Talk:John M. McHugh

Untitled

Wow, you're pretty far off on everything you wrote here. I'm a moderate Democrat, and McHugh's voting record is not really what I'd call 'highly conservative'. His voting record is what I'd call a conterarion one, like John Hostettler, I do believe I mispelled that though. Nor is his district solidly Republican. According to CQ Politics, [1], this district favored Bush by only a very narrow 4 point margin, 51-47, and has been trending more Democratic, as it is far less Republican than it was in 1992, when McHugh was first elected. NcHugh regularly wins with landslides exceeding 70% because of his more moderate voting record, his incumbency, his ability to bring pork home to his district, and weak Democratic opposition. --199.80.70.73 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Robert Waalk

Flaws

There are some serious flaws with this article I'm working to fix; the people who this article says preceded and succeeded him are completely off -Iudaeus (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -Iudaeus (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

POV implications

I edited a section that came across as very dubious agenda-pushing and innuendo. A sentence stated that McHugh voted for the "controversial" cap and trade bill a few weeks after the President nominated him to be Secretary of the Army. Then, two sentences later (in the political positions section), it states he never served in the Army. It's bizarre to juxtapose the nomination and the nomination, unless one is pushing a quid pro quo accusation. There's no reliable source cited of a notable political figure making that accusation. The never-served-in-the-military sentence is out of place in the political positions section. The only reason I see for that is agenda-pushing and innuendo. It's not a political position. The innuendo seems to be that serving in the military is a pre-requisite for the job and not having done so is extremely odd. But I checked the articles of recent Secretaries of the Army. Out of the 6 who were the Secretary or Acting Secretary during the Bush Administration, 4 have articles that make no reference to military service. The "controversial" characterization seems more to do with applying a stigma than conveying facts. There's no citation for it. Furthermore, cap and trade was a policy supported by many Republicans a few years ago. --JamesAM (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John M. McHugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223081425/http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/60012302.html to http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/60012302.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Religion

Please keep in mind that John M. McHugh IS a Zoroastrian and I would appreciate it if the person who keeps reverting this fact from his biography please stop defacing the page. It's important to give the full breadth of McHugh's life and Zoroastrianism is a big part of his life and career, he is the first Zoroastrian in the American government. Again, PLEASE stop defacing this important fact for both McHugh AND the Zoroastrian community of American. Thanks - Jim, sent from my Blackberry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900B:10D:4100:594A:A9AC:C134:9918 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There seems to be a dispute regarding whether or not C-SPAN and FEC could weigh in with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL policies. With minimal participation from other Wikiprojects, as well as two relists, I cannot find any rough consensus for any action. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

---

John M. McHugh → John McHugh (New York politician) – Initial is not part of subject's common name, appearing in about 13% of their newspaper mentions. Star Garnet (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 07:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion was started at WP:RMTR. Steel1943 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Star Garnet: Oppose per WP:NATURAL. He is known as John M. McHugh in numerous reliable sources.[2][3][4][5] - Station1 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • C-Span and the FEC are not suitable sources to judge WP:COMMONNAME, and a college newspaper is questionable. Results on newspapers.com show 158 of 3,335 (4.7%) of results for "Secretary John McHugh" include his initial, 1 of 47 (2.1%) for "Sec. John McHugh", 8 of 876 (0.9%) for "Representative John McHugh", 603 of 4,493 (13.4%) for "Rep. John McHugh". Of course you can pull examples from those small proportions, but that doesn't make it common or natural. Star Garnet (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
    • It does, though. If John M. McHugh is used hundreds of times (by your count), including by sources like CNN and The Washington Post, that means it is a common name, whether or not the most common, and a middle initial is obviously more natural than the artificial parenthetical "New York politician" we would append to his name. WP:NATURAL normally prefers natural disambiguation when disambiguation of a title is necessary. Station1 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Under NATURAL, this falls to the level of an obscure name. Beyond that, a random user is far likelier to guess the dab of (New York politician), or choose it on the drop down of the search bar, than they are to guess his middle initial. Star Garnet (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
        • That's where we disagree. It's not the least bit obscure; it's used all over the place, as seen, for example, by just checking the refs and external links used in the article. And I'm not sure why somebody looking for a Secretary of the Army would necessarily know to click on "New York politician". There's no reason not to have that proposed title as a redirect, though, for the few readers who might look him up that way. Station1 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Star Garnet and Station1: Ping participants. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject U.S. Congress has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• relisting comment: I have notified the two wikiprojects, lets see if gives us more participation. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.