Talk:George McGovern/Archive 1

Archive 1

Did McGovern jinxed Mondale?

In 1972 McGovern was electorally slaughtered by Republican incumbent Richard M Nixon, carrying only one state. In 1984 McGovern decided to seek the Democratic presidential nomination again but dropped out after failing to win the Massachussetts primary the very state that voted for him in 1972. The eventual 1984 nominee former Vice President Walter F. Mondale ended up also to be electorally slaughtered by the Republican incumbent Ronald Reagan also carrying one state. So did McGovern jinxed Mondale just by being in the race for the Democratic nomination? [01:53, February 4, 2005 Matthew See]

Ronald Reagan was a fairly popular president at the time of the reelection anyway. I don't really think McGovern had much to do with it. 68.106.47.42 23:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Kairos 23:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it was a remarkable coincidence. [01:16, May 16, 2005 The Shadow Treasurer]

Well the point I was trying to make out was not whether Mondale would have been defeated if McGovern wasn't on the scene but to the magnitude of the defeat. Would Mondale had at least gotten a respectable result if McGovern had not been in the race at all. [02:17, May 16, 2005 Matthew See]

Nonsense -- Carter won in 1976. Nice man, I met him at the Young Democrats convention, and voted for him. Mondale lost because he was Mondale. Carter lost in 1980 because he screwed up in Iran, and was perceived as weak. [07:12, August 15, 2005 Scott Adler]

This is all irrelevant to the McGovern article, but a case can be made that the Dems have been the minority Presidential party ever since LBJ's civil rights stance and Nixon's 1968 Southern strategy broke the old Dem coalition. Since then the only Dem presidential wins have come in 1976 due to the fallout from Watergate, and in 1992 due to having a charismatic candidate benefitting from a peculiar three-way race, and the 1996 re-election of the same charismatic. Alternatively, a case can be made that McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry were all unappealing candidates that have underperformed relative to core Dem strengths. Wasted Time R 12:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it would be relevant if someone were making the claim that McGovern's campaign ruined the Dem party for the next few decades, either by branding it as "liberal"/weak-on-defense, or by ending the role of party officials in the nomination process. But the former is silly (subsequent Dems had plenty of chances to take different positions) and the latter doesn't hold up, given that except perhaps for Carter the subsequent nomineees all won the nomination with good levels of Dem Party support. Wasted Time R 13:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this page censored? Is propaganda acceptable?

I left a number of edits that reflected my experience as a Democratic Party activist in the 1970's -- I was an elected delegate to the McGovern "convention" in 1972.

Every edit was subsequently removed -- including a reference to Teddy White's seminal "Making of the President, 1972" and that Henry Wallace's campaign was outside the Democratic Party.

The reason is clearly censorhip. McGovernists simply don't like to be reminded of their hero's treason to his own party, and the tactics he used to grab the nomination for himself. Trust me, in 1972, George McGovern was the most detested person in America, and for good reason.

Does one ideological movement control Wikipedia? Does the authoritarian left own history?

Could you point us to the edits you made? Probably the problem was that it was phrased in a way that was POV. For instance, I think there should certainly be some discussion of the divisiveness of McGovern's campaign for the nomination. On the other hand, we shouldn't describe it as "treason to his own party." john k 23:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see your name anywhere in the article history; were your previous edits under an IP address? Wasted Time R 23:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It was probably under an IP address.

I've now looked at every IP-address-made change to this article, and I can't find any edits like you describe ever being made or reverted. Perhaps you are confused and are thinking of some other article you worked on, such as maybe U.S. presidential election, 1972 or something on the Democratic Party? Wasted Time R 02:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, it's hard to be neutral about this horrible man. Perhaps the term "treason to his own party" is not appropriate in an article, but I suggest that anyone who defends this propaganda version of McGovern's career go to a library and read contemporary news articles -- Time and Newsweek, for example. (McGovern owned the NYT pretty much.) You will be horrified: He werote campaign rules designed to to ensure his own nomination, but broke them when it suited his convenience (which is how my own seat was stolen). No delegation elected in opposition to McGovern was allowed to be seated. If McGovern didn't like you, your credentials would be "challenged" in a truly Leninist fashion, and his own delegates seated in your place -- He even threw out Democratic state governors.

Regarding McGovern and Henry Wallace, the current article does make clear that neither McGovern nor Wallace was a Democrat in 1948, so I'm not sure what your objection is. Wasted Time R 23:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

"It's hard to be neutral about his horrible man" pretty much disqualifies yourself as an editor of this article.

That said, I agree that more needs to be written about the 1972 campgaign. What's there is pretty threadbare; this is one of WP's major faults, anything that happens after the Internet era gets lavish treatment, most things that happen before it get minimal treatment. Wasted Time R 23:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the floor seat battles, yes there were battles over control of several state delegations. This was pretty much par for the course back then in American politics, before the advent of primaries everywhere. Yes, McGovern's team played hardball on this, but so had HHH in 1968 and so on before then. Your side just lost the floor battles. It happens. Wasted Time R 23:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the Teddy White books are generally reliable, so if you add some material sourced from them, I'll support it staying in the article. If you just keep ranting about censorship and Lenin and treason, forget it. Wasted Time R 23:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the type of credential dictatorship that went on in 72 were never seen before nor since, which pretty much disqualifies YOU as an editor. For example, McGovern himself abolished the winner-take-all primary in favor of proportional representation, which guaranteed my seat. But after he won the plurality in California (with about 40 percent), he decided that winner-take-all was a good idea after all, and grabbed every one of the seats. In modern times the only other mass disqualifications of state delegations were during the Civil Rights era, when black delegations successfully challenged the credentials of entirely white delegates from Southern states on the entirely legitimate grounds that black voters were disenfranchised.

I will do some research on the various floor fights when I get a chance, I don't want to debate this from my memory, which may be unreliable.

My favorite quote from the campaign was what the governor of Rhode Island said to McGovern when the latter visited him seeking support --after throwing him out of the convention. "Sure, I'll support you, George, one thousand percent." (McGovern had promised to support Sen. Eagleton "one thousand percent," then abruptly dropped him.)

McGovern was the first and last Democratic nominee whose campaign failed to win the backing of other candidates or the party's elected public officials. Joe McCarthy was a horrible man, Richard Nixon was a horrible man, and George McGovern IS a horrible man.

There's no question that McGovern waged an outsider campaign against the Democratic establishment, and no question that he irreparably annoyed said establishment, and no question that this helped him get totally clobbered in the general election. The popular and electoral votes make this clear. McGovern supporters would say that even so, this was a valiant and morally just effort to break the corrupt Dem political machine and open it up to mass participation among Dem citizens, and to end US involvement in the war and the useless sacrifice of American lives for a bogus "peace with honor". Obviously others (a majority) would vehemently disagree. None of this makes McGovern a "horrible man" in any objective sense. Joe McCarthy and Nixon are charged with using demagoguery and abuse of political position to ruin peoples' lives; I don't think McGovern has been charged with anything similar, although he obviously ruined your summer of 1972. Wasted Time R 12:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

(I do apologize about the Progressive Party text, I misread it.)

What The Making of the President 1972 says

OK Scott Adler, I have White's The Making of the President 1972 next to me now, which you above seem to acknowledge is a fair (indeed "seminal") reference. (And yes, the book is often quite critical of McGovern, both in terms of policy and political strategy.)

Regarding the California winner-take-all debate, his account is exactly opposite of yours. On page 136 (hardcover Book Club edition) he says McGovern won the primary 44% to Humphrey's 39% with others getting the rest, and by the winner-take-all rules of the Calif. primary, McGovern got all 271 delegates. On p. 171 he says that the panicked "anybody but McGovern" (ABM) coalition, led by labor groups, had packed the Credentials Committee for the convention (in a swap for McGovern packing the Platform Committee), and an AFL/CIO operative named Sigmund Arywitz came up with the idea of challenging the Calif. winner-take-all rule. On p. 173 White reiterates that

"McGovern has cleanly and fairly won the whole California delegation, for the law of California unequivocally states that whoever wins its primary wins all 271 delegates. Now the ABM coalition insists that the law of the sovereign state of California contradicts the new reform rules of the Democratic Party ... McGovern's people insist that you can't change the rules of the game once the game is over ... But appeals to reason are meaningless.... [The vote on the Credentials Committee is] by 72 to 66 McGovern is to be deprived of 151 of the delegates fairly won in California, because the reform rules had, somehow, implied that a delegation bound by a unit rule can no longer sit in a Democratic convention. It is dirty; it is cold politics; a handful of people, manipulating a committee of 150 individuals, has denied the validity of the law and voting of California, a state of 20,000,000 people."

Eventually, in the convention proper, this decision would be overturned and the full McGovern delegation seated, leading to McGovern's win on the first ballot. So Mr Adler, your California seat was not stolen at all. Wasted Time R 23:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I should add that there had indeed been a debate about whether the winner-take-all rule ("unit rule") should be used in the party in general, when the Democratic Reform Committee (chaired by McGovern) met in 1969, having been authorized to do so at the end of the chaotic 1968 convention. Many former Eugene McCarthy supporters wanted to abolish the winner-take-all rule everywhere, since his candidacy against LBJ and later RFK had been hurt by it, but in the end due to the influence of Californian and eventual McGovern supporter Fred Dutton, winner-take-all was abolished for state convention states and caucus states but left in for primary states that wanted it, subject to states being non-forcingly "urged" to give consideration to minority representation in their delegations, and to winner-take-all possibly being abolished in some future-beyond-1972 year (all of this on White p. 26). So whatever the merits of winner-take-all in some states, it had been established in 1969 with the influence of a McGovern person, and the McGovern committee never abolished it, as you erroneously claimed above. Wasted Time R 23:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm Adler, re-reading your remarks above it's possible that you weren't from California at all, but from some other delegation that lost its seat. White p. 172 describes a challenge to the South Carolina delegation by the Woman's Caucus, on the grounds of too few women; the McGovern team deliberately lost this challenge as part of a famous parliamentary gambit (p. 179 - 184). There were also black caucus challenges on Alabama and Georgia which were "compromised and swept from the agenda."

Then there was Illinois. Here, you would be right. Partly as revenge for the Credentials Committee action on California the day before (p. 173), the McGovern supporters in the Committee were able to get the Mayor Daley-led Illinois delegation, elected in a primary, thrown out on the grounds of insufficient minorities/women, and replaced by an alternate reform delegation that had the proper balance but hadn't been elected by anybody (and some had lost in the primary). (The result went the other way from the California result due to intracacies of who could vote on delegate challenges in the committee.) On p. 174-175, White points out the wrongness of this move, and concludes:

"But no appeals to reason would prevail ... The [Anybody but McGovern] coalition had brutalized McGovern on California and had voted absurdlity on Thursday night. On Friday, virtue outraged, the McGovern people turned and brutalized the Illinois delegation."

White does say (p. 174 and 175) that top McGovern aide Frank Mankiewicz tried to prevent this action, on the grounds that kicking Daley out of the convention would risk losing Illinois in November and do damage in general. But the McGovern supporters wouldn't listen; what McGovern himself thought isn't said. Unlike California, the original Illinois slate was not restored in the convention proper (p. 255), and McGovern had to work to get Daley to support him, which he eventually did.

So, if you were an original Illinois delegate, yes you did get screwed, but after an attempted screwing in the other direction, and more by McGovern supporters than McGovern himself. Wasted Time R 00:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

--

Scott Adler responds:

Yes California law mandated a winner-takes-all primary, but the national party's rules trumped that law, and McGovern wrote those rules. I spent hundreds of hours working for a candidate that didn't stand a chance in hell of acheiving a plurality -- None of us expected the winner-take-all law to be inforced. Trust me, we would never have stayed in the race because our presence helped guarantee McGovern's plurality -- but between the primary and the convention, it all changed.

White contradicts you on both these points. As I stated above, on p. 26 he describes how the Reform Commission left winner-take-all primaries in for 1972, due to the influence of "Fred Dutton, one of the most persuasive reformers on the commission, [who] was, however, a Californian—he cherished his state's tradition, custom, and power. Under his influence, the commission was persuaded that winner-take-all should be outlawed in caucus-and-convention states, but not in primary states—of which California was, incomparably, the most important."

Then, on pp. 128-129, White describes how Humphrey was well behind McGovern in delegates (311 to 560) going into the California primary, and knew he needed to win its 271 delegates to have a chance at the nomination: "'California is the ballgame,' said Humphrey flatly, when asked what his chances were." So Humphrey at least was happy that California would be winner-take-all, and certainly at that time expected the winner-take-all law to be enforced; White says he ran an effective campaign against McGovern and only lost by 5 points of getting all those delegates. I don't know if you were working for Humphrey or somebody else ... Scoop Jackson? But nothing in White's account supports your notion that California was perceived to be proportional at the time. If you have a reference that indicates that it was, please let us know. Wasted Time R 11:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read Teddy White's account in 30 years. You may be right about his account. But I'm glad that he is now among the references.

I'm also glad that the entry now states that McGovern wrote the rules that ensured his own victory, but it was hardly necessary for the Republicans to "paint" McGovern as antything -- he was very good at painting himself -- one thousand percent.

You make it seem like McGovern wrote the rules himself as part of some secret action to guarantee the nomination to himself. Not so; White pp. 22-23 describes the Reform Commission membership proper as balanced between the old guard and new guard in the Dem party, but members slacked off and the commission staff who did all the work were full of ex-Eugene McCarthy and RFK supporters who wanted to open the party up. Only later did some/many of these staff join the McGovern campaign. And McGovern was still a dark horse as 1972 began; Ed Muskie was considered the favorite, before he self-destructed. And none of the rules "ensured" anybody of anything! Candidates still had to win primaries and win delegates, which McGovern did better than any of the other candidates. Wasted Time R 11:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

My father was a prominent McGovern supporter, and believed that he would have an important position in a McGovern White House. Yet throughout the campaign for the nomination, I asked him, over and over again, "Do you really think that McGovern has any chance of winning in November?" The answer was always the same. "That's not the point."

Precisely. It was never the point, which is why Nixon won in 1972.

Whether McGovern could have possibly beaten Nixon had the campaign gone better is speculation. But even if he couldn't have, that doesn't make him a "horrible man", nor does it make Walter Mondale or Barry Goldwater or Alf Landon horrible men. Wasted Time R 11:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Archive Horrible Talk

I propose to archive all of the above because

1. Repeated weakly sourced descriptions of a named living person as a horrible man contravenes Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy (which might not have been in effect at the time of the contributions)
2. It's an old discussion of little relevance to the article; in particular the questions of California's winner-take-all rules (which I recall VERY well) is not controversial as to what DID happen; and what SHOULD happen is not proper subject matter for this biographical article
3. You'll still be able to access the discussion on the archive page, linked to from this talk page, so there's no loss of information

Speak up if you think this should not be done; otherwise I'll proceed after a decent interval. rewinn 04:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You know...I was just visting this page for the first time...and whoever the chickensh*t was (I can't figure it out...it's late) that repeatedly called McGovern a "horrible man" has to be one of the most clueless people to ever walk this planet - there's a job waiting for you in Dick Cheney's office, or maybe G. Gordon Liddy's. Absolutely unbelievable.Tvccs 05:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC) And my congratulations to Wasted Time for his/her work on this page, and to the other sane contributors.

Further reading and references

It's a shame there's so much further reading and yet so little references (zero, until I chucked in Bill Clinton's autobiography, which I'm still reading). Can anyone confirm that the further reading books describe the incidents in this article so we can cite them as references? Johnleemk | Talk 18:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've combined the two sections and called it "References and further reading". Given that most of this article, like most of Wikipedia, doesn't do item-by-item footnoting, the distinction between the two sections is blurred. I've used the Ambrose and White books for material included in this article, and I've read the Thompson book; I suspect the others are reasonably consistent with the article as well. Wasted Time R 19:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Birthplace

Why delete the name of the town (Avon, South Dakota) that he was born in? TMS63112 22:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Dunno. I've restored that and also added Mitchell, South Dakota where he was also raised. Wasted Time R 00:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Legacy section needs much more development and a separate section

I made a few changes here, and some adds, especially on the Multimedia side, but the McGovern legacy section needs far more work and a separate section than the tiny one here. I hope to get back to it as well Tvccs 06:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

From the following part:

He remains a symbol of the political left during the turbulent 1960s and early 1970s when the country was torn by U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and the corruption and abuse of power of the Nixon Administration.

I removed the sentence "the corruption and abuse of power of the Nixon Administration" and replaced it with "the Nixon administration's policies" [1]. Mainly because it makes the chronology of what happened a little blurry, Nixon of course was caught in WaterGate after the '72 campaign so it can't be said that this was on the minds of people during this period (or else Nixon wouldn't have been elected in '72) but I don't think this is made clear in the sentence. Also, if it is returned back in some form to make this clear, I think that the wording of it has to be changed aswell to words that sound less politically charged.--Jersey Devil 04:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the following contribution [2] because it was unsourced just stating that Karl Rove was "reportedly" involved in Watergate. If this information is to be included it definately needs to be sourced. I also removed references to "dirty tricks" in that section because of the way it sounds to the reader and replaced it with "illegal tactics".--Jersey Devil 13:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits - the adds on dirty tricks and Karl Rove are well documented in multiple sources including the Wikipedia pages on each. Again, read the Wikipedia article on dirty tricks, and there are dozens of other historical sources. The article you reverted stated Karl Rove was involved in dirty tricks during the 1972 presidential campaign, which he was and is documented in many sources including Wikipedia, it never stated, and there is no evidence to suggest, that he was specifically involved in Watergate. Watergate was simply the ultimate of many dirty tricks carried out by many people on behalf of Richard Nixon. Tvccs 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: Landslide loss

"McGovern was viewed as too liberal by much of the electorate." -- What is the proof or citation for this? In general, determining the states of mind of `the electorate' is a pretty tricky affair. I would suggest an edit of this entire section that sticks simply to statement of the fact of the landslide loss, rather than POV intimations that cannot be proven. MarkWayne 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this, removing the POV statement: "McGovern was viewed as too liberal by much of the electorate." And making some minor edits to syntax. MarkWayne 15:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

his wife

how was he married to his wife before he was born?--71.62.4.205 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Biased or Objective?

Mr. McGovern's wiki page seems to be a fan appreciation site. Shouldn't there be a little less bias and more objectivity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.197.6 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Nytimes1972electionpage.jpg

File:Nytimes1972electionpage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

In the electoral history section a "Paul Bryant" is mentioned receiving votes in the 1968 Democratic convention. Was this Bear Bryant or a minor politician sharing the name? Asking for disambiguation reasonsDimadick (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed Bear Bryant; this has been fixed in Electoral history of George McGovern, where that tally now resides. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

McGovern hosted SNL AFTER he dropped out

I know some of you Wikipedia oafs love to delete my edits, but please don't delete this edit. I watched the episode of SNL when McGovern hosted, and he talked about him dropping the week earlier, and his poor primaries. Though I care little of his character and (according to the man making all these claims) that he could be a demon in disguise, I feel the creators of this article should get things right. Don't delete this edit, because it makes sense. McGovern dropped out a week before hosting SNL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooman456 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just added a citation and link for the Saturday Night Live appearance in 1984. However, I am not sure the appearance is notable enough to be included in the article.

I will leave this up a few days, but if there is no objection, I will remove the SNL appearance from the article as it does not seem to be notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justus R (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambassador

"He was appointed United Nations Ambassador on World Hunger in 2001." What do these ambassadors on World Hunger actually do, considering being dead for twenty years is no objection to being appointed as one? Classical geographer (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I just made some changes, and don't undo it! Someone is un-doing my work Gautam ^Discuss 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent activities is Trivia

I tagged the "Recent activities" section with a trivia tag because it appears to be an attempt to document every media appearance or mention of McGovern. Much of this should be trimmed out altogether, although some could be integrated and synthesized into a more coherent narrative than its current patchwork. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this include his current spokesmanship for EmployeeFreedom.org? Tomer^talk 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

1972 Primary Process

Reverted unsourced reference to "popular vote". Also, citation of a rule that would make the "popular vote" in the primaries relevant would be required to include it.

As a matter of fact, popular vote in the primaries has not been a talking point until the 2008 nominating process when it was brought up as a measure of total support when Clinton was losing the delegate race. Please discuss its inclusion here if you still believe it is relevant. Justus R (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

are we sure this man is dead?

i searched google news and i cannot see any reference to him dying in china, or at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.139.47.125 (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Trivia

This is just a note in support of the deletion of minutia that Steven J Anderson did overnight. If anyone thinks those items should be retained, please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justus R (talk • contribs) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC) (oops! - forgot to sign it.) Justus R (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This was the material taken out at the time. But it's a persistent problem, with 'recent activites' and 'in popular culture' material continually being added. I'll figure out something when my large scale expansion/rewrite gets up to there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1972 new-WPA proposal?

During the campaign in 1972 I somehow got the idea that he was talking about a new WPA. Since that time, I've been citing that as precedent for some ideas I've had more recently, such as my proposal for an InterNet-WPA. But today when I went to this WikiPedia article to find mention of it, so that I could link from my proposal to that section of this article, I couldn't find that. All I could find was a minimum income for everyone, which seems to be a welfare handout rather than guaranteed employer of last resort. So did I get the wrong idea way back in 1972, and all these years I've been repeating the mistake, until today when I got corrected? Or did McGovern really talk about a new WPA during the 1972 campaign but it wasn't pushed as high priority so it slipped the mind of people writing the WikiPedia article?

198.144.192.42 (talk) Robert Maas, tinyurl.com/uh3t for contact info —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

New picture

I recommend someone find a new picture for the article. I don't think a black and white photo of a man who is still alive is the best we can do (or up to date...).--74.243.24.177 (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

school-feeding

"In 2008, he and Senator Bob Dole were named the 2008 World Food Prize Laureates for their work to promote school-feeding programs globally."

I've heard of programs to feed kids. I've never heard of someone feeding an actual school! A misplaced hypen perhaps? I vote to replace with "in-school food programs" --LeedsKing (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Electoral history as separate article

I think similar to other prominent political figures, he deserves his own separate section. I'm guessing wasted will chim in here and disagree but let's see what happens...--Levineps (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I agree. He had a long Congressional career and involvement in several presidential campaigns, and to keep the full list in the main article would constitute excessive presentation of reference material. The hide/show box currently being used is not an appropriate vehicle to deal with the section, because it means the content doesn't appear during printing and in other contexts. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Accidental bombing

The recently added accidental bombing story sources from a blog, Liverputty, hardly a reliable source. This is fixable though. The blog appears to be citing a non-fiction work, Stephen Ambrose's The Wild Blue. Could someone figure out sufficient detail on this citation and replace it with a properly filled out cite tag? Blogs as references hurts the credibility of the article. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've upgraded the cite to where it occurs in The Wild Blue. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Canada years

George McGovern's family moved from Toronto Canada to South Dakota where George was born. They then moved Calgary for several years before returning to the US. <ref>CBC radio interview with George McGovern 26 July 2009</ref>early life [15:56, July 26, 2009 Jgpenny – from article space and edit summary]

I heard that interview (http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/) and Mr. McGovern indeed spoke of having lived in Toronto and Calgary for some of his youth and of memories of things like going to the Calgary Stampede and the Hudson's Bay Store. I have contacted Mr. McGovern (at his MySpace page, who knows how often that gets checked) to clarify. Mr. McGovern's father was a minister, so it is very plausible that the family may have moved around for that work. [02:26, July 27, 2009 Imarsman – from article space comment]

My apologies for being too skeptical on this – many McGovern bio pieces never mention his early years in Canada. The Ambrose The Wild Blue book p. 29 does confirm that the family was living in Canada in 1927, and returned to the U.S. by moving to Mitchell in 1928. I've listened to the CBC Radio One show and he says that his mother was born in Toronto. Then he says that the family moved west to Calgary, by which I think he means his mother's family, but it could also mean his parents and possibly his older sister before he was born. This needs clarification. Then he says that when he was about three, he and his family moved to Calgary for a few years. His Canada years are now included in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Now What?

What does he do now? Is he still just an ambassador to the UN? It seems below him for what he was before? I don't think many people know who he is now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

McGovern parents and TR

[copied from user talk space]

While McGovern may very well have characterized Theodore Roosevelt as a "conservative Republican" in a CBC interview, he apparently wasn't then (or maybe now) a student of TR. All of the major biographers of TR (from Edmund Morris to H.W. Brands & Nathan Miller to name but a few) describe him as a progressive. In fact, in his day he was (except on a few issues like defense) quite out of step with the rest of his party. Even Wikipedia's own page on TR uses the descriptive term progressive 25 times versus 3 uses of conservative (which weren't used to describe him). My suggestion is that this sentence about his parent's views be removed or given additional context. Thanks. SBmeier (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)SBmeier

McGovern's not saying TR was a conservative Republican. He's saying his parents were conservative Republicans, and then he's further qualifying that by saying they were of the TR mold, presumably meaning they shared some of TR's outlook (compared to, say, Hoover's or Goldwater's or Reagan's outlooks – McGovern is saying this in the 2000s). All that said, I'll try to consult some McGovern biographies to see if I can get a fuller depiction of his parents' political sympathies. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but I rather think he is making a statement by the choice of "conservative" when simply Republican would have been fine or progressive Republican even more appropriate. In any event, appreciate your relooking this. SBmeier (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)SBmeier

I haven't been able to access the Anson biography yet due to library issues, but will in a few days. The Ambrose book didn't have anything on this, nor did several contemporary campaign accounts. The Miroff book says McGovern's parents "were Republican in an overwhelmingly Republican state, but not politically active or doctrinaire." I've changed the article text to use this description and removed mention of TR. I'll further adjust this based on the Anson bio if necessary. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Have since read Anson (the library was innocent, I looked on the wrong shelf). He says McGovern's father viewed Democrats as the devil and Republicans as saints, but that he also came to view FDR with grudging respect for his economic recovery efforts (although didn't vote for him). I tweaked my previous change a bit to reflect some of this. Still no sign of TR, perhaps that's in McGovern's Grassroots autobio, or maybe it's a recent insight/invention of his. In any case, I don't want to make too much of his parent's partisan beliefs, especially since it's clear from all sources that McGovern's father's values system was primarily based around religion, not politics. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

death

Is "non-responsive" the same as death? If not, then George McGovern is not dead yet and there should not be a death date on his page. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This may be related. Apparently a technical error had a prepared article prematurely linked on a newspaper website. They state the error has since been fixed. http://www.argusleader.com/article/20121018/UPDATES/121018014/Technical-error-mistakenly-announces-McGovern-s-death Veriss (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

marginal photographs

A number of the photographs in this article, particularly near the beginning, have only marginal (at best) relation to the subject. A fairly modern (2000) photo of a tourist attraction in a town where he lived as a child (1928), a bomber plane that wasn't even in his unit—these don't really relate, take up space, and seem to be included gratuitously, simply because they are available. Agree? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, unless you have better choices. There are not that many images in this article for as long as it is. Veriss (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree also. As you know, WP has an unrelentingly restrictive image policy. Accordingly, there are no pictures of McGovern before the 1960s, when he was already in Congress or a member of the Kennedy administration. So we can either leave the first three sections of the article without images, or we can use some that visually convey what the text is talking about. I chose the latter approach. The picture of the B-24 is very similar to what McGovern would have been flying - same aircraft type, same base of Italy, one of his targets of Germany, and same time period in the war. That's definitely useful to include, and other articles do similar things. The photo of the Corn Palace shows the most distinctive thing about McGovern's hometown; I picked the most muted one, so that it wouldn't be jarring against the black-and-white images. The photo of the Dust Bowl is from a nearby location and is meant to illustrate to readers what it looked like, and gives a more visceral understanding of McGovern's political philosophies that emerged partly as a result. Like Veriss said, if you come up with additional choices, such as pre-1923 copyright photo of Mitchell or a government-taken photo of McGovern from World War II, by all means bring them forward. But until then, I think the article is better served by these photos being included than excluded. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Loath as I am to succumb to the USA Today approach to encyclopedia composition, I note that, for example, this picture (File:Mitchell Corn Palace in 1907.jpg) of the Corn Palace, from 1907, is a lot closer in time to 1928 than the 2000 picture is. No great problem with dust bowl picture, but I do think the bomber is a bit of a stretch. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The bomber is the one closest to the McGovern's time and place of any of these. I considered the Corn Palace 1907 one but was deterred by the Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century. Also it was rebuilt in 1921, will look for one of that vintage. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:George McGovern/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Review

Feel free to tag things  Done or  Not done as required, ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

1. "600‑person" Could this be removed, unless there is some reason why it should stay? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
   • It is there because McGovern's growing up in small-town, rural America was a key part of his background and psychological makeup, one that book and news stories often mention. So I wanted to give the populations of these towns back then (as opposed to now, which is what readers would get by clicking through).
2. " moved to Calgary" Change to Calrgary, Canada? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
   • I've changed it to Calgary, Alberta, since earlier in the sentence there is already a reference to Canada.
3. " a community of 12,000" Remove please ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
   • Same response as above.
4. "unapproved behavior" What does this mean? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
   • Something that authority figures (parents, school, church) would not approve of. I've changed it to "reproachable" which hopefully gets this across.
5. "out of action for two months" Too colloquial ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
   • Changed to "unable to come to his office for two months" since he did do some work from his sick bed.

Thats all for now. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking on the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Review pt.2

Is on its way. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 03:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Is here!

1. "may well have saved his chances" Is a bit too colloquial, can you rewrite? ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 04:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
   • Changed to "may have preserved his chance of winning".
2. "1967 his ADA senate score was 92"What does this mean? ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 04:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
   • Changed to "through 1967 he had voted in accordance with the rated positions of the ADA 92 percent of the time". The ADA acronym is introduced earlier in the "U.S. House of Representatives" section.
3. "Meanwhile the Washington, D.C., resident was paying tuition for his own daughter to attend Bethesda, Maryland, public schools, which were only 3 percent black" What does this mean?
   • Improved the source to be more contemporaneous and rewritten to be clearer: "A 1971 60 Minutes report by Mike Wallace, about liberal politicians and journalists advocating integrated schooling but avoiding it for their children, included McGovern. It detailed the senator's support of desegregation busing even while the Washington, D.C., resident was paying non-resident tuition for his own daughter to attend Bethesda, Maryland, public schools, which were only 3 percent black. McGovern responded that where he sent his children to school was a private matter.[142]" Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
4. "by a more than two-to-one" Spelling, ★★King•Retrolord★★ 03:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
   • Now fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still going over this article, it is quite the read. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 03:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria 3b

This article is very, very long and very, very detailed. The criteria states that the article should stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". That is my problem with this article. While the article's prose is undoubtedly of high quality, there is simply too much. Would you be able to engage in some (aggressive) trimming of the article? And by that, I mean cutting it down by 10-15%. Is this possible? ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 04:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ran out of time this morning, will address this tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not make any aggressive reductions to the article, but it's a fair question, so let me explain my view. McGovern had a very long, important career with several significant aspects. He's not just a losing presidential nominee and a symbol for a liberal ideology - which is what most people remember him as and what he is often caricatured as - but also was an otherwise very successful politician in what would now be called a "red" state, and also someone who helped lead a movement against a controversial war, and also someone whose actions changed the way presidential politics are run, and someone who made a huge difference in the fights against hunger and poor nutrition. The article goes into a certain level of detail about all of these, and thus yes it will tend to be on the long side.

But not that long in context; it's roughly the same length as the articles on other well-known presidential losers such as Ted Kennedy, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Mitt Romney (one of which is FA and the other two are GA). And that's just politicians - this article is only modestly longer than the GA one on Taylor Swift, and she's only 23 years old! Well, that's Wikipedia for you; the norm has been towards longer articles in general. Note that "real" authors have treated McGovern at length; there's one biography of him up through 1971, several books have been written about his 1972 presidential campaign, one whole book was written about his little-known 1984 presidential campaign, and the first biography to cover his whole life is coming out starting next year and will be a two-volume work.

And the reader's interest is, I think, well-served by the structure of a Wikipedia article. No one has to read the whole thing top to bottom in one sitting. Some readers will only the look at the lead and that's fine; it gives a good summary of McGovern's accomplishments, successes and failures. Some readers will be interested in a certain part of his life - his efforts against hunger, or the Eagleton debacle, or his WWII experiences, or whatever - and can click to that part and later read or skim other parts. Some readers will read through some of the article at one time, go away and do something else, then come back to it at a different time (just like a library book, only there's no due date for return). Some readers will be interested in the Notes that give further explanations while many readers will ignore them. And so forth. But one thing no reader can see is something isn't in the article at all. And this is especially a concern for articles about controversial figures - readers will think "This article didn't mention X - it must be biased!" I've been working on political biographies here for eight years now and I've come to the firm conclusion that it's best to include all things of significance, good bad or in between, meaning that every reader gets to "see" the part of the person they think they know, but then also find out about parts they didn't know.

So anyway, for all these reasons I think the length of the article is appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

New reviewer

Retrolord has been indefinitely blocked, but I can finish this one up. I should have my comments posted in the next 3-7 days; sorry for the delay in your review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for taking up the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through the article at this point, and so far it looks great. I didn't know a lot about McGovern before I started, and have genuinely enjoyed reading this, which I can say of few of my reviews. It's very well written, comprehensive, and well sourced--an FA nomination seems like the logical next step. I'd love to see this one on the front page. I'll try to finish this before the end of the day, as I know I've kept you waiting on this; I appreciate your patience.

Thanks again for stepping in, and no rush on finishing it. GA nominators get to learn the value of patience :-)

The biggest issue I see here, like the previous reviewer, is the length, which I've addressed in a separate section below. However, I don't consider this a required action point for GA status, so you can feel free to disregard my comments.

Points that do seem GA-related (mostly) are listed as bullet points here:

• I've made some tweaks as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree.

So far they've generally been for the better, thanks for making them. The only one I've restored is "McGovern sought elective office himself", which to me makes for a less jolting transition from the previous section. If you feel strongly about it, however, I'm okay with removing it again.

No problem. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• "United Nations-based" -- I'm not sure this is the best phrase, since it's not really a place--maybe "UN-run" or "UN-coordinated" or some such? or just "the United Nations' World Food Programme"? (Note that this phrase occurs twice)

I've changed both to "United Nations-run".

• "less fundamental" -- should this be "less fundamentalist"? Wikilinking fundamentalist might be helpful, too.

I've changed the word. I've added a link to Methodism, which didn't have one in the text, but I'm not confident that any of our articles on fundamentalism cover the differences in the Methodist case, so I'm reluctant to link that.

• "noted historian" -- "noted" is mild peacocking per WP:PEACOCK; I'd suggest simply writing "historian" and letting the fact that his professor is wikilinked speak for itself

Academia works by "peacocking", though, and almost all sources discussing historians like these will use terms like "noted" or "distinguished". And with over four million articles, just having one isn't indication enough of an indication of importance. I'm inclined to leave this the way it is.

Okay. The peacocking policy applies primarily to an article's main subject anyway, so this probably isn't a GA issue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• " and was the superior politician," -- this is enough of an opinion to need an in-text reference to its source, I think. ("According to Tom Brokaw/Anson...")
• "possessing an acute sense of his political beliefs and the talent to articulate them" -- I'd suggest cutting this part, too; it's a bit subjective, and McGovern's thoughtfulness and articulateness are already well-established anyway.

Regarding these two points, I've gone back to the sources and rewritten the sentence as "But McGovern ran an effective campaign that showcased his political strengths of having firm beliefs and the ability to articulate them in debates and on the stump.[9][10]" I think this toning-down and refocus takes it out of opinion and into normal explanation of campaign results, which requires citing but not inline attribution (which I like to avoid unless really necessary). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• " an approach to the problem that showed "vigor, boldness, and imagination."" -- attribute to speaker

It was McGovern's quote, but that wasn't clear, and going back to the source shows that it missed was the focus of the legislation was, so I've dropped the quote and redone the sentence.

• I'd suggest removing the "U.S. Congressional opposition to American involvement in wars and interventions" navigation box; I understand why it's here, but it seems a better fit for the McGovern-Hatfield article than the article on McGovern himself. This isn't a GA issue, though.

Strictly speaking, you're right, it's a nav template which should only be in the articles so named. But I've left it in because it gives a nice historical perspective to Congressional opposition to wars and adds a graphical element of interest to a swath of the article that has no images. The same template is in a few other articles that aren't named in it, such as Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and Opposition to the Iraq War, so this isn't the only one.

No problem, then. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't a GA action point, but just wanted to say, wow, that excerpt from McGovern's Vietnam speech is epic! (in a good way) -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, and his "That's what I meant to do" line afterward. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• "However, one of the most memorable of the failings of McGovern's campaign was that" -- this interpretation, though I think pretty widespread, should be attributed to an author or authors in-text as an opinion; alternatively, you could just cut the phrase and state what happened. A third possibility is that McGovern himself stated this was his campaign's biggest turning point (happened to read this article recently), so you could attribute it to him perhaps: [3] -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've taken it out. It was put in both another editor long ago, and I've kept it in out of deference to past work, but you're right, it really doesn't belong – the failing speaks for itself.

• " caucuses states" -- should this be "caucus states"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fixed.

• "The incident was overheard and reported in the press, and became part of the legend of the campaign" This phrase is a little vague, and I'm not sure about calling his campaign a "legend", which has heroic overtones. Is the sense simply that it became a popular anecdote about the campaign? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

More that there are certain things that live on in memory about a campaign, and this is one of them. I've replaced it with "tale", which is less heroic.

• " "I don't know whether the incident won or lost me votes. It probably did both ... Some staff members frantically insisted that I issue a denial or retraction immediately. I did no such thing. I went to bed and slept soundly."" -- needs citation as a quotation

I started looking for a cite for this a while ago, and can't find one. I have a couple of books I still need to check, but for now I'm suspicious that it's a bogus quote (wouldn't be the first). I've taken it out for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• "with 53 percent of the vote" -- needs citation as a statistic -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper story now added as cite.

• "He also said then that he had favored a pardon for Nixon even before Ford had, but the public remarks McGovern made in 1974 tend to contradict that." -- this seems like it needs a citation; pointing out a contradiction in someone's remarks is probably OR otherwise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of someone else who's pointed out this contradiction, so I've removed the whole sentence. It's kind of an empty claim for him to make 30 years after the fact. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• " It was also credited with improving school attendance" -- is there any way to make this more specific? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• "He was still in this Goodwill Ambassador position as of 2011" -- clearly needs update -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Later in 2007, several events were held at Dakota Wesleyan and in Washington, D.C., to celebrate McGovern's 85th birthday and the 35th anniversary of his nomination for president. Hundreds of former staff, volunteers, supporters and friends attended, along with public officials." -- though I've closed the more general length section below, this seems trivial enough that it falls under the GA criteria about digressions; I'd suggest cutting. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure of the purpose of the three "non-sections" toward the bottom of the article. These headers seem to exist simply to point the reader to List of awards and honors received by George McGovern, George McGovern in popular culture, and Electoral history of George McGovern. Electoral history of George McGovern could probably be moved as a "see also" or "main" up to one of the article's existing sections such as "US House of Representatives". The other two could simply be moved to See also. In any case, something should be done to make them into real sections or cut them per WP:LAYOUT, which discourages sections consisting of only short paragraphs. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A few years ago this is how it was typically done, but you're right, general style has changed. I've made all three into 'See also' entries. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Level of detail

I'm collapsing this for readability; I don't mean to cut off comment if you want to respond further, but it's resolved for purposes of the review, and very long.

One issue where I agree with RetroLord's previous review is that the article seems over-comprehensive. At 79kb readable prose, this goes past the point where WP:SIZE recommends a split or spinoff for all but a few articles. It's not off-subject or tangential, but it definitely pushes the upper limits of GA criterion 3b. To put it another way, much of the detail is interesting, but there's simply so much of it that it won't be useful as an encyclopedia article for the majority of readers; it's going to take me three or four sessions to get through it as a reviewer. I do see your point many readers will still be able to find a specific moment in McGovern's life they wish to look up, but I think it's also important to have a generally accessible overview article. I'll make the bold statement that I think the ideal version of this article would be something like 35-40kb (about half the current length), with subarticles covering the more detailed version of McGovern's pre-political life, etc.; McGovern just isn't a topic with the sweep of, say, the American Civil War that needs a massive entry just to cover the basic facts. (And to put this in perspective, the Civil War article is actually shorter than this one, as are my recent reviews Nazi Germany and sea.) All that said, this seems to me just within GA requirements, which are more concerned with tangents and off-topic detail than an article that's consistently at a high level of detail on a major figure. For that reason, consider my suggestions for cuts more recommendation than requirement, so there's no need to respond at all to this section, much less to the individual suggestions for cuts below. So below I've listed some details that seem to me a level not needed for an encyclopedic summary of McGovern's life. These are only examples, and will only trim a few kb from the article, but every little bit helps, and they may give you a starting point to address this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Split-off subarticles work well for military and sea topics. For example, last month American Civil War got 302,062 views and Battle of Gettysburg got 248,892 views. Sea got 71,080 views while Marine biology got 23,568 views. There's a little dropoff in both but not much. But subarticles are a readership disaster for biographical subjects. For example, last month John McCain got 144,559 views but Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present got only 407 views. That's a 355:1 dropoff for someone who is still active and playing a major role in the Senate. Barack Obama got 468,784 views but United States Senate career of Barack Obama got only 6,676. Hillary Rodham Clinton got 123,534 views (including redirects) while United States Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton got only 1,625 views. Sarah Palin got 79,333 views while Early political career of Sarah Palin (even though full of controversial happenings) got only 537 views. These dropoffs are all generally in the 100:1 range. It's not exclusive to politicians: Isaac Newton got 250,332 views while Later life of Isaac Newton got 1,525 views. I've studied these numbers for several years and the 100:1 or worse dropoffs occur across all biographical subjects and eras. The consequence is that when you move something out of a biographical main article into a subarticle, it is tantamount to deleting it, because you know that 99 percent of readers will never see it. And especially with politicians, this provokes all sorts of editor battles with people not wanting controversial material getting taken out of the main and buried in subarticles. Furthermore, maintaining dual articles is an editorial burden - duplicate additions when something major happens or is written about, duplicate maintenance of deadlink cites, and so on. You frequently find cases where something is added to the main article but not the subarticle, which is often backwards of how it should be. So it's a lot of effort for editors and very little benefit for readers. In the case of this article, I did split off some peripheral topics into subarticles: List of awards and honors received by George McGovern, George McGovern in popular culture, and Electoral history of George McGovern. But I am really not up for splitting off anything in the main biography. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I understand what you're saying, but I'd interpret your statistics differently--as an indicator that less than 1% of Wikipedia readers seem to be interested in a very high level of detail on a subject. Those articles aren't hard to find; it's just that readers aren't interested in clicking through to get the superlong version. I don't think hitting them with the long version by default is a good response to that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Having said my bit, though, I'll stop suggesting possible cuts. This is just within the scope of GA, so it's not an issue we have to settle here. I guess I'll just leave the issue by saying that having heard from two reviewers in a row that the article is overlong and overdetailed, I hope you'll look at this again at some point and consider what parts could be better summarized. If you don't trust Retrolord's and my takes, consider getting a third reader whose opinion you do trust; it's hard sometimes to have that perspective on your own work. There's definitely middle ground between the 80kb version that's here now and the shorter version Retrolord and I are envisioning, and I think the article would be greatly strengthened by some trimming. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I don't know of any usage studies that would tell us for sure, but I believe that most users reach WP articles via search engines. A Google search for "Battle of Gettysburg" produces that WP article as the first hit. A Google search for "Senator John McCain" produces the WP John McCain main article on the first page of results, but the two subarticles on his senate career don't appear anywhere in the first ten pages of results. But let's look at this another way. If Wikipedia weren't around, people would be reading online biographies at places like biography.com. That entry is about 700 words long. And the one on John McCain, a little more recent, is about 1,600 words. And if Wikipedia weren't around and they wanted to know more, they'd have to go to the library and get a regular book biography. Those typically run 100,000-150,000 words (the trend in recent years has been towards longer, and as I mentioned earlier, the new biography about McGovern coming out next year is going to run across two volumes). Well, why not have something in the middle? The GA and FA articles that get discussed for maybe being too long are typically 10,000-15,000 words (this one is about 12,800). Well, to me, that seems like a good length. It's a tenth the size of real books but around ten times longer than the online capsule bio's. Anyway, I'll start responding to the particular items below this evening. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Details of the father's basketball career Calgary Stampede Corn Palace "where he was a solid but unspectacular member of the track team" "McGovern recalled: "Frankly, I was scared to death on that first solo flight. But when I walked away from it, I had an enormous feeling of satisfaction that I had taken the thing off the ground and landed it without tearing the wings off."" "McGovern was listening to a radio broadcast of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra for a sophomore-year music appreciation class when he heard the news of the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor." "He subsequently drove to Omaha, Nebraska, with some other students" (the city where he volunteered or who he went with isn't particularly relevant) The list of different bases he was posted seems overdetailed; I'm not sure we need the month by month summary of his postings "Eleanor McGovern followed him to these different duty stations, and was present when he received his wings and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant.[30]" "Eleanor was constantly afraid of her husband's suffering an accident while training, which claimed a huge toll of airmen during the entire war" " where McGovern found history books with which to fill downtime, especially during the trip overseas on a slow troopship" "The eight- or nine-hour missions were grueling tests of endurance for pilots and crew, and while German fighter aircraft were a diminished threat by this time as compared to earlier in the war, his missions often faced heavy anti-aircraft artillery fire that filled the sky with flak bursts" -- the threat of anti-aircraft fire will be known to almost all readers, and is made clear by the next paragraph anyway "In January 1945, McGovern used R&R time to see every sight that he could in Rome, and to participate in an audience with the Pope" "McGovern later said "Hell can't be any worse than that"" "McGovern's waist gunner was injured, and his flight engineer was so unnerved by his experience that he would subsequently be hospitalized with battle fatigue," ", with the rank of First Lieutenant" -- rank was already given "one instance of which was for the safe landing on his final mission" "with students dedicating the college yearbook to him in 1952" " When polls showed McGovern gaining, Lovre's campaign implied that McGovern's support for admitting People's Republic of China to the United Nations and his past support for Henry Wallace meant that McGovern was a Communist appeaser or sympathizer.[80] In his closing speech, McGovern responded: "I have always despised communism and every other ruthless tyranny over the mind and spirit of man."[80]" "and World War II Medal of Honor recipient " "(during this hospitalization, McGovern read Theodore H. White's classic The Making of the President, 1960 and for the first time began thinking about running for the office someday)" " Eleanor McGovern campaigned for her ailing husband and may have preserved his chance of winning." "McGovern had a fractious relationship with Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman, who was less sympathetic to farmers; McGovern's 1966 resolution to informally scold Freeman made the senator popular back in his home state.[101] Fellow new senator Edward M. Kennedy saw McGovern as a serious voice on farm policy and often sought McGovern's guidance on agriculture-related votes" ", although he would try to influence the contents of others' bills" "Seeking to dramatize the problem, in March 1969 McGovern took the committee to Immokalee, Florida, the base for 20,000 mostly black or Hispanic migrant farm workers.[137] They saw graphic examples of hunger and malnutrition firsthand, but also encountered resistance and complaints about bad publicity from local and state officials" "The U.S. presidential nominating process has been different ever since, with scholars and politicians debating whether all the changes are for the better.[134][135]" -- the first half is already clear, and the second a bit vague "McGovern declared: "This administration, which pledged to slow inflation and reduce unemployment, has instead given us the highest rate of inflation and the highest rate of unemployment in a decade."" "A 1971 60 Minutes report about liberal politicians and journalists who advocated integrated schooling while avoiding it for their children, included McGovern" "But most of all, McGovern was known for his continued opposition to the Vietnam War." -- already clear ", just short of what McGovern had hoped would constitute at least a moral victory" "McGovern believed Vietnam an immoral war that was destroying much of what was pure, hopeful, and different about America's character as a nation" -- obvious enough already "He accused Vice President of South Vietnam Nguyen Cao Ky of running a heroin trafficking operation that was addicting American soldiers." "In a retort to the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee chair John Stennis' suggestion that U.S. troops might have to return to Cambodia, McGovern declared, "I'm tired of old men dreaming up wars for young men to fight. If he wants to use American ground troops in Cambodia, let him lead the charge himself."" -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Overall, this article is solid, excellent work, and close to passing. Specific action points are listed above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent throughout.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The three short or no-text sections in the article are a minor layout issue.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Referencing is excellent.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	One stat and one quote need citation, but on the whole the article is marvelously researched and sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	the "contradictions" part, above, needs citation or removal
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The research on this one is terrific.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article seems at times overdetailed (a South Dakota attraction McGovern liked as a kid, the reasons his father quit baseball, repetitive or self-evident statements about his military service [particularly the comprehensive list of postings], who came to his 85th and 90th birthdays, etc.). As the previous reviewer also pointed out, it would clearly benefit from some judicious cutting. McGovern's a major figure, though, and none of the detail seems to unbalance the article in a particular direction. I'd recommend future work on this, but I think it squeaks by on this criterion.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--One or two small points remain above that you might look at, as well as the broader issue of length, but in my judgement this now meets the GA criteria. Congratulations!

Thanks again for your work on this major figure! I'm excited to have worked on this one, and to see it as a GA soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sargent Shriver and Watergate

Sargent Shriver was George McGovern's final running mate, therefore Shriver should be included in the template. Also, McGovern was the target of the Watergate scandal, therefore IT TOO should remain in the template. Leave it alone.--24.186.96.236 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not every single thing related to McGovern needs to be in the template. Also, demanding that we "leave it alone" is not how this project works. Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. - MrX 00:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hyperlinks to children

The one to Ann links to an author who clearly isn't GM's daughter. The one to Theresa just links to this article and so is probably unnecessary. I think I'll take some bold action and remove those. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Right you are. I've removed these links as part of some other changes I was making. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on George McGovern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dailysplice.com/directory/CBC-Radio-The-Sunday-Edition-podcast/episode-433682
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927174718/http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0605004 to http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0605004
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212064553/http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1971/12295509436546-1/#title to http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1971/12295509436546-1/#title
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218061205/http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=355047 to http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=355047
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514005534/http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/jan/30/00012/ to http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/jan/30/00012/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728183230/http://usa.wfp.org/about/board-directors to http://usa.wfp.org/about/board-directors
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705125203/http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/FoodAid/FFE/FFE.asp to http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/FoodAid/FFE/FFE.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304144320/http://www.ofwlaw.com/CM/AttorneyBios/GeorgeMcGovern.asp to http://www.ofwlaw.com/CM/AttorneyBios/GeorgeMcGovern.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050908125255/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/conversation/july-dec01/wildblue_8-16.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/conversation/july-dec01/wildblue_8-16.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403031353/http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jan/25/eleanor_mcgovern_wife_former_sen_george_mcgovern_d/ to http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jan/25/eleanor_mcgovern_wife_former_sen_george_mcgovern_d/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/george-mcgoverns-90th-birthday-party-celebrates-old-fashioned-liberal-thank-you-for-being-born/2012/07/22/gJQACtp02W_blog.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023213231/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/chi-former-us-sen-george-mcgovern-dead-at-90-20121021,0,151594.story to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-former-us-sen-george-mcgovern-dead-at-90-20121021,0,151594.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115124928/http://www.c-span.org/Events/Funeral-Service-For-Former-Sen-George-McGovern-D-SD/10737435330/ to http://www.c-span.org/Events/Funeral-Service-For-Former-Sen-George-McGovern-D-SD/10737435330/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518165541/http://amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/12/00016/ to http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/12/00016/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705125203/http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/FoodAid/FFE/FFE.asp to http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/FoodAid/FFE/FFE.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714060350/http://www.mcgoverncenter.com/museum.htm to http://www.mcgoverncenter.com/museum.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629141156/http://www.dwu.edu/library/ to http://www.dwu.edu/library/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510040255/http://www.dwu.edu/library/Archives/mcgovern.htm to http://www.dwu.edu/library/Archives/mcgovern.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

New book

New book, may be of interest for improving the article: The Rise of a Prairie Statesman: The Life and Times of George McGovern by Thomas J. Knock, 2016, Princeton University Press/ Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of it, but haven't had a chance yet to read it or incorporate material from it here. It's on my list. Note however that two earlier, lengthy published essays by Knock are used as sources here in a number of places, as is a finding from the new book that achieved advanced public attention a while back. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

67.173.23.66 (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 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. Elizium23 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

For the succession boxes at the bottom of the article, replace this:

with this:

The difference is in which election articles are linked in the table.67.173.23.66 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've now done this, I think. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The link to the 1960 senate election still needs to be changed.2601:241:300:B610:E93F:DCA5:A0F2:91B0 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Now done. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)