Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)

message: Since merge discussions last January, a great deal of content regarding the MV Alnic collision has been added. That section alone is now over 18,200 bytes. The entire page is only ≈31,000  bytes and we have to be wary of this one incident overwhelming the entire article. Perhaps a split should be considered? There is enough content for a stand-alone article (perhaps USS John S. McCain and MV Alnic collision...?) Otherwise, paring down some of the collision content is also an option, as it does seem overly detailed. - theWOLFchild 16:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The collision is the main reason that she is internationally notable.  The article is not over-long and the details of the collision make for interesting and cautionary reading for any seaman.  As things stand I don't see that either a split or paring down are called for, but of course this opinion is liable to change if there is more written about her. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disagree, but this ship was already notable prior to the collision. Saying it's now more notable is like saying someone is more pregnant. Splitting off the content about the collision does not diminish it any way. If you feel it's such a great read, I would think you would be in favour of it having its own article, instead of just being a section in this one. The point still remains however, that for a singular incident in this ships overall history, it is quite long and detailed, and it is currently more than half the size of the entire article. - theWOLFchild 23:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I would be inclined not to split. It doesn't meet WP:SIZESPLIT. If  were notable on its own it might make sense per WP:CONSPLIT. But I don't feel terribly strongly about this. What has been done in the past with other ship collision articles? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, another recent collision between a US Naval ship and a commercial container ship has it's own article, (see: USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision). Just sayin' - theWOLFchild 03:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Support a split as per Thewolfchilds comments, it is simply one incident in the history of the ship. Lyndaship (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In retrospect, maybe I should've just boldly split it in the first place (and likely will in future, similar circumstances). But now that I've taken part in the discussion, and someone has opposed, we should have a non-involved editor close this and split the article. - wolf 04:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that a hyphen is not correct. I would use "and", but spaced en dash would also be acceptable. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Better? - wolf 22:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect. I wouldn't bother splitting it myself but if you want to I won't object. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Done, article can be found Here A 10 fireplane Imform me 15:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split...? 

message: The section on Trump's actions concerning the McCain has been removed by two separate anonymous editors, one alleging "political bias" and one with no reasoning at all. IMO, the section is supported by a reliable source, only reports the facts with no attempt to describe them in a biased manner, and should be kept. I will be restoring the edits again in order to draw the attention of the anonymous editors, and encourage them to state their position here. Rainclaw7 (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably move that paragraph out of the lead section and into the body of the article. It's a news blip and too undue for the lead, but it bears mentioning somewhere probably. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Absolutely undue for the lead and probably for the whole article.  I support removal. Springee (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Mentioning the alleged request to cover the USS McCain's name in the appropriate section of the article is fine, but commentary like "Trump had long been hostile to the then-deceased Senator John McCain." is out of place and unconstructive. Ramlaen (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved the paragraph to the Service section and removed the commentary on Trump per Ramlaen's (talk) suggestion. Rainclaw7 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving it later is an improvement but it still may be undue.  The sources are limited to WSJ (good reliability) and a source quoting the WSJ.  That suggests weight may be limited.  In the history of the ship this seems like a non-event that won't be encyclopedic in 10 years.  I propose removal unless there is clear support.  Springee (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

text: White House officials acknowledged this was why they made the request. Without that information, readers will be perplexed as to why the whole thing happened. soibangla (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which doesn't establish weight for inclusion here.  Springee (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I hadn't seen these comments when I added my comment below (at #concealment dispute); I definitely concur this incident is WP:UNDUE for this article. (Perhaps for another article.) And I definitely concur that shouting "fake news" is not a valid point of objection. However, as to there being any actual concealment (i.e., "the tarp") the current statement in the article is inaccurate, as I explained below. I oppose inclusion, in the lead or anywhere else. It's just too damn petty. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Based on those statements, I've changed my mind on the section's inclusion in the article. While it is not "fake news," it does belong more on a page about the McCain-Trump dispute then here, if at all. I'll remove the section. Rainclaw7 (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump in lead 

message: Is there any need for the 2017 incident to be mentioned in the introduction, it was a major occurrence, but it doesn't seem to fit with the flow of the article. (Me reading the page then rereading it for the first time). Littlemonday (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that that material seems undue for the lead as presented.  It could be in the lead as part of a larger paragraph on the ship's service history but as a stand alone event it doesn't quite rise to lead material in my view.  Springee (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Paragraph in the introduction - 2017 incident  

message: Last paragraph is incorrect.  White House/Trump did not request name to be covered.  This was debunked by Navy Chief of Information in article below
https://www.dailywire.com/news/47816/reporter-claims-name-uss-john-mccain-covered-ryan-saavedra Usc90grad (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2019 

message: There is evidence of purposeful obscuring of the McCain. Retract your statement, or post an argument. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-official-who-directed-obscuring-uss-john-s-mccain-warship-was-well-meaning/2019/05/30/b9a6ae4a-82de-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html Please refrain from partisanship. --Snippert (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post evidence to the contrary 

message: This is FAKE NEWS, there is no evidence that DDG-56 was obscured for the visit of President Donald Trump.  Zero facts to support this false claim. 199.64.7.228 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2019