This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terry McAuliffe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Virginia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state): Syracuse Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syracuse, New York, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

@ Toa Nidhiki05: It may have been written, but that doesn't make it due weight for the Wikipedia article, or for this section. First, the source of the criticism was "Victoria Cobb, an anti-abortion activist who is president of The Family Foundation in Virginia; John Fredericks, a conservative radio talk show host; and several conservative websites." — not really sourced to PolitiFact, though they did dogpile on it. Second, the events took place in 2019 when McAullife wasn't even in office and likely had no access to the bill, wasn't briefed on it, nor was involved in it (neither politically or activist-wise). It is not unusual for anyone to change their mind about a bill when they later discover more information about it, as was mentioned in the PolitiFact article.

The language that I removed from the WP article ("In 2019, according to PolitiFact, McAuliffe made a "full flop" on late-term abortions, initially opposing a bill to deregulate them in February before supporting the same bill in April.") misleads the reader to believe that McAuliffe was part of the legislative process on this bill. He was not! Given these facts, the current content on the matter is WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be in this article. Platonk ( talk) 16:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

It’s notable and important because it clarifies his stance on abortion now compared to what it was. I honestly don’t get your complaint. Toa Nidhiki05 18:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Toa Nidhiki05: It clarifies nothing; McAuliffe didn't change his opinion on the subject of abortion. If you 'don't get my complaint', then please start by re-reading the Politifact article. The point is primarily that the PF article is about a complaint by pro-lifers about an incident that occurred while the 'Governor' was not a governor, likely had no access to briefings about that bill, was asked about it (twice) and appeared to flip flop on an issue he was not directly involved in. Anyone can ask anyone about their opinion on two different days, months apart, and likely get a 'flip flop' of that opinion. It also depends on how you 'frame' the question(s). McAuliffe has repeatedly stated his stance on abortion. This alleged flip flop on a particular bill he was not involved in is irrelevant to his position. Okay, let me get down to brass tacks.

• In the first instance, McAuliffe was questioned, framing the question as 'for or against infanticide': "Absolutely not," McAuliffe said. "And I think Ralph (Northam) misspoke on that. No Democrat I know is for infanticide, none, none. I just don't know of anyone who is for it."
• In the second instance, McAuliffe indicated he had learned more about the bill: He said the purpose of the bill was to save pregnant women facing life-threatening circumstances in rural areas where it’s hard to find one doctor - let alone three - to approve a third-trimester abortion.

Both positions are consistent with McAuliffe's position on abortion, and do not represent a flip-flop. Therefore the inclusion of the content, particularly because of the way it was worded, is UNDUE (not to mention skirting the edge of BLP violations). Platonk ( talk) 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

You left out "I would not have vetoed the bill," McAuliffe replied. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 18:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The crux of the article indicates that he states that he said he would "absolutely not" support the bill, and then later said "I would not have vetoed the bill," McAuliffe replied. "And listen, I have not read the whole bill, John, but from what I read in the newspaper, if the one thing in the bill was to go from three to one (doctors) to help with rural communities…I would support that. Sure I would.". -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Right, that highlights my point: "And listen, I have not read the whole bill..." Answering different questions two months apart does not make a flip flop, except when someone twists it to seem so. The man's viewpoint on abortion rights hasn't changed. If you want to mention flip flops, then do it in another section on consistency. On the subject of abortion, the article currently says "McAuliffe has been a consistent supporter of abortion rights", and the PF article doesn't change that. Therefore inserting the PF article stuff is UNDUE — "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all...". Platonk ( talk) 19:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Also, the definition of ' flip-flopping' (verb) is "To alternate back and forth between directly opposite opinions, ideas, or decisions." What the PF article described was a single change of viewpoint (on a very narrow topic); with no alternating back and forth. Platonk ( talk) 20:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

From my experience with Politifact, Yes, they are a "reliable" source according to Wikipedia's WP:RSP, but the information they post can be very misleading. I usually motion to remove anything from Politifact because they lack WP:DUEWEIGHT in giving all sides of the story. As you can see here with this incident. If it does end up being included, it should be worded quite carefully to let the readers know when McAuliffe was in office. Eruditess ( talk) 21:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

(Morrissey and the receptionist later married, and had three children.)

I'd like to just be WP:BOLD and remove this poorly formatted, bizarre aside / vague apologism for statutory rape, but I'm sure that as with any vaguely political content that might be a cause for contention (and with recent events invested editors are no doubt keeping a watchful eye on the article) so I'm just going to bring it up here. It makes sense to bring up when discussing the incident in Morrissey's article, but just reads as a tragically misguided "gotcha, it wasn't actually that bad!" here.  Aar   ►  14:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

". In election exit polls, more than 8 in 10 voters said parents should have at least some input into what schools teach; McAuliffe won with this group of voters..." If this were true, he would have won the election (8 in 10 voters). This makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.251.64 ( talk) 16:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply