Talk:Thomas McInerney

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Not done: I agree with . A separate section is not required. NiciVampireHeart 23:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2018 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
thread_title:  The lead should obviously cover his post-military career 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: * 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." Neutralitytalk 02:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

message: * 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: * 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." Neutralitytalk 02:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Survey