Talk:Mitch McConnell

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) And, finally, I am an arrogant asshole

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.

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)

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.

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)

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.[1]

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)

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[2] 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=rule22"Precedence of motions (Rule XXII)". Rules of the Senate. United States Senate. Archived from the original on January 31, 2010. Retrieved January 21, 2010.ref (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: [3]. 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 Snooganssnoogans Rwood128 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"[4], you describe an assessment by two of the world'd leading comparative politics scholars (Paul Pierson, Jacob Hacker) as a "false POV claim"[5] and "POV comment"[6], and you inaccurately claim that the text here does not reflect the cited source (in fact, it mirrors it very precisely)[7]. 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)

SunCrow Snooganssnoogans Rwood128 SusanLesch 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)Sinclair, Barbara (2012), "Senate Parties and Party Leadership, 1960–2010", The U.S. Senate: From Deliberation to Dysfunction, CQ Press, pp. 85–109, doi:10.4135/9781483349459, ISBN 9781608717279, retrieved October 11, 2018(/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)

SunCrow Snooganssnoogans 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/enwiki/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/enwiki/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)