Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:52, 12 October 2009

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Journalism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Rsmccain (talk · contribs) / McCain, Robert Stacy McCain, Robert Stacy

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 {{susbt:unsigned|Rsmccain}}

—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 ...
• 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. — goethean ॐ 14:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Err ... see (1) my long comment under "#Controversy Section?", (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. — goethean ॐ 20:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages'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? — goethean ॐ 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. — goethean ॐ 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. — goethean ॐ 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. — goethean ॐ 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. — goethean ॐ 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:Notability. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. — goethean ॐ 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 an 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. — goethean ॐ 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 Misplaced Pages article to follow Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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? <g>

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. — goethean ॐ 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages, 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; Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. We need to follow Misplaced Pages'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 own words", if you pick the words carefully enough and leave out enough context. Such dishonest and immoral tactics have no place at Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. — goethean ॐ 03:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Update on edit war

Just to update the talk page, User:Chris Chittleborough has edit-warred his way to victory! Everyone offer him congratulations. By undoing edits every day for several weeks, he has successfully removed well-sourced, relevant facts from the accompanying article. Another victory for extreme right-wing writers who are embarrassed by their calls to destroy ethnic groups. Another defeat for transparancy. Congratulations, User:Chris Chittleborough! — goethean ॐ 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Articles with connected contributors