Talk:Thomas McInerney

Political views

Political views of the individual are irrelevant on a biography page. Including them will only lead to disputes and should be deleted. Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, which one of the articles is deemed inappropriate? I am having a problem to automatically list the references for some reason, however, I included them all directly in the "Reference" section.Rilixy (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything that espouses his political views will simply cause disputes, and are not appropriate. The statement that he currently is a Fox News contributor is simply a fact about his current activities. If he writes opinion pieces and comments on other media outlets would also be factual and NPOV (I don't personally know which outlets he espouses his views on), and perhaps a better statement would be that he is a political commentator would be best. However, his views on current events are his opinions and not facts. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One's view is a part of one's biographical construct no matter how others define it subjectively or objectively. If my opinion is to rid of Malaria in the continent of Africa (analogy: incessant call for military action against Iran even through his own direct writings, i.e. Weekly Standards and Fox News to name a few) and actively pursue to promulgate deeds through stratum of communication channels (analogy: cable, print, and media in general), then such action becomes effectively a part of my aspiration which evidently can be used to supplement a personal narrative.

In other word, my opinion can be subjective in nature but it does not change the fact that I possess such belief in the first place--general McInerney has every right to form an opinion that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is the only way to deal with the country, however, it does not change the fact that he maintains such position. NY Times' piece, in this regard, is an investigatory body of work that expounds on this very issue, nevertheless, it can be interpreted as an opinion piece if one wishes to examine it in the absolute sense of fact vs. opinion, which cannot be fully realized; perchance, NY Times' article can be removed. My intentions are not to dig "dirt" on the subject even though it might appear to be so perhaps, you can offer a more appropriate way of altering the structure of the section to adequately remedy the discord. Thanks for fixing the reference list.Rilixy (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care what his opinions are. I understand your views and the fact that a major part of McInerney's post-military career is engaging in political commentary can't be ignored. I just don't want this article to be turned into a political ping-pong ball by those who support his views and those who disagree with him. I suggest that a section be created .. call it "Political Commentator" or something along those lines where his stated views can be documented. Fair enough ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in response. I take your suggestion as meritorious and have no objection to the addition you made. After examining the NY Times piece, I've come to the conclusion that it does not directly reflect upon general McInerney's biographical intent of the wiki and decided to remove it entirely. For the record, I'm dumping the paragraph here, even though one can obtain the copy from the version control:

In April 2008 documents obtained by New York Times reporter David Barstow revealed that McInerney had been recruited as one of over 75 retired military officers involved in the Pentagon military analyst program. Participants appeared on television and radio news shows as military analysts, and/or penned newspaper op/ed columns. The program was launched in early 2002 by then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke. The idea was to recruit "key influentials" to help sell a wary public on "a possible Iraq invasion."

Rilixy (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bwmoll3 The Lt. General's political views after his service ARE relevant, especially after his lies about Senator John McCain on Fox Business during the week of May 7, 2018. When one lies, and belittles a national hero to score cheap political points, then ones political views are in play. Sjkoblentz (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2018

Add the subheading "Controversial Statement about John McCain" This is a distinct event. It should not fall under the general category. 174.28.62.120 (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this request. Separating a single paragraph consisting of three sentences into a standalone subsection implicates WP:UNDUE. KalHolmann (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I agree with KalHolmann (talk · contribs). A separate section is not required. NiciVampireHeart 23:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be a separate section. It has lit a firestorm of criticism. By NOT giving it a seperate section, you are trying to mask the offensive and untrue nature of the statement that McInerney, and in effect defending him. AND given that the statement has pushed FOX to ban McInerney from being used as a guest in any capacity makes it worthy. This was not a conversational hiccup. This was a purposely delivered insult that breaches etiquette and manners. It deserves its own section. Sjkoblentz (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead should obviously cover his post-military career

The man is primarily known for his commentary since his retirement from the military. This includes a Pulitzer Prize-winning expose into how McInerney was supplied talking points by the Pentagon, and his smears of John McCain, among other things. The content on his career as a commentator also takes up half the body of the article, thus there is no justification for omitting it from the lead. By failing to note that the man has been engaging in extremist commentary, the lead also falls afoul of NPOV, as it makes it seem as if he's a non-controversial high-ranking member of the military when that is clearly not the sum of what this person amounts to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Your version was far too detailed. His controversial post-retirement career could be adequately summarized in 1-2 sentences. Additionally, the current intro text should be condensed into a single paragraph. You can note his "extremist commentary" in the intro without repeating all the details found in the body. Lastly, his commentator career takes up about 40% of the article, at best, while your text more than doubled the intro's size. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Lastly, his commentator career takes up about 40% of the article, at best." Good call. I'm actually going to start scrubbing parts of the military section. The only thing it cites is a bio page from the military, unlike the rest of the page which cites independent secondary sources, and is actually of interest to readers. It is of absolutely no interest to any reader that McInerney was stationed in England for a couple of months in the 70s. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Can the lead mention anything about his 25 years as a commentator?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus to include a summary (not just a mention) of his career in commentary in the lead, and the majority of non-banned editors favor a version similar to that proposed by Snooganssnoogans. This closure does not cover the exact wording, which I don't think has sufficient consensus. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Currently, the lead says nothing about his career as a commentator (even though he has been one for the last 25 years). Can the lead include the following two paragraphs on his career as a commentator?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since his retirement in 1994, McInerney has been on the boards of several military contractors. He was a frequent guest on Fox News until 2018 when he falsely claimed that John McCain, whom he called "Songbird John", betrayed his country when he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
• He was a staunch advocate of the Iraq War, defended the use of torture, and defended the George W. Bush administration, as well as promoted birther conspiracy theories about Barack Obama and accused Obama of treason. In a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times investigative report from 2008, it was revealed that the Pentagon under the Bush administration supplied McInerney with talking points to use in his TV appearances and columns.

Survey

• Yes. The man is primarily known for his commentary since his retirement from the military (more than 25 years ago). This includes a Pulitzer Prize-winning expose into how McInerney was supplied talking points by the Pentagon, and his smears of John McCain, among other things. The content on his career as a commentator also takes up half the body of the article, thus there is no justification for omitting it from the lead. By failing to note that the man has been engaging in extremist commentary, the lead also falls afoul of NPOV, as it makes it seem as if he's a non-controversial high-ranking member of the military when that is clearly not the sum of what this person amounts to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Partial yes. I don't agree with the second suggested paragraph which is just a laundry list. I think a summary, such as McInerney has been widely criticized for multiple false claims over the years or something similar as part of that first paragraph, would be more appropriate for the lead. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think cheerleading for the Bush administration's foreign policy and the Pulitzer Prize-winning expose into his undisclosed relationship with the administration is needed (aside from his extremism and falsehoods). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - His career is a pundit is just as encyclopedically noteworthy as his military career (and probably more so, based on the relative focus of the sources). So something along the lines of what has been proposed would certainly be appropriate. Lead section is supposed to summarize the body. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• No. The lead already says he's a commentator. Too much detail, and it sounds quite negative. Where's the sourcing indicating that this material is leadworthy? A better summary of the article would appear to be that he's been a political commentator for X years and has voiced some controversial opinions during that time. R2 (bleep) 20:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note to the closer: This user was indefinitely banned in January 2021, and little or no weight should be accorded to this user's comment. Since all the other "no" comments are "per R2" the weight accorded to these votes should be viewed in the same context. Moreover, we don't make content decisions based on what "sounds negative" or "sounds positive." Neutrality^talk 02:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• No agree exactly with R2. It's certainly appropriate to include a note about his commentary, but it is not NPOV to only include the controversial comments. Being on the board of a military contractor also doesn't have anything to do with commentary, and doesn't seem lead worthy to me. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• No-concur with R2. It would be completely appropriate to include a sentence (at most 2) on his political commentary since his post-military section is approximately the same length as his military section. However, the proposed text is too long, uses incredibly SYNTH-y language, and seems like a clear POV push to insert negative material about the subject. Additionally, this page, and especially the post-military section/controversy section, is riddled with garbage sources. Media Matters? Right-Wing Watch? Talking-Points Memo? Newsweek? A WaPo Opinion Article with no attribution? All terrible sources that demonstrate the skewness of the article, and the POV of the proposed text. The only part that seems fine to include in the lead is the Pentagon talking points sentence, which is reliably sourced & fairly neutrally written. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this except that WP:SYNTH doesn't really apply to lead sections. As long as the content is appropriately sourced in the body without original research, the lead section is supposed to summarize (i.e. synthesize) that content. However it must do so neutrally and and reflecting the relative emphasis of the reliable sources. R2 (bleep) 21:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - As mentioned, it's weird to have what amounts to half of the content on the page not references in the slightest in the lede. As to the actual content of those those two paragraphs, I see no problem with those being included since every single piece of information is accounted for in the main body of the article and is in fact a pretty good summary of the Controversies section. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• No per R2 - Idealigic (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, this makes up about half the article and deserves comparable attention in the lead. The exact wording can be workshopped but this is, basically, what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Complicated MOS:LEAD is clear that the lead proportionally summarizes the body. Currently the post-military stuff takes up a significant proportion of the prose so the lead should summarize it. The problem is the suggested two paragraphs don't do a good job of that, they're not summaries at all just laundry lists. Part of the problem is that this article, lead and body alike, is in poor shape, which results in lead proposals like the one above. What's needed is for collaboration on improving the body so it's more than just a list of instances, and then trying to nicely summarize that once we have good consensus text. However even if the two specifically proposed paragraphs in this rfc are no good that doesn't mean people should be reverting all attempts to summarize the post-military stuff, it very much should be summarized in the lead, and I trust the normal editing process will suffice to accomplish that reasonable promptly should interested parties begin to collaborate. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Mostly yes. Points are significant, covered by the article, and are currently wholly unrepresented in the intro, which is reasonably short. I agree it could be streamlined a little (although I'd prefer the proposal as is to nothing) and that it would be nice to tidy up/flesh out the body as well but, per MOS:LEADREL, that on its own should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes As per other dear users supported it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2021 (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.