Talk:Robert Stacy McCain

POV Tag
This stub in its present form needs substantial NPOV revisions. In its current form the article


 * 1) Attributes "pro-confederate" views to McCain without any source or specification
 * 2) Attributes "white nationalist" views to McCain without any source or specification (I seriously doubt he calls himself a "white nationalist," though Morris Dees or somebody of his ilk may have accused McCain of being that)
 * 3) No source on SPLC demands for resignation, no specification of why they demanded it, and no detail about their own biases and affiliation with the radical left (which could predispose them against a conservative newspaper editor).
 * 4) Phrase "but have not yet been successful in achieving it" referring to the alleged SPLC effort leans in POV toward the SPLC's supposed position.

Please fix these and develop the content more before removing the POV tag. Rangerdude 1 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)


 * I've replaced these all with specific quotes with citations. AaronSw 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable? Vanity editing? POV?
Comments:
 * 1) Is this person notable? (I mean no offense by this -- I'm not very notable myself.)
 * 2) Is he supposed to editing his own article? I think subjects of articles are encouraged to note errors on the talk page, but not actually edit.

Presently, part of this article reads like a resume. At the same time, some of the earlier versions were very negatively POV. Neither tone has a place in Wikipedia. Seeing that some of you editors are either in journalism or somewhere in the intelligentsia, I'm confident you all can produce something more encyclopedic -- if you really want to.

--A. B. 01:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I encourage McCain to write an article on the Rome News-Tribune -- there's none at present. I was looking for one when I found this article.

BLP Noticeboard
→  (see Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive12) 

This article has been listed at BLP Noticeboard. Obama bin Levin 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved from article
WIKI VANDALISM AGAINST McCAIN: On Oct. 16, 2007, this section was edited by a user on a computer with the IP address "70.43.14.3" to include falsehoods, some of them apparently based on the errors in the Signorile column, which have been repeated with elaboration by SPLC's Heidi Beirich and others.

PERSONAL STATEMENT BY ROBERT STACY McCAIN: ''It has become obvious, by this most recent vandalism as well as other previous "contributions" to this article, that there are some people with too much ignorance in their minds, too much evil in their hearts, and too much time on their hands. If you have nothing better to do with your life than to insert false and defamatory material into other people's Wiki articles, you are a pathetic excuse for a human being.'' -- RSM, Nov. 17, 2007

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Related to John McCain?
Right now the article says they are "cousins." However this seems to be a joke by Robert. I think the article should say if they are closely related or not. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * R.S. McCain is no relation to the John McCain who ran for President in 2008. At least, not in a way that is generally known--presumably, if one went back to the records in Ireland, one could find some connection. But R.S. McCain isn't even Roman Catholic, which is unusual for an American of Irish descent. R.S. McCain did not campaign for or support John S. McCain for President, as he didn't consider Senator McCain a "true conservative" (or something along those lines). Stacy McCain does refer to Senator McCain as his "crazy cousin John," but that is, indeed, a joke.Scooge (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section?
Although this section mentions a controversial statment on McCain's blog, it hardly created a "controversy" in the true sense. The burden of citation is on the inclusion (not the ommission) of this so-called controversy. Inclusion, without a citation leading to a proper story of a real "controversy," leads to a greater sense that this entry is POV. Including every controversial statement (particularly those that don't create a real "controversy" in the news) sends the encyclopedia down a slippery slope. This sort of attention to comments by politicians and political bloggers that don't create real controversy is better suited to political/social blogs and not an encyclopedia. Additionally, the inclusion of a two-word comment of another blogger in response to McCain's comments hardly qualifies this as a "controversy," even if that blogger does blog for Atlantic. I recommend deletion unless there is something more substantial to this story and/or McCain's comments drew more attention. --RedSix (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NPOV requires that we include all significant view. I think the material is worthwhile, but the space devoted to the "Middle East peace plan" is excessive. We can just say he was criticized for calling for the bayonetting and expulsion of the Palestinians. The section heading could be different. Perhaps "criticial reception" of something like that.    Will Beback    talk    19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to make that section--and the one on the SPLC more NPOV. I went back to the Wiki article, and it didn't characterize the group that way, so it seemed a bit much to state as a fact that the organization was white supremacist in nature. As far as Andrew Sullivan is concerned, I think it's fair to note that he has been engaging in the silliest of speculations regarding the Palins, most notably asserting over and over again that Trig was not Sarah's baby, but rather the offspring of one of her daughters--the one who was pregant during the campaign. Which is kind of odd, since most women can't get pregnant again so quickly. Also, the odds of having a Down's syndrome child increase dramatically as women age: it would be statistically unlikely for a teenager to produce a Down's baby.


 * Naturally, Sullivan's sexual orientation and health issues do NOT have a thing to do with that exchange. But his strong left tilt and his penchant for exaggeration might have something to do with his not seeing the irony in McCain's jab at the Palestinians.


 * I also removed the word "conservative" from the description of McCain's "gets," because I do not know if Peter Jennings counts as a conservative. Does anyone know about his political leanings? If we can get confirmation, we can place that word back in. Scooge (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That RSM was "criticized for calling for the bayonetting and expulsion of the Palestinians" is not particularly notable. (He gets criticized for lots of things by lots of people.) Given that WP:BLP would require us to mention, source and explain the fact that RSM did not in any way call for that, I say it is better to not mention it per WP:UNDUE, so I've removed it.
 * In a closely-related development, the meme encapsulated in the phrase "ransom-note method" and its successor "ransom-note racism" seems to be catching on amongst conservative bloggers, starting from some blog posts by RSM early in 2009. (The meme refers to attacks which depend on guilt-by-association and carefully-chosen out-of-content quotes.)
 * In a further closely-related development, the SPLC used the ransom-note method to claim that RSM is a fan of American Renaissance (magazine). I've taken that out of the article, per WP:BLP. For more on McCain vs SPLC, see http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/search?q=SPLC. I've used two of those posts to mention his response to the SPLC.
 * I picked one of those posts largely for telling statements such as:
 * I sneer at the snooty pretensions of my own profession ...
 * [I] refer to the Hayekian conception that knowledge is widely diffused throughout society ...
 * If it suits some people to think of me as a "neo-Confederate lesbian," let Joan Jett speak for me: I don't give a damn about my bad reputation.
 * Anyone who examines this phenomenon will quickly discover nearly all of these people are elite-educated affluent Vanilla-Americans -- rich stuck-up honkies -- ...
 * I do not pray for his destruction, but for his redemption, because my religion forbids me to hate.
 * (I think he really likes the phrase "neo-Confederate lesbian". And why not?)
 * A minor detail: the lede should probably say something like "journalist and blogger" instead of "writer". Comments?
 * Cheers, CWC 13:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable?
Is RSM Notable by Wikipedia's standards? I don't see that this article passes WP:CREATIVE, but I could be wrong. Given that this article has long been used to promote underhanded attacks on RSM, and that lots of POV-pushers will try to continue to use it for that purpose, maybe we should just delete it. Any comments? Or should I just WP:PROD it? CWC 13:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I just PRODded it. If anyone has evidence of wikipedic notability, this would be a really good time to mention it ... CWC 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on the run today, but 1) his blog does pull down a certain amount of traffic, all by itself, and, 2) he does get cited by others. Obviously, a lot of them are bloggers, which brings us up against the Wiki-weirdness WRT blogs, but he's mentioned by print-writers, too--e.g., he was mentioned in Michelle Malkin's latest book.Scooge (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At present, McCain seems to be playing a big role in a blog controversy. If that ever gets mentioned in a WP:RS, he is instantly mega-wikipedia-notable. So let's just wait and see. CWC 07:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP, UNDUE, NPOV issues

 * Please do not remove well-sourced content from Wikipedia. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Err ... see (1) my long comment under "", (2) WP:UNDUE, (3) WP:NPOV and especially (4) WP:BLP.
 * Goethean, which parts of the content I removed do you regard as "well-sourced"?
 * Cheers, CWC 02:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should be more clear. Stop removing all criticism of McCain from the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's rules require bad content to be removed. I'll keep doing that.
 * Goethean, your recent reverts here violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Please don't do that!
 * I will not remove properly-sourced criticism of McCain that passes WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, etc. In fact, I left some in the article. Note also that WP:NPOV requires mentioning McCain's responses to whatever attacks we mention. Goethean, you have twice removed his response to the SPLC attack. Please don't do that!
 * Take the claim (which I removed) that "McCain appeared to advocate the genocide ...". First of all, "appeared" is a classic WP:WEASEL word. Second, that interpretation of that post is a perverse misreading. Third, the claim is classic original research. Fourth, the quote from Andrew Sullivan is pure character assassination, and is completely unacceptable.
 * From what I've read by this guy, I'm sure there has to be more criticism of him that we could (and should?) mention ... along with his responses, if any.
 * (And I still haven't seen any evidence this guy is WikiNotable, so I've WP:PRODed the article. Would anyone contesting the PROD please explain why McCain is WikiNotable, here or in the edit summary.)
 * Cheers, CWC 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Second, that interpretation of that post is a perverse misreading
 * Fascinating. How do you interpret McCain's words? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That there is no realistic hope of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, expressed in (to put it mildly) characteristically pungent imagery. Those initial clauses are there for a reason: they signal the parabolic nature of what follows. BTW, I disagree with him here. CWC 10:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence in the quoted passage or in the context of the passage to indicate that McCain does not mean what he wrote. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? The context is a spat between Glenn Greenwald and Jeffrey Goldberg in which Greenwald (1) claimed that "one almost falls asleep reading" McCain's words and (2) called Goldberg a "revanchist Zionist". McCain then spells out how a real "revanchist Zionist" would act, in words that are definitely not going to send anyone to sleep.
 * From WP:BLP: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.
 * So whether there is evidence he wasn't serious is completely freakin irrelevant. What matters is that there is no evidence that he was serious. Goethean, can you make a case that the quote is representative? That Sullivan's response should also be included? Or are you just going to keep violating WP:BLP? CWC 11:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What matters is that there is no evidence that he was serious.
 * I don't know how one would in principle prove that an author means what he wrote as opposed to not meaning what he wrote. Unlike you, I don't claim to have unfettered access to McCain's presumably good intentions. All have is what he wrote. But I appreciate your brave, unambiguous stance that authors definitely do not need to stand by their words.


 * Fourth, the quote from Andrew Sullivan is pure character assassination, and is completely unacceptable.
 * The Sullivan quotation consists of two words: "Words fail." McCain's character must be rather fragile if it can be assassinated so easily. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether McCain's "character" is "fragile" has precisely nothing to do with the points I made, none of which Goethan has ever addressed on this page. CWC 10:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out the hilarious absurdity of your claim: that Sullivan's phrase "Words fail" comprises "assassination" of the "character" of poor victimized and misunderstood McCain. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 11:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, AS was not trying to improve RSM's reputation, was he? I should have called it attempted character assassination ... CWC 11:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given McCain's apparent target market of self-described Southern Nationalists and "pro-whites", Sullivan's quotation might indeed improve McCain's reputation, at least in McCain's view. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we all be a little more specific when we throw around the alphabet soup? I have no idea what in the article is supposedly a SYNTH violation, for example, so how can I chime in with my 2 cents on that issue. And the controversy section seems to be pretty short so I don't know why UNDUE is being invoked.

As far as prodding this article, don't be silly. This person is a widely published author and editor of a major newspaper. I think anyone who wants to prod or afd this should explain how it doesn't easily pass muster. Gamaliel (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Silly? I read both WP:BIO and this article carefully, and found nothing in the article that demonstrates WP:N otability. In my understanding, being a "widely published author" and "editor of a major[?] newspaper" does not make a person WP:Notable. If there is a policy/guideline/consensus to the contrary, I would really appreciate a link. Please.
 * BTW, RSMcCain (1) was an assistant editor of the WT and (2) is not mentioned in our Washington Times article.
 * So I question whether RSMcain is WP:Notable. Maybe he is; I don't know. I thought I had made that reasonably clear.
 * I would welcome addition of good content that establishes WP:Notability. But if no-one produces such content, I think we should seriously consider deleting the article.
 * On the "alphabet soup": see for example this diff. I've asked for help via WP:BLPN.
 * Cheers, CWC 10:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article would be deleted at WP:AFD, but it is undeniably a problem that all bar one of the 32 references (currently) is to McCain's published articles or blog. Rd232 talk 10:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you genuinely think the subject of the article isn't notable, then you should submit this article to AFD. I'm not really interested in searching through guidelines to find a pull quote to bolster my case, so perhaps WP practice has changed, but in my experience what I cited earlier is more than sufficient to justify an article.


 * I don't see anything that violates any WP policy in the diff you cited, sorry. It appears that you feel that certain problems are blatantly obvious, but others do not feel that way, so if you want to make a case for your view that the material is problematic, you're going to have discuss the matter in detail and point out how and why you think it violates policy. Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel, does not removing the entirety of McCain's response to the SPLC violate WP:NPOV and BLP? And are they not policies? I'm astounded and disappointed that you did not notice that.
 * Including an way-out-of-context quote from (an update to) a blog post which gained no coverage in reliable secondary sources violates NPOV, BLP and basic fairness. Giving that quote that much attention violates WP:UNDUE. Sullivan's response is entirely out of place in an encyclopedia article; see BLP. And BLP puts the burden of proof on the editor adding or restoring contested content ...
 * Please! This is Wikipedia 101 stuff! CWC 11:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Including an way-out-of-context quote from (an update to) a blog post...
 * I'm curious as to how adding more context will make his "Middle East Peace Plan" less outrageous or offensive. In further updates to his blog post, he certainly didn't finesse, backtrack, or soft-pedal his claims...on the contrary, to me he sounds even more strident in context. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel, does not removing the entirety of McCain's response to the SPLC violate WP:NPOV and BLP?
 * The text about whose removal you are complaining has been restored to the article. I think that it provides insight into McCain's rhetorical tactics and character --- since his defense doesn't remotely answer the charge. (Charge: You are a member of a n alleged hate group. Responses: 1. I can't respond, because I don't want to publicize your organization 2. You're only attacking me because my newspaper attacked you. 3. I'm one of the good guys in the hate group! You can only change the system from within!) It is instructive that this is the type of content that will restore McCain's reputation. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC) BLP violation edited by CWC 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

← Oh, dear. This is quite pathetic. I'm not here to "restore McCain's reputation", nor to damage it (unlike some). I just want this Wikipedia article to follow Wikipedia's rules.

For instance: quoting McCain's response to Greenwald without even mentioning Greenwald (let alone "revanchist Zionist") is sheer dishonesty, and violates WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Restoring this dishonest smear violates WP:BLP; Goethean's snarky false claims about McCain and myself go exactly 0% of the way to meeting the burden of proof required by BLP. ("I think it provides insight"? That's all you've got? And whether Goethean thinks McCain's responses "answer the charge" is utterly irrelevant.)

Goethean has had over a week to meet the burden of proof per BLP, but instead has chosen to argue (very poorly) that Wikipedia should show how eeeevil McCain is. Goethean, I think you are trolling me. Stop. CWC 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If anything is pathetic, it is the sight of someone bravely protecting McCain from supposedly being libeled and slandered by someone who is merely quoting McCain's own published words. Do you think that that would hold up in court? 


 * As I mentioned Quixotically above, if McCain's character is so fragile as to be "assassinated" by a quotation from his own writings, published on his own blog, then he is a delicate lily indeed, rather than the valiant Confederate restorer of traditional values, which is how he seems to conceive of himself. That's what you expect us to buy, right? If McCain is being quoted out of context, then merely supply the context which will magically transform the quotation from something which you (and only you) believe "assassinates" McCain's "character" into...whatever it is that you currently think his statement means. How you expect anyone to believe that simply quoting a man's own words constitutes "character assassination" is just...amusing, frankly. Someone is trolling here, and it ain't me. McCain, whose affiliations are so out-of-the-mainstream (to put it politely) that if I mentioned them, you will undoubtedly delete my comments as more supposed libel and slander. So this valiant Confederate got quoted on The Atlantic magazine's website. You claim that by pointing that out, I am being dishonest. Whereas, you, by insisting, insisting, insisting on removing a passage of McCain's writings from the article on McCain, are restoring decency, honesty, and transparency to the article. Okaaaay.... Let us just say that your notion of honesty is curious at best. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia, not a gossip forum. All controversial claims in a BLP must be cited to a reliable secondary source. Sullivan's blog post is not a reliable source. (BTW, it is Sullivan I'm calling dishonest, not Goethean. And I explained what the "Swear to God ..." quote 'means' above: McCain is demolishing Greenwald's claims about revanchist zionism and sleep-inducing prose.)
 * Nor is it OK to use the quote as a primary source, because it contains no assertions by McCain about himself. Presenting that cherry-picked quote stripped of its context invites/demands readers to draw conclusions about McCain; Wikipedia's rules forbid that. If we did give the context, that would unbalance the article. So we have to leave it out, unless/until it gets mentioned in proper secondary sources ... which is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work. We need to follow Wikipedia's rules instead of relying our own opinions about article subjects. (BTW, if I put my own opinions into this article, it would be more negative.)
 * Calling McCain a "valiant Confederate" without evidence is another BLP violation, IMO.
 * Almost any writer can be smeared by "quoting [his or her] own words", if you pick the words carefully enough and leave out enough context. Such dishonest and immoral tactics have no place at Wikipedia. Cheers, CWC 02:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling McCain a "valiant Confederate" without evidence is another BLP violation, IMO.
 * Well, sure. Of course. Probably any accurate adjective that can be applied to McCain would be a violation of BLP on your insanely protective impression of what constitutes Wikipedia policy...at least when it comes to conservative/reactionary/whatever-is-farther right authors. But back in consensual reality, this is the talk page for the article on Robert McCain and we have to refer to the subject of the article every once in a while. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 03:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Charges of Racism
A number of articles have appeared on Huffington Post, True Slant, and other outlets regarding McCain having written for a white supremacist website called American Renaissance as well as dozens of pro-slavery messages on various forums, all under an assumed name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.250.50 (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In 2002, Michelangelo Signorile wrote a column that alleged that McCain is a racist. However, Signorile relied on claims by an genuine white supremacist, Dennis Wheeler, who turned out to be less than honest. (The irony!) McCain and others had
 * strongly criticized Wheeler's efforts to get the League of the South (then known as the Southern League) to adopt Wheeler's own white separatist views. McCain wrote of such racial views: "[W]e should not stomach the promulgation of odious and hateful doctrines. We must reject all such doctrines. The truth is not in them."
 * During the debate with Wheeler:
 * Stacy was an outspoken leader of the non-racist faction; he denounced racism as dishonorable and wrong. We fought the bigots together and took a lot of heat for our stand.
 * Every prominent conservative non-minority southerner gets smeared as racist by some on the left, usually using very short quotes taken out of context and carefully arranged to suggest a falsehood (the "Ransom Note Method") and/or guilt-by-association.
 * Without links, it is impossible to see if any of the "number of articles" have any substance.
 * If anyone has a link to a fact-checked article about McCain (as opposed to an op-ed, or an item that just mentions him in passing) that could/should be used in the article, feel free to add them. (If you're not sure how or whether to do so, you can always start a discussion on this page.)
 * CWC 03:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even when clearly reliable sources are presented, User:Chris Chittleborough will, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy, edit war other editors into submission in order to remove all negative material from this article. For his blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, he should be blocked from editing this article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While allegations of racism have, as of late, been used so much that they have lost most of their meaning, they must still be taken very seriously here where we have control over them. Sources likes the one above live to write slime about individuals and organizations they dislike, plain and simple. While they may make for entertaining reading from time to time, the thought that they would be used as a source for biographical material frightens me. WVBluefield (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

2012
There are several mentions on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website of McCain's association with American Renaissance (for instance ). This fact should be added to the article, as well as his pseudonyms BurkeCalhounDabney (cf. ) and Burke C. Dabney. I also think some rather infamous racist statements of McCain, such as "the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion", should be added. --Widerborst (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There was a time when the SPLC were the go-to guys for information about the US far right. That was in a different millenium. (Their latest report covers a new hate group: pickup artists! I am not making this up.) Here and now, those attacks on McCain are shoddy and unconvincing. Notice the lack of links, and the reliance on Signorile's debunked story. (See above. Really.) So I cannot accept the SPLC as a WP:RS here.
 * Furthermore, anyone who reads McCain's blog regularly will see repeated evidence that he is no racist.
 * OTOH, genuine fact-checked articles that honestly address the evidence would get a different reception. Cheers, CWC 12:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the SPLC is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Opinions to the contrary should be accompanied by links to such discussions. User:Chris Chittleborough is a reliable partisan voice on this talk page, and I don't consider his opinion on this subject to be neutral or relevant. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Working notes
Quick notes from reading RSM's blog: Some or all of these might be worth mentioning in the article. Cheers, CWC 11:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Shoe Leather Fund" (eg., )
 * Freelance reporting for The American Spectator (eg., )
 * Fan of Herman Cain (eg.,, "bad hair day")

Views and opinions
Two paragraphs were removed by Chris Chittleborough with no explanation. These are well-sourced notes linked to the subject's own Usenet postings, with the subject's email address and signature.

Original text:


 * McCain has long supported Southern secessionist organizations, and has defended the Neo-Confederate movement, claiming, "we are CONQUERED AND SUBJUGATED by the Yankees, carpetbaggers and their SCALAWAG ABETTORS who are actually allowed to reside peacefully in Alabama, in the employ of a state whose citizens are thus so malignly scorned." [36]


 * wrote and pamphlet titled, "WANTED for WAR CRIMES: Abraham Lincoln"[37] with the intention of distributing it in Rome, GA around the time of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.[38] The proposed flyer would direct the reader to The Southern League "the only American organization which today advocates Southern independence. A visit to DixieNet is a valid educational experience, whether one agrees or disagrees with them ... er, us." [38]

Are these disputed sources? Why were they removed? 24.199.34.245 (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can Chris Chittleborough edit the article? He may be a friend or |associate of the subject. He may be relying on himself as a source. NOR. As Chris did not add a reason for removing the material, it is placed back on the article as it was written by the subject. 24.199.34.245 (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears this is not the first time someone noted Mr. Chittleborough's edits. 24.199.34.245 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From Chris Chittleborough:
 * Why that material is not allowed in Wikipedia
 * Those 'sources' are very much "disputed".
 * Wikipedia rules forbid using blog posts or Usenet postings for controversial claims in WP:biographies of living people.
 * This is why I removed the material before. I wrongly used WP:Rollback (which does not allow you to enter an edit comment) instead of WP:Undo (which does); I apologize for that.


 * Those post are good examples of why we have such rules.
 * The blogspot blog is not self-published; it is published by someone hostile to RSM.
 * The Usenet (now Google Groups) postings are WP:PRIMARY Sources, and provide a good example of why Wikipedians are strongly encouraged to prefer secondary sources. To use primary sources properly, we would need to summarize them in a neutral and fair way, which is (1) hard to do (2) hard to get agreement on (3) is dangerously close to Original Research and (4) tends to unbalance articles. For instance, saying that RSM wrote "WANTED for WAR CRIMES: Abraham Lincoln" without mentioning that he qualifies the title with "a case could be made" is character assassination, not honest reporting.
 * Much of the material supposedly proving that RSM is a racist comes from a genuine, avowed white supremacist named Dennis Wheeler. Far too many people have blindly assumed that such a person is scrupulously honest and painstakingly accurate. I do not want Wikipedia to make that mistake.
 * Wikipedia is supposed to report what Reliable Sources (in a Wikipedia-specific meaning of that phrase) say about subjects. So far, no one has produced a Reliable Source on RSM's alleged racism. (Sorry, raaaaaaacism.)
 * I'm not a friend of RSM, just someone who sometimes reads his blog and other writings, mostly with enjoyment, though I often disagree with him. I don't think I've left comments on his blog or other articles.
 * www.currentvideonews.com
 * This site is (was?) harvesting content from Wikipedia, probably as part of a scam to attract search engines to ad-laden pages.
 * The website itself, and all of the websites it links to that I checked, have IP address 63.168.21.149.
 * All those websites are currently offline.
 * All of the so-called "Related Articles" on that page are actually based on edits to (not articles in) Wikipedia!
 * The giveaway is the supposed author names: mine is the only real name. This is the basic for the fictional article "John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 by Wasted Time R", and this for "John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 by Wasted Time R".
 * Crappy websites like that are really annoying.
 * Cheers, CWC 18:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Usenet postings would be allowed, as they are by the source himself, and would therefore be things we could cite concerning his own opinions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOGS#Self-published_sources JustinBlank (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

ISBN # in Introductory paragraph
I haven't seen that in other entries, and it wasn't here last time I looked at the page. Can we remove that, or at least move it to later on in the article? Scooge (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. That was my mistake, and I've fixed it. Cheers, CWC 15:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Other Views" section
I added the dispute about rape/withdrawal of consent, but should it perhaps be clearer that McCain apologized on his blog after he made that remark? Also, I added his ongoing dispute with LMA/Darleen Click/Cassandra/Roxeanne about whether it's possible to be a "conservative feminist." Maybe too many external links there. Thoughts?Scooge (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My general rule is that we should only cover these sort of disputes when they get covered by someone who counts as a Reliable Source. He-said/she-replied/he-responded disputes are extremely difficult to cover in an encyclopedic way, and often add little value to our articles for most readers. (Sometimes you can just write something like "Joe Doe's views on cat naming have been controversial" with 2 or 3 refs, and let readers who care follow the links.) This raises the question: Do Tommy Christopher's post(s) on mediate.com count as reliable? I don't have any answer for that.
 * In this particular case, I vaguely recall that RSM not only apologized but said in a later post that his original post was misunderstood due to his poor choice of words. If so, summarizing the dispute will be even harder.
 * All that aside, Scooge's description of the McCain-Christopher stuff is rather good.
 * Re the RSM-vs-LMA/DC/..., how about cutting it down along these lines:
 * This has brought him into conflict with several female conservative bloggers. He debated one of them, his friend Joy W. McCann of Little Miss Attila on "Da Tech Guy"'s radio show on WCRN in Massachusetts.&lt;ref>cite web
 * url=http://datechguyblog.com/2011/04/02/who-won-the-debate-between-stacy-mccain-and-little-miss-attila/
 * title=Who won the Debate between Stacy McCain and Little Miss Attila?
 * author=Peter Ingemi&lt;/ref>
 * Hmm ... that's probably too terse. Comments? Suggestions?
 * Cheers — CWC 15:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd like to revise the RSM-TommyXtopher thing to make it clear that RSM had attempted an apology, but it had been considered a bit weak, so Xtopher wanted to be sure of him--be real clear that, no, RSM wasn't okay with date rape--and did a bit of harmless "gotcha." And I like his quote at the end, there, about how there's more to RSM than his writing.


 * Christopher seems like a stand-up guy, and I tend to trust his accounts of these things--though I know he has gotten it with Breitbart and Larry O'Connor, and there's plenty of escalation that occurs, which complicates those confrontations.


 * I think you're right: the feminist thing should be streamlined--though it did become quite the kerfuffle. I'll do something not QUITE as terse as your suggestion, but very nearly so, within a couple of days.Scooge (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability tag
Can someone please show me mainstream, secondary sources about this blogger that evidence his notability? His own writing in and of itself is not notable without secondary sources indicating its notability. I saw many, many links to notable people he has spoken to, but talking to notable people doesn't make one notable in and of itself. I see lots of blog links that aren't considered WP:RS. I see a lot of information that is unsourced. I see the subject himself has added information. What I don't see are WP:Reliable Sources nor evidence of WP:Notability - what am I missing? I do see an Alexa traffic rank of 61,214 for his blog, which is not very impressive. -- David  Shankbone  01:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You're missing a 10 year run at the Washington Times from 1997-2008. He apparently produced their culture page and was viewed as a scourge of the left wing. The SPLC called him a former key Washington Times editor in their "Hatewatch" column. TMLutas (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Stacy McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yWBYyCV9HewJ:www.riponsociety.org/membersonly/riponforums/winter05.pdf+%22stacy+mccain%22+%22ripon+forum%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20120526103235/http://www.riponsociety.org/membersonly/riponforums/winter05.pdf on http://www.riponsociety.org/membersonly/riponforums/winter05.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following material here from the article until citations of reliable sources are added to it to support it, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, et al.

McCain was born in Atlanta, Georgia. He graduated in 1983 from Jacksonville State University in Alabama. His journalism career began with the (now defunct) Cobb News-Chronicle in 1986. He then worked as a sports editor for the Marietta, Georgia-based Neighbor Newspapers, before joining the Calhoun (Ga.) Times as sports editor in September 1987. The Calhoun newspaper is a division of Rome, Georgia-based News Publishing Co.

In 1991, McCain joined the staff of the company's flagship daily newspaper, The Rome News-Tribune, working closely with special projects/editorial page editor Pierre Rene-Noth. Frequently writing about such subjects as education and history, McCain was awarded a George Washington Honor Medal from the conservative Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge for his 1995 series of columns about the National Standards for U.S. History.

Nightscream (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)