doesn’t get bogged down in explaining to the reader that McConnell is a terrible guy. So I’m not proposing any changes to the article as it now stands.

Just a difference of opinion on principles. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree for now, and work out future controversies on a case-by-case basis.

—Trevdna (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021
Edit request to correct a grammar mistake: replace "businessmen" by the singular form "businessman" on the first line of the Wikipedia page for Mitch McConnell. 158.143.113.220 (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, "businessman" didn't really even seem to be supported by the article anyway (ignoring the incorrect grammar). I've just reverted the edit that added it instead, so nothing to change the grammar on anymore. Volteer1 (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why no witnesses – Never heard of The Buck Stops Here?
How wrong this was could be immediately seen when Trump's lawyer quite gloatingly dismissed the deposition of Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler as a mere statement without any value. How could the House managers and the Senate be so lazy? Even if there wouldn't have been 67 votes for conviction – this important revelation about Trump's behavior had to be brought to open display before the Senate and his lawyers would have had to contest it in order to dismiss it. And other issues would have come into daylight, too.

Now many facts are still buried in the dark because the impeachment managers and the Senate passed the buck to the courts: It had to be stopped here, in the Senate.

The Senate just honored police officer Eugene Goodman: Imagine for a minute Mr. Goodman would have thought for his own comfort first and Trump's mob had succeeded in getting to the chamber with the senators in it. But for Mr. Goodman the mob had to be stopped here at him and with courage, skill and luck he won and saved the Republic!

And what did the Senate and the impeachment managers do? They let Mr. Goodman and Mrs. Herrera Beutler and all the law-abiding people in the U.S. and in the West down. What was the reason for this quitting, who influenced them? This must come to light! --Sunsarestars (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"a close call"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/mcconnell-trump-impeachment-acquittal.html

voted to acquit former President Trump, although he said it was a “close call.”

I'm German (= no native speaker) ; imho, that has encycloped. relevance. --Präziser (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: the names of McConnell's three children. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mitch McConnell at a rally for civil rights in 1964.webp

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021
A member of the Republican Party, he has served as the senior United States senator from Kentucky since 1985

McConnell hasn't been Kentucky's senior senator since 1985. When he was elected, he was the junior senator (Wendell Ford had been in office for a number of years), so he's only been the senior senator since Ford left office in 1999. Please remove "senior" from this sentence, or if it's important for the start of the article to mention that he's the senior senator (I don't see why it would be), please transfer this element somewhere else. 64.203.186.112 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021
Nazi Symbol on page????? 2601:14D:8500:C330:85FF:22C1:555B:1A43 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)