Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)

Split...?
Since merge discussions last January, a great deal of content regarding the MV Alnic collision has been added. That section alone is now over 18,200 bytes. The entire page is only ≈31,000 bytes and we have to be wary of this one incident overwhelming the entire article. Perhaps a split should be considered? There is enough content for a stand-alone article (perhaps USS John S. McCain and MV Alnic collision...?) Otherwise, paring down some of the collision content is also an option, as it does seem overly detailed. - the WOLF  child  16:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The collision is the main reason that she is internationally notable. The article is not over-long and the details of the collision make for interesting and cautionary reading for any seaman.  As things stand I don't see that either a split or paring down are called for, but of course this opinion is liable to change if there is more written about her. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree, but this ship was already notable prior to the collision. Saying it's now more notable is like saying someone is more pregnant. Splitting off the content about the collision does not diminish it any way. If you feel it's such a great read, I would think you would be in favour of it having its own article, instead of just being a section in this one. The point still remains however, that for a singular incident in this ships overall history, it is quite long and detailed, and it is currently more than half the size of the entire article. - the WOLF  child  23:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined not to split. It doesn't meet WP:SIZESPLIT. If MV Alnic MC were notable on its own it might make sense per WP:CONSPLIT. But I don't feel terribly strongly about this. What has been done in the past with other ship collision articles? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, another recent collision between a US Naval ship and a commercial container ship has it's own article, (see: USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision). Just sayin' - the WOLF  child  03:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support a split as per Thewolfchilds comments, it is simply one incident in the history of the ship. Lyndaship (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per above. could someone close this discussion and split? This has been open since July. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, maybe I should've just boldly split it in the first place (and likely will in future, similar circumstances). But now that I've taken part in the discussion, and someone has opposed, we should have a non-involved editor close this and split the article. - wolf  04:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that a hyphen is not correct. I would use "and", but spaced en dash would also be acceptable. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Better? - wolf  22:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I wouldn't bother splitting it myself but if you want to I won't object. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I think it would be beneficial to create a separate article about the collision. And I wouldn't mind creating it A 10 fireplane Imform me  18:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - Go for it. This proposal has been sitting here since July, there is no opposition, so you might as well split off the collision content and make a new page. Cheers - wolf  01:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good  A 10 fireplane Imform me  06:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, article can be found Here A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump in lead
The section on Trump's actions concerning the McCain has been removed by two separate anonymous editors, one alleging "political bias" and one with no reasoning at all. IMO, the section is supported by a reliable source, only reports the facts with no attempt to describe them in a biased manner, and should be kept. I will be restoring the edits again in order to draw the attention of the anonymous editors, and encourage them to state their position here. Rainclaw7 (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would probably move that paragraph out of the lead section and into the body of the article. It's a news blip and too undue for the lead, but it bears mentioning somewhere probably. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Absolutely undue for the lead and probably for the whole article. I support removal. Springee (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Mentioning the alleged request to cover the USS McCain's name in the appropriate section of the article is fine, but commentary like "Trump had long been hostile to the then-deceased Senator John McCain." is out of place and unconstructive. Ramlaen (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I moved the paragraph to the Service section and removed the commentary on Trump per Ramlaen's (talk) suggestion. Rainclaw7 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Moving it later is an improvement but it still may be undue. The sources are limited to WSJ (good reliability) and a source quoting the WSJ.  That suggests weight may be limited.  In the history of the ship this seems like a non-event that won't be encyclopedic in 10 years.  I propose removal unless there is clear support.  Springee (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * White House officials acknowledged this was why they made the request. Without that information, readers will be perplexed as to why the whole thing happened. soibangla (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Which doesn't establish weight for inclusion here. Springee (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

, I don't agree that we have consensus for inclusion. Several editors removed the material so, IP or not, they clearly oppose. I also think the material is undue for this article, especially given the length of the text and that it has little to do with the actual ship and was basically a non-event. If this were an article about Trump, McCain or their relationship I can see inclusion but how did this even impact the ship itself? Anyway, reading through the other replies I don't see a consensus for inclusion vs editors primarily saying "if included, place here". None were making definitive statements of support. Springee (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that claims that the section is "fake news" should constitute valid opposition, especially considering they refused to clarify their position on the talk page. I also don't see editors saying that the section "is fine" in the body or that it "bears mentioning somewhere" as conditional, while it might not be 100% definitive it's still in favor of inclusion. Rainclaw7 (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen these comments when I added my comment below (at ); I definitely concur this incident is WP:UNDUE for this article. (Perhaps for another article.) And I definitely concur that shouting "fake news" is not a valid point of objection. However, as to there being any actual concealment (i.e., "the tarp") the current statement in the article is inaccurate, as I explained below. I oppose inclusion, in the lead or anywhere else. It's just too damn petty. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on those statements, I've changed my mind on the section's inclusion in the article. While it is not "fake news," it does belong more on a page about the McCain-Trump dispute then here, if at all. I'll remove the section. Rainclaw7 (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The article should not retain the reference to Trump because his remarks were part of a wider context, which is that McCain apparently received the fake Russia dossier and gave that to an investigative body in order to hurt Trump politically. In other words, Trump and McCain did not like each other, and were very different politically although McCain remained a Republican in name at least.

Yes, the anti-Trump remarks are only in proper context when recognizing that Wikipedia is almost entirely a pro-Democrat project when it should be neutral on politics. So the anti-Trump material should be removed, and an effort should be made to at least pretend that Wikipedia is politically neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph in the introduction - 2017 incident
Is there any need for the 2017 incident to be mentioned in the introduction, it was a major occurrence, but it doesn't seem to fit with the flow of the article. (Me reading the page then rereading it for the first time). Littlemonday (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that that material seems undue for the lead as presented. It could be in the lead as part of a larger paragraph on the ship's service history but as a stand alone event it doesn't quite rise to lead material in my view.  Springee (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

concealment dispute
"Despite photographic evidence to the contrary" does not appear in the cited quotation, nor as commentary in the cited article. The added words seem to be a substantive misrepresentation of the quote. If there is photographic evidence, it would seem to need an additional citation. Danchall (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed the line, it wasn't part of the original quote and the pictures don't contradict the quote, they were taken before Trump's visit Rainclaw7 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This is bullshit. Which is to say, this is an extremely petty incident, misunderstood, given a hyper-inflated significance, and seemingly just (as someone else said somewhere around here) political sniping. It might be notable in showing the sensitivity in the Oval Office of the current occupant's pettiness, but that is for another article; I see no relevance to this ship.

Other sources state that while there was a request from the White House, no action was taken. The allegation of an actual "cover-up" (oh my) is solely from the WSJ reporter. Closer examination of the sources reveals that there was a paint barge tied-up along side overnight, and that this tarp was removed when the paint barge was removed Saturday morning. It is a reasonable inference that parts of the ship were being painted, and the tarp was there for that. That tarp, for a limited period, blocked the WSJ reporter's line-of-sight — omigosh, what a classic case of POINT-OF-VIEW.

The incident is trivial and quite irrelevant to this topic, and the coverage here inaccurate. That section should be deleted. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm in strong agreement with J Johnson here. In the history of the ship this just isn't a story and it does sound like there isn't actual proof that anything was done about the request.  Furthermore, it isn't clear who made the request but it is clear that, regardless of the facts behind the request, it wasn't acted upon when the President was in the area.  Inclusion here just adds a level of petty politics to an article that shouldn't need such information.  Springee (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me add this: Philly jawn (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. "Paint barge" is the term used by one (+?) civilian journalist, but I think the Navy has a different term. At any rate, it's probably a small raft or float that is brought alongside a ship to do painting of the hull near the waterline. Just in case anyone is curious.

Another element in this little story is that sailors on the McCain were "given the day off", supposedly so the President wouldn't see a bunch of sailors with "USS McCain" on their working caps. Well that is just plainly screwy. (Is Trump's eyesight so eagle-like he can read the name on their caps at a distance of a couple hundred yards?) When those sailors go ashore they have the name of the ship on their shoulders. Perhaps something along those lines was suggested, but it is so lame-assed I quite doubt the ship would have done that. Despite this being mentioned on the network news as an actual fact, I suspect that a careful search would find it stems from a report of single journalist who is seeing things not really there. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ”Navy officials struggled to explain why a tarp was hung over the ship’s name, and later, where the president was scheduled to visit. The tarp, they said, was part of efforts to repair the hull; the barge was a painting barge. But other officials offered a different account. They said the initial decisions were made by midlevel officers in Japan, working with the White House advance team. The tarp and barge were removed after more senior Navy officials, in Japan and at the Indo-Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii, thought better of complying with the White House request...Sailors from the McCain were not invited to Mr. Trump’s speech on another ship, the Wasp, at the Yokosuka Naval Base, although crew members from most other American ships at the base were, a Navy service member based at Yokosuka said. When several sailors from the McCain — wearing uniforms that bore the ship’s name and insignia — turned up anyway at the Wasp to hear Mr. Trump’s speech, they were turned away, the service member said. The service member, who requested anonymity because he was not allowed to speak publicly, said that a gate guard told the two sailors they were not allowed on the Wasp because they were from the McCain”
 * But whatever, the edit was removed. soibangla (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * While the incident is trivial and properly left out of this article, yet this is where it popped up, and this is where editors with competence to assess the Navy end of the matter are most likely to be found.


 * I was wondering about some of those other aspects. E.g., were sailors from other ships on board the Wasp? Apparently so, and therefore significant if sailors from McCain were excluded. What might also be significant is if the McCain's crew were cautioned not to talk to the press about this.


 * Details bearing on whether the matter of the paintng barge was innocent or not: was any painting done or scheduled? Was rain forecast? It's details like these that distinguish journalism from rumor mongering. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether it's trivial is certainly arguable: The U.S. Navy on Saturday confirmed that it received a request to “minimize the visibility” of the USS John S. McCain warship while President Trump was visiting Japan last month — an episode that has raised concerns about whether the commander in chief’s political grievances might be infecting military culture. soibangla (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't need to shout.
 * I grant you that political "infection" of "military culture" is valid concern. But not in the context of this ship. The "infection" is more at the level of the military office (?) at the White House, at Fleet command in Hawaii, and possibly with whomever was arranging the event in Yokosuka. But it is a very petty detail in this ship's history, not warranting inclusion here. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn’t shout, and I’m just refuting your remarks subsequent to the edit’s removal. The events did not unfold as you characterized they did, you were mostly speculating, the press coverage was accurate. That’s all I got. soibangla (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't change the fact that the edit was everything to do with Trump politics and not significant to the ship. There is plenty of Trump related controversy out there but not everything tangentially related to a Trump controversy needs to end up in a Wikipedia article []. Springee (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If I can jump in here, there's a big difference between an article on Wisconsin (a state of almost 6 million people, and a long history (both recorded and prehistoric) and a destroyer with a history of ~25 years (30 if we count from when it was first ordered). We cover significant events in the history of the ship, and being part of a minor scandal seems worthy of a sentence or two in the body. We mention all kinds of incidents in the text; I imagine this incident will likely be remembered more than e.g. a PR visit to Yokohama in 2009 which allowed public tours. If we look at articles based on DANFS, for example, they also mention all sorts of minor incidents (reflecting their source); for instance the USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) mentions visits from people like then-Navy Secretary FDR as significant to the ship; certainly an effort to avoid the President seeing this ship seems worthy of a sentence.Just a Rube (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It might indeed warrant a sentence or two, or even three – somewhere else. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed a tendency in military unit articles to use two types of argument to remove negative or critical content. The first argument is that content is petty and insignificant. The second argument is that content besmirches the honor of a unit. The first argument is not valid since the addition of content depends on what is covered in reliable sources as per WP:NPOV. The latter argument has absolutely no relevance. Like you say, military articles mention all kinds of minor incidents, yet these arguments are selectively used only on negative content.Mozzie (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Mozzie: Negative or critical of whom? Of the current administration, for sure, showing how sensitive they are to the boss' tempermentality in making the request, and perhaps even of the Navy for letting it get however far it got. But of the McCain? Hardly. Your second argument is, indeed, irrelevant, as no one has made that argument here: certainly not for the McCain, nor even against the administration (where it does not look good). It is a straw man argument. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Include this in the article The concealment dispute has significant coverage the body of reliable published material as per WP:PROPORTION. Indeed, I can't imagine the ship will ever get this much coverage in the media unless it is involved in a major incident. The information unambiguously belongs in the article and there is simply no policy that justifies the information's removal. Given the recent news aspect of WP:PROPORTION I don't think it requires much more than a few sentences (unless this becomes more of a major incident).Mozzie (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Nor is there any policy that precludes the incident's removal.


 * Note that WP:PROPORTION (a subhead of WP:NPOV) says: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject...", and "... news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." I would also point that WP:Notability (events) emphasizes that notability is not a transient quality, but has lasting major effects. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT the first sentence says 'Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article.' Notability simply does not apply to the content within articles and has no bearing on this discussion.
 * WP:PROPORTION means that we should conciser recentism when determining how much weight to give something. This is a reasonable discussion to have. It is not grounds for excluding all mention of the event.Mozzie (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph of WP:Recentism:

Yup, that looks appropriate. I didn't see anything about inclusion being required. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is how Wikipedia works. There aren't really any policies that tell editors what information should positively be included in articles to a level of detail that would exclude this content. My understanding of Wikipedia is as follows. If information is based on reliable sources and is relevant to a notable subject, it can be included. Removal is reversion (Revert only when necessary) which should not be done for good faith edits. There is some content that should not be included, but there are very specific and explicit policies for this such as WP:BIO. Content in articles should be balanced to reflect a neutral point of view and long term encyclopedic relevance. There is nothing in that that prevents this incident form being included. I propose words along the following lines:
 * In May 2019, the USS John McCain drew significant media attention during a visit by President Donald Trump to Japan. Trump was visiting the USS Wasp while the John McCain was also in port. The White House requested that the US Navy 'minimize the visibility' of the John McCain for the visit. The Navy subsequently covered up the ship's name and gave the ship's crew the day off. Trump drew criticism for the incident given his dislike of the late Senator John McCain, the grandson and son of the ship's two namesakes.
 * This is short, to the point and does not overburden the article with the event.Mozzie (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if coverage of this incident here is proper (quite dubious), your proposed text is quite weak on two counts. First: was it "The White House", or merely some staffer in the "military office"? Or was it a young, inexperienced, and over-enthusiastic member of the advance team? Second: "The Navy" did not give "the ships crew the day off.". As far as I have seen, taking "the day off" was the suggestion supposedly made when one or more members of the McCain's crew attempted to board the Wasp, as reported by an unidentified McCain crew member. Seeing as how it was Saturday, those of the crew not on watch or otherwise restricted already had the day off, so wtf? Note that the Wasp resportedly invited other ships to send contingents of 40 to 60 "sailors" (enlisted + officers?). Most likely the McCain had a contingent of sailors, with an officer in charge, who probably formed up and marched. And when they arrived the Wasp's OOD denied them access. "Take the day off" was likely a flippant suggestion by somone on the quarterdeck. Sure, just speculation on my part, but much more likely than "The Navy ... gave the ship's crew the day off." That morphing of a poorly sourced casual statement into a definite fact is poor journalism, and we should not be giving any prominence to such a dubious statement. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2019
Last paragraph is incorrect. White House/Trump did not request name to be covered. This was debunked by Navy Chief of Information in article below

https://www.dailywire.com/news/47816/reporter-claims-name-uss-john-mccain-covered-ryan-saavedra Usc90grad (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2019 (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. Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Post evidence to the contrary
There is evidence of purposeful obscuring of the McCain. Retract your statement, or post an argument. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-official-who-directed-obscuring-uss-john-s-mccain-warship-was-well-meaning/2019/05/30/b9a6ae4a-82de-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html Please refrain from partisanship. --Snippert (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2019
This is FAKE NEWS, there is no evidence that DDG-56 was obscured for the visit of President Donald Trump. Zero facts to support this false claim. 199.64.7.228 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2019 (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. Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)