Talk:John McCain/Archive 14

Graduation rank

The article (like most of the inter tubes) claims that McCain graduated 894th of 899. The sources, however, say only "fifth from the bottom". Now, wouldn't this make him 895th? (Count on your fingers if you need; I haven't been able to find any mention of this phenomenon in articles like ordinal number except perhaps a mention at zero.) --Kalupinka (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For a source, see this excerpt from the Timberg biography. Clearly states 899 students, McCain ranked 894. The counting is done 899 bottom, 898 next to (or first from) the bottom, 897 second from the bottom, 896 third from, 895 fourth from, 894 fifth from the bottom. Timberg uses that exact phrase, "fifth from the bottom". McCain uses the same phrase as a chapter title in his memoir. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not being a native speaker of English, I was not aware of this way of counting; I am used to "second from the bottom" (or "the end", actually) being the second you count starting with the bottommost, in symetry with going from the top. Thanks.
I didn't know of this excerpt (shouldn't the reference include a link to it?) and all reliable sources I found used just the "fifth from the bottom" form and not the absolute rank. --Kalupinka (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add to the biography: Education: U.S. Naval Academy, BS 1958 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkunesh (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Our infoboxes just show "Alma Mater", and the Naval Academy is so named here. They don't list degree or year. Our text gives the year, and Early life and military career of John McCain – which you should read if you are interested in his Annapolis days – gives the degree. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S. citizenship and the Presidency

John McCain may not be qualified to run for the Presidency. See this. All significant views should be represented in this article per NPOV.

• Gabriel J. Chin, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship" July 9, 2008 Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No 08-14
• Liptak, Adam. “A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue”, The New York Times (2008-07-11).

See John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility for details. A brief mention in this article will satisfy NPOV. QuackGuru 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This has come up a number of times here in WP over the past year. It's basically a question of weighting. While McCain's eligibility is an interesting legal theory exercise, in practice both the legal establishment and the political establishment have concluded he's completely eligible. If he wins the election, he's going to become president, no ifs ands or buts. In all the blather about the campaign that you watch on the news, for example, no one blathers about this. So plonking this into the first section of this article, like you want, really gives it more emphasis and attention than it deserves. Making it a section in the middle of the separate campaign article seems about the right level of attention to give it. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

... Belated correction to what I wrote, this matter obviously is included in the main article (midway through the campaign section), just as it is in the campaign article itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This article presently says: "If he wins the presidency, John McCain's birth (in Panama) would be the first presidential birth outside the current 50 states. A bipartisan legal review[206] as well as a unanimous Senate resolution[207] indicate that he is nevertheless a natural-born citizen of the United States, which is a constitutional requirement to become president, although the matter is still a subject of some legal controversy.[208]" That's more than enough.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has instructed Wikipedia to follow, not lead. So we may think there could be a legal controversy but we must either report a WP:RS saying there is or wait until McCain gets sued by Obama to prevent him from taking office. The point will probably be moot as Obama will be the next President. McCain is a long shot. If you want to be an Ambassador, donate some money to Obama, not McCain. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1D81F3AF93BA35750C0A962958260

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_/ai_n15742021

903M (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't McCain Born in Panama, was he born on a naval base or in a Panama hospital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.22.22 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain was born on a US military base which, by federal code, is US territory. Thousands of Americans have been born on US military bases. They have US birth certificates. --66.60.137.134 (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ya ur all leaving one thing out the law that grandfathers him in to being a u.s. citizen because he was born on a u.s. base in panama went into effect one year AFTER john mccain was born now either the lawyers havent done their research as well as i have or this will be the most fantastic and scrumptious october suprise EVER! --Redskies08 (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is funny that both Senator McCain and Senator Obama have are having their eligibility for the presidency questioned due to birthplace, what a coincidence. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.228 (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ackward statement

In the section on McCain's POW experience the following is stated... "Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973.[53]"

The "Although" is unnecessary and very ackward. Recommend removing the "Although" to read as... "McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973."--RobertGary1 (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'altogether' is because several different segments of his captivity were described previously, and this is summing up. It doesn't seem awkward to me. Or ackward either. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The user RobertGary mistook altogether for although, therefore I recommend removal of this whole paragraph. It is not use full except to illustrate, benign illiteracy.

Huge contradiction, help needed

The contradiction happens in the paragraph which mentions his "strong intelligence", I have some points here. First, a high IQ doesn't mean a high intelligence, so that part should be rephrased asap, after all, it sounds extremely POV. Second, the point that is in fact very contradictory: it is claimed that McCain's IQ is very high yet it's said that he was bad in maths. If anyone has ever done an IQ test here they can see that it measures logical-mathematical thinking more than other abilities such as verbal (which is one of its criticisms as a measurement of intelligence), so what the article basically says is the following, McCain is a very smart guy because he scored high in a test which measures mathematical abilities and then later he was awful at that subject at school. Do you see my point now? It needs complete rephrasing or removal.--Cancerbero 8 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write this stuff about intelligence, but I don't see a problem with it. It's supported by two different footnotes. Have you read the footnoted material? One of the two footnotes mentions: "McCain scored 128 and then 133 on IQ tests." That doesn't mean that the two cited sources say nothing more about his intelligence. And certainly the fact that he got those IQ scores is persuasive evidence that he was probably not a blithering idiot!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? About IQ=/=Intelligence? --Cancerbero 8 (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The mere fact that someone does not like mathematics does not mean they cannot get a high IQ score. Additionally, the notion that McCain had a strong intelligence is supported by two footnotes, rather than merely supported by an IQ score. I agree with you that an IQ test may not be a good measure of intelligence, but it is only one of a plurality of sources that this Wikipedia article is relying on.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Our description of the Stanford-Binet test says: "It features Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory as the five factors tested. Each of these factors is tested in two separate domains, verbal and nonverbal, in order to accurately assess individuals with deafness, limited English, or communication disorders. Examples of test items include verbal analogies to test Verbal Fluid Reasoning and picture absurdities to test Nonverbal Knowledge." This does not seem to be a logic-math-dominated regime, as Cancerbero 8 claims. (Indeed, I remember a lot of verbal/vocabulary content the one time I took it.) In particular, assuming the 1984 edition of the test was similar in structure, I think you could do well on this test and still do badly in college-level math and engineering courses. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, how did you do? :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be telling. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)To go to Cancerbero 8's other point, I too agree that IQ /= intelligence. But to give the full measure of this person, we can't just begin and end with his stupendously dreadful class rank. If you read the more detailed Early life and military career of John McCain article, you'll find out that he also did well in his Naval Academy entrance exams and was later a one-time champion on Jeopardy!. So these, together with the IQ scores, and however you interpret his ability to have a successful, 26-year political and legislative career, combine to tell us that 894/899 was not the full story. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When I did the Mensa IQ test it was all just about logical knowledge. I know there are other tests which also measure verbal skills, yet I believe the version I solved did not include this so that non-native English speakers such as myself could be measured in a more correct way. I'm a little curious about the tests McCain did, many professional IQ test results remain extremely confidential, meaning not even the person who solved it knows his score (for example, in the Mensa IQ test they only tell you if you are in the 98th percentile or if you're not, but no numerical score whatsoever). So if anyone knows when and why he did these tests, it could clear things up a little bit more. Perhaps they were done as a requisite in the Navy and the results were published rather than remaining as classified information. I'm not saying he's not intelligent or anything, I'm just saying that I don't like the way that part of the article was written. And just for the record, I got accepted into Mensa, so don't say I think IQ and intelligence are not the same because I'm sore or something =P --Cancerbero 8 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you're a genius-level person, try reading the talk item a few sections above this, #THE DESCRIPTION/DOCUMENTATION OF MCCAIN’S IQ TESTS IS SUSPECT., where what is known about the circumstances of the tests and why they were made public are described. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I was away from the computer these days. Do believe me, I read that! I read it when I was looking if someone had already started a discussion about his IQ and I was, in fact, going to reply there but I decided to open a new section since, after I had read it, I still had doubts and believed it hadn't completely cleared up things, at least not for me--Cancerbero 8 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All of these arguments are beside the point. Describing him as "intelligent" is subjective. Stating his scores on various tests is objective. There are many different kinds of IQ tests. 128 and 133 could be within the normal range depending on the test. Just state the tests and their scores without a subjective description. Good journalism, which hopefully includes Wikipedia, is concerned with fact and not opinion.Prayformojo (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain's Lobbyist Connections not mentioned

Though the article mentions several times that McCain vows to fight special interests and lobbyists, nowhere does it mention the numerous registered lobbyists who work or have worked on his campaign in prominent positions.PonileExpress (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This article states: "After facing criticism about lobbyists in its midst, the McCain campaign issued new rules in May to avoid conflicts of interest, causing several top staffers to leave." And readers are provided with relevant links in the footnotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, we've got a logical fallacy on our hands. In one statement above, we find that registered lobbyists worked on McCain's campaign. In the other statement, we find that some workers have left after rule changes. In none of this do we determine that all the lobbyists left, nor any of the lobbyists left, nor workers who stayed were or were not lobbyists. Any edit of this section should work to determine that. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a detailed analysis like that would belong in the sub-article, if at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The text used to read: "The McCain campaign faced criticism about lobbyists in its midst,[202] and issued new rules in May 2008 calling for campaign staff to either cut lobbying ties or leave, so as to avoid any potential conflict of interest; five top aides left.[202][203]" I thought that was clearer, but it got reduced to the current form in one of Ferrylodge's shortening purges. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's pretty concise already, and was very non-partisan IMO. I'm curious as to why it was removed. Again, I'm trying to avoid accusations of bias, so an explanation would be helpful. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)BEFORE: "The McCain campaign faced criticism about lobbyists in its midst, and issued new rules in May 2008 calling for campaign staff to either cut lobbying ties or leave, so as to avoid any potential conflict of interest; five top aides left."

AFTER: "After facing criticism about lobbyists in its midst, the McCain campaign issued new rules in May to avoid conflicts of interest, causing several top staffers to leave."

That's 41 words versus 27 words. If we want to make this article more than 50% longer, then of course the BEFORE version is fine. Other than that, I see hardly any difference of meaning.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

SUGGEST: "After facing criticism about lobbyists on staff, the McCain campaign issued new rules in May 2008 to avoid conflicts of interest, causing 5 aides to leave." ... One word shorter than that, keeps the number of people who left, and adds a year to the month (this page will be around long after 2008). --Kickstart70-T-C 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's really much difference, but I have no objection, except that you should write out "five" instead of "5".Ferrylodge (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To me this change has made this worse, because where before we had either "five top aides" or "several top staffers", now we have just "five aides". Why was the "top" dropped? Presidential campaigns are large organizations, and five middle- or low-level aides leaving would be insignificant. I've restored the "top". Wasted Time R (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron Kovic in See also section

I'm out of reversions on User:Salimi's persistent efforts to add Ron Kovic to the "See also" section. Salimi's many edit summary rationales for this are, to my mind, unpersuasive. Yes, Kovic and McCain represent two differing stories and perspectives coming out of Vietnam. So too do Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland and Tim O'Brien (author) and a dozen others. We have over 800 articles in Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War and books have been written, and I'm sure we could write a good article in Wikipedia, about all the different paths that Vietnam veterans have taken and all the different ways that they have been affected by their Vietnam experiences and all the different ways that has manifested itself on the American political and cultural and psychological landscape. But the "See also" section of the John McCain article is not the place to do this. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"My friends..."

This is a stupid concern, but WP:BLP and all that. Granted, there's 1.8megGhits on "john mccain" plus "my friends", but is this in My Friends a bit much? I mean, I'd hate to see us have to grow List of people who use "I mean...", List of people who use "My friends...", and List of people who use "ya'know?", ya'know? Shenme (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's gone. Thanks. -- Zsero (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Description of torture

I fully understand that detractors of Senator McCain want to minimize his struggles as a POW. However, the statement "Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements,[47] with many enduring even longer and worse treatment" does not seem appropriate in an article about the Senator. If this article were about POWs in general, or about Senator McCain as a member of a specific group of POWs, it could be appropriate. However, an article about one individual should not include a statement that does not include that individual.Kingsley911 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not at all to minimize his POW experience, but simply to place it in historical context. (For a similar reason we give the casualty numbers for the Forrestal fire.) It shows that McCain's POW experience was part of a larger experience that many others suffered under too. Indeed, this is a constant theme in McCain's writing on the subject, from his USN&WR account in 1973 to Faith of My Fathers in 1999 to his acceptance speech ("A lot of prisoners had it worse than I did") a month ago. And the following sentence in our article, "Virtually all of the POWs who were tortured eventually yielded something to their captors.[48]", is important too, as it puts McCain's "confession" is proper context as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this context is fine, except for this: "with many enduring even longer and worse treatment." We can say that many others were tortured, without getting into a comparison. The comparison may be correct, but it's not necessary here. McCain has often made self-deprecating remarks, as well as remarks that show considerable humility; such remarks sound very different coming from him than they do from anyone else, and I think we're on much firmer ground relying on secondary sources than his own words.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is asinine. The comparison is correct per every secondary source, including the Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley standard works. This in no effing way detracts from anything McCain went through. Someday after McCain's campaign is long over and there's not all this idiocy going on, I'll come back and fix this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WTR, you said in your previous comment that "this is a constant theme in McCain's writing on the subject". Now you say it's dealt with in a bunch of secondary sources. Why does it matter how many were tortured worse, and how many were tortured less severely? Don't expect us to read your mind. It should go without saying that for virtually every American soldier who was tortured, another American soldier was tortured worse, and another was tortured less severely. I don't see what this adds to the article. Ferrylodge (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already discussed why it matters several times on past talk pages. I will come back and fix this someday when the criteria is history and not current politics. I've got a long memory; just recently, on a completely different article, I restored something that had been unfairly removed 10 months ago. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you should attribute the basest partisan motives to Kingsley911, and refuse to even point him to the relevant talk page discussion. Additionally, I do not recall why it might be important to say that some soldiers were tortured more severely, without mentioning that some other soldiers were tortured less severely. Why is the former important, but the latter not? I honestly do not recall a reason.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I disapprove of both candidates, and so will be choosing not to vote for President (although I will vote for local offices and issues). So, I'm not defending Senator McCain as much as I am hoping to see the article remain as unbiased as it can during an election. I think the way it is now, with mention of the Senator and POWs going through this type of treatment, is far more fair a treatment than to throw in what sounds like a McCain-minimizing comment about others being worse off. Whether he chooses to use that language in speeches or not, the article is about the Senator and not the treatment of other POWs during that war.Kingsley911 (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why mention that early relase is in agreement with the military code, but not mention that giving information to the enemy and signing confessions is not? The facts should be stated without editorializing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Was Carol Swanson still married when she began seeing McCain?

I have seen two timelines of Carol Shepp McCain's involvement with McCain. One shows her still married to Alasdair Swanson when she began seeing McCain (though she sued him for infidelity). Is there a definitive source on this as several liberal political blogs claim a 527 group is about to unleash radio and TV ads accusing McCain of coveting another man's wife, and suggesting that later he committed adultery with Cindy McCain. CApitol3 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As it's by liberal blogs? it shouldn't be added to the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Two issues here. a) Was McCain involved with Carol when she was still married? I've seen intimations of this, but the only WP:RS don't say so, and in fact as you note she sued her first husband for infidelity. b) Did McCain commit adultery with Cindy while still married to Carol? Everyone on earth believes so, except for one editor here. You can find reams of discussion in the talk archives here and in the Elmc talk page and maybe a few others. The wording we have now in the various articles is what we were left with after all that. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he did commit adultery with Cindy. Sorry, I missed the 2nd question. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Soon after I wrote my previous response, I saw this Washington Post story about Carol from today. It explicitly states no on the first question: "After divorcing Swanson, Carol began seeing McCain." I've updated the Carol McCain article to state this (the John McCain article doesn't mention her first marriage, so nothing to do here). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What about McCain infedility with Carol? It might be time to reinsert it, or at least revisit this. Would not a quote by a naval officer, published in USA Today, claiming that McCain spent the night with Cindy in his room during the conference he met her at be allowable? CApitol3 (talk)

McCain turning down admiral

Doodlebug1967 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)I take issue with the assertion that Sen. McCain "turned down" the rank of Rear Admiral (which he would have to obtain before working up through the ranks to full admiral). Nobody in the military turns down this high a rank, most certainly not someone who's father and grandfather both attained admiral rank. The NYT article referring to this is apparently the only one alleging McCain refused the rank. I'm from a military family--some of my family served with all three generations of McCains, and I can assure you, John McCain did NOT turn down this rank. This reference should be omitted or at least amended to say "reportedly turned it down." Doodlebug1967 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as he wasn't offered the promotion, how could he turn it down? GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This article currently says: "McCain decided to leave the Navy. It was doubtful whether he would ever be promoted to the rank of full admiral, as he had poor annual physicals and had been given no major sea command.[66] His chances of being promoted to rear admiral were better, but McCain declined that prospect, as he had already made plans to run for Congress and said he could "do more good there."[67]" So we're not saying he declined a promotion, just the prospect of a promotion. This wording is designed to reflect several sources that aren't in full agreement. Until and unless McCain's full naval records are released, or some other new facts come out, it's probably the best we can do. And I think it's reasonable to believe that if McCain couldn't make four-star like his f and gf, that he'd try to make his mark in politics, especially given his interest in politics since his return from POW and his years spent as Senate liaison. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better, myself. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody gets promoted straight to full admiral. Rear admiral would have been a first step. Whether it's general or admiral, you get one star, then you earn two stars, then three, etc. I stand by my assertion that he did not "decline" any promotion. He was passed over and left the military when he realized he wouldn't go any higher in rank. I think this should say "reportedly declined" or be left out altogether. 71.96.122.135 (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I should have mentioned something here earlier. This WaPo story from October 13 is the most recent reporting on the matter, and resolves some of the difficulty we had previously. It says:

In early 1981, shortly after taking office, the Reagan administration's new Navy secretary, John Lehman, asked to see McCain. Eager to keep the supportive liaison in the Navy, Lehman sought to reassure McCain that he was on his way to becoming an admiral. But Lehman couldn't guarantee that McCain would rise to four stars, and McCain's doubts about reaching his father's and grandfather's status overrode all other considerations. He listened for a while longer before telling Lehman he was leaving the Navy. "I think he'd made up his mind before he ever saw me," Lehman says. "He'd been excited by what he saw on the Hill, I think."

So no offer was made, just an indication that he was still on the career track for rear admiral. Since he was unlikely to make full admiral, and since he was already bitten by the political bug, he retired. Our text currently says:

McCain decided to leave the Navy. It was doubtful whether he would ever be promoted to the rank of full admiral, as he had poor annual physicals and had been given no major sea command.[68] His chances of being promoted to rear admiral were better, but McCain declined that prospect, as he had already made plans to run for Congress and said he could "do more good there."[69][70]

with footnote 70 being this WaPo story. This accurately conveys the best sources on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Non auto-formatted dates

Why aren't they wikified like they are in almost ever other article on Wikipedia? I find that odd and distracting. J'onn J'onzz (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatted dates have been deprecated throughout Wikipedia. See MOS:SYL and a jillion talk pages that discuss this. Many of the highest-profile articles were cleansed of them first, so that's why they disappeared from here quickly. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LAT story on early 1960s aircraft incidents

A lot from the good LAT story on McCain's early 1960s crashes and collisions has been introduced here. I don't think much if any of it belongs here, other than replacing the old cite with the LAT one. I started this morning adding this material to Early life and military career of John McCain this morning, and I'll continue this evening. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone came along and added the LAT cite to this article, with a bunch of new material. I tried to amend the new material to conform with what you're doing at the sub-article. I hope you'll feel free to rmv from this article if you think it's appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've finished (for now, at least) updating Early life and military career of John McCain with information from the LAT story, which is now cited there in 10 different places. (When it comes to finding the specifics of McCain's life that other biographers have run through more vaguely, Vartabedian and the other LAT guy are the best!) However, for this the main article ... I don't think the prior text ("The planes he was flying crashed twice and once collided with power lines, but he received no major injuries.") needs changing at all. And certainly the amount of text that was introduced earlier today on this is inappropriate. That's because this summary article's approach is to gloss over most aspects of McCain's military career. There is no detail on any his first 22 missions over North Vietnam, for example, nor much on his shootdown, nor on this flying style, nor much on anything pre- or post-POW. So launching into a description of each of these incidents is out of place. The Elmc article is the go-to place for all things McCain and military, and the sooner interested readers discover that and go there the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

three plane crashes deserve a little more description other than 'he was not hurt'

as the LA times article writes

The 23-year-old junior lieutenant wasn't paying attention and erred in using "a power setting too low to maintain level flight in a turn," investigators concluded.

The crash was one of three early in McCain's aviation career in which his flying skills and judgment were faulted or questioned by Navy officials.

In his most serious lapse, McCain was "clowning" around in a Skyraider over southern Spain about December 1961 and flew into electrical wires, causing a blackout, according to McCain's own account as well as those of naval officers and enlistees aboard the carrier Intrepid. In another incident, in 1965, McCain crashed a T-2 trainer jet in Virginia.--Stephen.walker 7 October 2008.

I agree with Wasted Time R about this. All of the detail is in the sub-article, and we only summarize here. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Early life and military career of John McCain is a Featured Article in itself. It's the place to be for military McCain ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree...it is evidence of the man's growth as a person...his transition from a somewhat inattentive fly-boy to a mature but daring warrior. It's central to his character. I am going to restore it. Now, if you want to discuss modifications, that's fine, but I regard simple reverts of relevant and cited material to be vandalism. I do not simply revert your writing because I personally do not line up with some of it; I would appreciate the same respect in return. Raryel (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Raryel, first of all, this is called an editorial disagreement about which level of article in a WP:Summary style structure to include material into. This is not called vandalism. If you fail to understand the distinction, your time here will not be very successful. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is vandalism. Repeated "reverts" of cited relevant material is vandalism, not editorial disagreement. It is laziness and closed-mindedness. Perhaps it is you who needs to review a few things. As proof, please look at the latest edits. This morning, Wednesday, October 8, I read a constructive edit that both served the summary role and took advantage of the material I added. Perhaps one sentence could be improved still: McCain was a good flier, albeit one who pushed the envwelope. Does this imply that pushing the envelope is a bad thing? In 1969, the Navy decided that perhaps airline-style flying was not what it was looking for from its combat pilots, and introduced the Top Gun school. From what I read, the first class was not well supported by squadron commanders; but they changed their attitudes after 1970, when Top Gun graduates began, routinely, eating North Vietnamese pilots for breakfast. This program was for fighter pilots, not attack squadron pilots, but the attitude was relevant to everyone. F-105 pilots returning from their bombing runs shot down 22 North Vietnamese planes. Raryel (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, the "constructive edit" you mention was made by me! I am not lazy – I wrote the entire Early life and military career of John McCain article, and have spent more hours on this subject than I would care to admit. And I don't think of myself as close-minded either. If you look at the entire series of McCain biographical subarticles here, you'll find many, many cited facts that are not included in the main article; it's all editorial judgment about what belongs and what doesn't. As for the sentence still in question, I was searching for wording that would not imply that his pushing the envelope was either a good or a bad thing. It is indeed likely a good thing for air superiority fighter pilots, and is obviously a bad thing for routine peacetime flights over Spain. Where it stands for attack pilots is an interesting question to explore in the Top Gun School article, but not one we need to get into here in the McCain main article. But if you have alternate wording for that sentence, I'm certainly open-minded to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, one can make a legitimate argument that some description of McCain's flying record and flying style belongs in the main article. It can't include all the detail that Raryel wants, such as "too little throttle while turning the airplane low over the water" -- that's way more excessively detailed than anything else in this article, military or otherwise. But we can state that he started out as a sub-par pilot (Timberg) who was reckless and careless at times (LAT) and that he improved over time (Timberg, LAT) but still tended to push the envelope (LAT). So I've modified the article to reflect that. Next, I don't like the language "However, later, once given combat assignments in Vietnam, other naval pilots credited McCain with courage and daring, flying his aircraft to the edge of its performance envelope; this was in contrast to many other pilots who, comparatively, played it safe." This doesn't track the source that well (mixes pre-Vietnam with Vietnam) and sets up too simplistic a comparison of flying styles that's really off-topic here and feels like Top Gun-style drama (another "Maverick"!). Instead, I've just added the two medals he won for successful missions over North Vietnam before his shootdown. Finally, as for the Gene Furr celebrity on Enterprise bit, like everything else a mention of that has been added to Early life and military career of John McCain, but it's too minor a point to include here and it inflates the source's two incidents into "often". Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that I yanked Raryel's "While training as a pilot, McCain attracted the attention and concern of flight instructors for carelessness, as well as an unwillingness to accept responsibility for mistakes." This is inflammatory and goes beyond what the LAT source states as fact. LAT says "Naval aviation experts say the three accidents before McCain's deployment to Vietnam probably triggered a review to determine whether he should be allowed to continue flying. The results of the review would have been confidential." But the key word there is "probably". Until and unless McCain releases his full naval records (I wish he would, it would help resolve some other biographical mysteries as well), we don't know if this happened, and we can't say here that it did. If someday we find out there really was a review, yes we could include that. Regarding the conflicting accounts of the first incident, we don't know what McCain said at the time, just what he later said in his memoir. McCain may have honestly though his engine failed on him, or he may have been a just-beginning pilot trying to concoct an excuse for a crash, he wouldn't be the first. On the second incident, the LAT didn't have any incident report, so we don't know who said what. On the third incident, the whole sequence of reports and criticisms and testimonies and revisions is confusing enough that we can't safely draw any conclusions. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

US Council for World Freedom

Added material about McCain being in their board in the 1980s. As this is a highly contentious issue, it may need tweaking and additional sources, rebuttals and such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started on it.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that the year of resignation is disputed as per the source you added. Also note that the source mentions the McCain campaign and not McCain himself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not disputed that McCain says he resigned in 1984. Nor is it disputed that "McCain's office produced two letters from 1984 and 1986 to back his account."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of this thing until just now, and I've read a lot about McCain's life. Why does this warrant mention in the main article? Just because the AP published a story on it today? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, WTR. Thanks for pointing that out. I assume that the main motivation for including it here in this article is something like: "Since the Obama article does not mention Bill Ayers, therefore the McCain article should mention the Council for World Freedom." Or something like that. But I'm guessing, and maybe Jossi will correct me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not tit-for-tat. If you want to argue for the inclusion of that material on Obama's article, that article's talk page is the place to do so, and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want to argue about that one way or the other.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

which was an international group that, among other things, aided the rebels in Nicaragua; is incompatible with what the US Council for World Freedom article says. It needs to be expanded to provide the necessary context and as to not deviate from the sources used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From that article:

The U.S. chapter of WACL, the United States Council for World Freedom (USCWF), has been one of the most active branches. USCWF was founded in 1981 by Major General John K. Singlaub. This branch has generated controversy, as it has been found to have illegally supplied firearms to guerillas in the Iran-Contra Affair and, in 1981, the USCWF was placed under watch by the Anti-Defamation League, which noted the organization had increasingly become a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.[1]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to recall someone once saying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Additionally, what about WTR's questions? Why does this warrant mention in the main article? Just because the AP published a story on it today?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a reliable source, but the sources used in that article are. Also, from The Guardian:

The CWF was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League, whose chairman was forced to resign in 1980 after he was linked to the neo-Nazi movement. McCain joined the CWF the following year after meeting with its chief, former US army major general John Singlaub."US election: Democrats threaten to hit McCain on Iran-Contra link". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-10-07. {{cite web}}: Text "World news" ignored (help); Text "guardian.co.uk" ignored (help)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, this definitely belongs in House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, but not here. McCain was only on the advisory board, which in D.C.-land often means not much, and I don't see an indication that he did much in this case. If he were the chair of the organization, like he is of International Republican Institute, it would merit inclusion here (and the IRI is included here). But John Singlaub was the chair (and his article does mention this). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WTR yet again. For two years in the early 1980s, McCain was an inactive advisory board member of an organization that was affilated with another organization that had the very good sense to force out a leader linked to neo-nazis, which occurred before McCain even became a board member of the affiliated organization. Not notable enough for this main article, IMHO. Jossi, why do you think this warrants mention in this main article? Just because the AP or the Guardian published a story on it today? Or just because the article will get a lot of hits tonight due to the debate?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A short summary of that can be included, and a longer version of it with sufficient historical context can be added to House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is notable enough to warrant a mention. Why is being deleted? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of disagreement as to whether it's notable enough to warrant a mention. If you look at House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, there are a bunch of other things there that are notable, but never mentioned here in the main article. Here are five that I picked out on a quick read-through, there are others:

• "Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, the state's most powerful political figure, was officially neutral in the race,[12] but many of his aides were working for McCain's opponents and Goldwater was said to view McCain as an opportunist.[12] Late in the race, Goldwater made a public statement critical of McCain, but Tower was able to limit damage from it.[10]"
• "In 1989, he became a staunch defender of his friend John Tower's doomed nomination for U.S. Secretary of Defense; McCain butted heads with Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich, who was challenging Tower regarding alleged heavy drinking and extramarital affairs.[45] Thus began McCain's difficult relationship with the Christian right, as he would later write that Weyrich was "a pompous self-serving son of a bitch."[45]"
• "McCain was one of only four Republicans in Congress to vote against the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995,[98]"
• "He was one of only five senators to vote against the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[100]"
• "At the start of the 1996 presidential election, McCain served as national campaign chairman for the highly unsuccessful Republican nomination effort of Texas Senator Phil Gramm.[103]"

You can argue that each of these is more important than the US Council for World Freedom bit. The Goldwater lack of support presages McCain's career-long alienation from both the movement conservative and quasilibertarian branches of the GOP. The Tower/Weyrich episode left a deep impression on McCain; he devotes a long chapter to Tower in his second memoir. The Telecommunications Act has had a large impact on the American media ownership scene and other aspects of telecomm. And the teaming with Gramm began a long alliance and also foreshadowed McCain's career-long difficulties with economic policies and perceptions, all the way up to this year's disastrous Gramm "mental recession/nation of whiners" clunker. So the bottom line is, the way the McCain articles are structured, not every notable thing percolates up to the top. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Panamanian Born?

Should the first line in Senator McCain's entry reflect that he was born in Panama? Kind of like how Jackson Browne's (also a military brat) article refers to him as a "German-born American singer"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.148.23.172 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Browne article is off-base, not this one. In fact the whole Browne lead section is bad. ... In fact the whole Browne article needs a lot of work, except for the "Classic personal period" section, which I did a fair amount of the writing on ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This should actually be better explained in the article. I don't know the specifics, but at the time McCain was born there was not yet a law stating that babies born on U.S. military bases were indeed U.S. citizens. But in the run up to the election, the Election Committee cleared McCain to run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.172.4 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See #U.S. citizenship and the Presidency above. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Klan?

Um, it says John McCain was a member of the KKK in the opening section. Something I'm 99% sure isn't true. 216.223.155.40 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted. --Allen3 ^talk 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Question...

I may be wrong about this; and if I am please forgive me. I am currently reading this article for my school. I was reading the First two terms in U.S. Senate section. It says, "...after he defeated his Democratic opponent, former state legislator Richard Kimball, by 20 percentage points in the 1986 election." Like I said, I may be wrong about this. But shouldn't it say, "after he defeated his Democratic opponent, former state legislator Richard Kimball, by 20 percent in the 1986 election.'"? Shouldn't it say percent rather that percentage points? Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't say "20 percent". The election result was, rounded off, 60%-40%. Imagine there were only 100 voters, so the actual vote totals were 60 to 40. To say he won by 20 percent would imply he got 20 percent more votes than his opponent. But in this case, that would imply he got 48 votes, which is incorrect. That's why a margin like this is expressed as "20 percentage points" or sometimes just "20 points". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

O I see! Haha. I'm supposed to be a math guy. I don't know how I missed that! Thank you for showing me my error. Goodness gracious! Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ties to G. Gordon Lilly

My input on the Chicago Tribune article on McCain's ties to G. Gordon Liddy was deleted by User: B. I don't see why, isn't it a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bopter (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Material from an opinion piece on an editorial page is not generally a reliable source. Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, not a news reporter. So, I've reverted your edit. See WP:RS. Also, info about Liddy belongs in the Liddy article. See WP:Coatrack.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply.Bopter (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How is McCain going on Liddy's (who schemed to firebomb the Brookings Institute building according to his WP page) radio show any different than Obama's association with Ayers? In my opinion it's worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.172.4 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain's going on Liddy's radio show is not biographically significant and does not belong in this article. Whether Obama's association with Ayers belongs in Obama's article is not this article's concern. Whether McCain's or Obama's actions in these respective matters is better or worse or irrelevant is up to voters to decide. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. If Obama's relationship to Ayers belongs in his WP article, then McCain's relationship with Liddy belongs in his WP article. Bias, pure and simple. Take it out of one or add it to the other. Or is this now Foxipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.179.231 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not Foxipedia. It's Youhavenocluehowthisworkspedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see how it works all right.

McCain's time as POW

The article should clearly distinguish between what are independently verifiable facts about McCain's time in Vietnam and what is based only on his own statements. This is particularly important since other POWs dispute some of his statements and since McCain's time in Vietnam is such an important part of his run for the presidency.

For example, appears to report McCain's self-reported claims of torture as fact. What is the degree of independent evidence for the extent of torture he claims to have undergone? Where is this documented? Reference [44] is listed merely as "Hubbell 'P.O.W.' 452-454"; that is not a proper citation, I can't find the source, and it is unclear whether that is just derived from McCain's own statements or whether it contains independent data. Reference [49] is a Vanity Fair article that does not cite its sources and effectively also only reports McCain's own version of events and implies that McCain's disability is due to torture, rather than his crash, but does not provide any evidence or sources. Has there been any kind of medical analysis of his injuries, and if so, why isn't that cited?

My suggestions for improving this article are: (1) clearly distinguish independently verifiable facts from McCain's own statements, (2) remove any statements that are based on articles like Vanity Fair's, articles that themselves leave open the source and strength of their evidence, and (3) cite POWs and other sources who disagree with McCain's portrayal of his time in Vietnam. Jcarnelian (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This article, as does the far more detailed Early life and military career of John McCain, relies primarily upon the two standard works of American POWs in Vietnam:

• Hubbell, John G. P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964–1973 (Reader's Digest Press, New York 1976). ISBN 0-88349-091-9
• Rochester, Stuart I. and Kiley, Frederick. Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973 (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland 1999). ISBN 1-55750-694-9

Both are fully cited in the "Bibliography" section and then, per an oft-used Wikipedia style, footnotes refer to the author and title in short form, which is what you saw. Both of these books interviewed POWs in the hundreds, and correlate their stories with each other. In the "Early lfie ..." article, Hubbell is cited in 31 places, Rochester & Kiley in 12. The Vanity Fair story is only cited to McCain's current limitations, and the "His injuries" in our text is meant to refer to the combination of his injuries from the ejection, from the inadequate North Vietnamese medical treatment of same, and the physical mistreatments. I've modifed that phrase to "His wartime injuries" to try to clarify that (it used to say that, somewhere along the line it got lost). With one very isolated exception (the Ted Guy interview post-1991, which has been discussed here previously), other POWs do not dispute McCain's story. POWs like Butler and Dramesi, who are the ones you are probably referring to, sometimes dispute the emphasis McCain has put on his behavior, or are sometimes unhappy that McCain is perceived to have been the only POW who went through these ordeals when many other went through them too (often to a worse degree), or sometimes state that McCain was a jerk then and is a jerk now. But they basically don't dispute the story given here. If you have specifics where you think they do and our article doesn't reflect that, please discuss them here further. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't have a copy of the Hubbell book yet, but the Rochester "Honor Bound" book is not being cited accurately. For example, where it is used in the article, it says "McCain continued actively to resist the camp authorities.[53]". But the book says "The centralization of authority also gave impetus to a campaign initiated in January 1971 by a group of junior officers (Stockdale and Guarino credited John McCain with the idea, Myers traced it to a group in cell 3)". Talking about "active resistance" obfuscates the nature of the resistance, and, in fact, refusal to write letters would seem to be "passive" rather than "active" resistance. Furthermore, McCain's role in that campaign was not firmly established by the reference.

There's no question that McCain suffered greatly in Vietnam. But that's not the whole story for a biographical entry. Was he treated better or worse than other prisoners? Did he use his status to get special treatment? What aspects were active, deliberate torture, and what aspects were just generally bad camp and medical conditions? Did he actively work to help fellow POWs, or did he mainly look out for himself? What was his motivation for refusing early repatriation? To what degree did he "break"? And what are the motives of witnesses, either for or against? The current Wikipedia article seems biased in favor of the "McCain-as-hero" view, but that doesn't seem to follow clearly from the facts. Furthermore, his prior and subsequent conduct, and his single-handed defeat of the POW bill raise nagging questions that I think require much better documentation of different sources and viewpoints than are present in the article right now. Jcarnelian (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you're interested in this subject, you're looking at the wrong article. Early life and military career of John McCain (Elmc) has much more detail on his POW years and the citing is generally finer. For example, the "actively resist" statement you object to is expanded to:

he participated in a defiant church service[156] and led an effort to write letters home that only portrayed the camp in a negative light,[157] and as a result spent much of the year in a camp reserved for "bad attitude" cases.[137]

156 ^ Timberg, An American Odyssey, p. 104.

157 ^ Rochester and Kiley, Honor Bound, p. 537.

137 ^ Hubbell, P.O.W., pp. 548–549.

So if you add all that up, the "actively" seems warranted. And if you read other parts of Hubbell or Rochester & Kiley, you'll see that when the resisters/troublemakers (from the guards' perspective) are enumerated, McCain's name is often among them.

To answer your other questions: Many of the prisoners captured earlier than he was received longer and worse mistreatment. (I've tried to include this here in the main article several times, only to have it thrown out, don't blame me.) The North Vietnamese gave him special treatment at times because of who his father was. (You sometimes see claims that McCain told them himself who his father was; we don't know and don't say, but in fact this was public knowledge, see for example this New York Times article from several months before the shootdown.) Yes, specific episodes of deliberative torture were combined with pervasively bad camp conditions; the Elmc article tries to get this across. Regarding "actively work to help fellow POWs", he was in solitary much of his first two or three years there, but yes he used the tap code and other means to help keep camp communications open; see the Ernie Brace account cited in Elmc for example. His motivation for refusing early release was the same as all the other prisoners', to follow their interpretation of the U.S. Code of Conduct. He "broke" once, in late summer 1968; he also gave more military and personal details than he was supposed to when he was first captured; the Elmc article covers both of these. As for motives of witnesses, one of the good things about the Hubbell book is that it was written in the mid-1970s, well before McCain would become a politician; other POWs such as Stockdale and Denton were more famous at the time. Thus, the Hubbell account of McCain's time there is uncolored by later political developments and disputes, especially the POW/MIA live prisoners issue, which accounts for much of the Vietnam-related anti-McCain animus you see out there (including what I'm guessing you mean by the "single-handed defeat of the POW bill"). Wasted Time R (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

birth info correction

Currently the article for John McCAIN's birth info says that he was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone, Panama.

This birth info is incorrect! He was NOT born at Coco Solo which is a part of the Canal Zone. Per his birth certificate, his birth info is ...

John McCAIN 29 August 1936 18h25 EST (5h) Colon, Panama 80w00 9N21

A copy of his birth certificate issued by the Panama Railroad Company is available at ... http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=145

This birth certificate was used in a recent lawsuit which was dismissed ... http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_10492319

I don't know how to make the correction to the article as his page does not have the edit feature available.

Picnics (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll need far more reliable sources than that to even start a discussion as to whether this should be mentioned in the article. We don't put fringe theories about living people into their biographies. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that Birthcertificateopedia be created, in which the McCain theorists and Obama theorists can compete to see who can put together the most elaborate explanation about which candidate is closest to robbing us of our beloved constitutional right to have a Natural Born Citizen as president. Birthcertificateopedia can have articles like History of Colón, Panama-area hospitals and Hawaiian documents processing, 1958-1963 towards this goal. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Why they allow rude & useless comments like those from

"Loonymonkey" & "wasted Time" ... who's handles seem to describe the writers aptly !!!

> You'll need far more reliable sources

Since when is the evidence used in the American Court System not a reliable source ?

The following info was included in the links within my last message ...

I thought I wouldn't have to retype it. but apparently I do ...

On 11 Aug 2008 Markham ROBINSON of Vacaville sued John McCAIN (GOP) & Debra BOWEN (California Secretary of State). Evidence in this lawsuit included the birth certificate of the aforesaid John McCAIN.

Anyone can obtain this evidentiary birth certificate of John McCAIN from the U.S. District Court of New-Hampshire under the Documents file of case # 1:08-cv-00009 for Fred HOLLANDER vs. McCAIN & RNC.

This evidentiary birth certificate is downloadable through the American Court system's "PACER" outlet.

PACER is an acronym for "Public Access to Court Electronic Records" ... for those who don't believe me. please see the wikipedia article at ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law)

Instructions ...

1. Obtain a PACER account number at https://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/psclogin.pl

2. go to https://ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov

3. go down to document #20

4a. download to your computer immediately

OR

4b. open them up for view ... then download the last 4 pages & then save.

You will now get a PDF file with the birth certificate of JOhn McCAIN which consists of ...

1 page in English

1 page in Spanish &

2 pages of confirmation proof.

As I said before, the lawsuit was dismissed because he was born of American citizens.

And as I said before, the birth certificate of John McCAIN says he was born in the city of Colon, Panama & NOT in the Coco Solo Naval Air Station as incorrectly mentioned in the wikipedia article about him.

Picnics (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a WP:RS saying this birth certificate is authentic. And even if it is, it's a primary document. Per WP:PRIMARY, we prefer secondary sources, which in this case would examine the practice of birth certificates for children of American military personnel at the time and see what they generally said and thus interpret the significance of this one. In other words, if the New York Times says he was born in Colón and not the PCZ, we can say that here. If some lawsuit-happy guy with a website says it, we can't. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

< We don't have a WP:RS saying this birth certificate is authentic > < we prefer secondary sources >

I am not submitting an original copy of the birth certificate which would be the primary source.

I am submitting the court evidence ... does that not meet your request for a secondary source ?

< In other words, if the New York Times says he was born in Colón and not the PCZ, we can say that here >

My original message also included the link to the article published in the "Oakland Tribune" newspaper by reporter Josh RICHMAN concerning the law case dismissal.

< which in this case would examine the practice of birth certificates for children of American military personnel at the time and see what they generally said and thus interpret the significance of this one >

Even better than that ... a legal case examinging THIS exact birth certificate !!!

How much more to the point can you get ?

This whole lawsuit meets that requirement because it was a court case examining the legal issue of John McCAIN's status as a natural born American citizen.

The evidentiary birth certificate was accepted as being legitimate by U.S. District Judge William ALSUP. The link about the published news report talks about the case's dismissal & Judge ALSUP's legal ruling that McCAIN's birth status is considered the same as that of a natural born American citizen.

Picnics (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Oakland Tribune article is indeed a reliable source. However, it doesn't mention the birth certificate at all, and the article's discussion of the legal issues involved in the case centers around McCain having been born in the PCZ. So this article doesn't support your position at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Does wikipedia accept itself as a reliable source ? ...

Check out this widipedia article which says John McCAIN was born in Colon, Panama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col%C3%B3n,_Panama

So ... what is the source for the birth location of the Coco Solo Naval Air Station ?

Picnics (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia most definitely does not accept itself. Anybody can write anything on Wikipedia! Someone could say McCain was born on Jupiter. In the case of the Colón article, the claim isn't cited. Someone also could be confusing the current boundaries of Colón (which post-PCZ was redefined to include Coco Solo) rather than the boundaries then. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And the source for Coco Solo is the McCain biography by Robert Timberg, John McCain: An American Odyssey. You can see online the chapter involved here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As a follow-up, note that I have added the lawsuit being dismissed, using the Oakland Tribune story as the source, to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility, where doubts about McCain's eligibility are discussed. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

< source for Coco Solo is the McCain biography by Robert Timberg, John McCain: An American Odyssey >

Well TIMBERG was wrong!

John McCAIN was born at least 5 years BEFORE the Coco Solo Navy Hospital was built.

"Executive Order #8981 - Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone" dated 1941 by Franklin D. ROOSEVELT laid out the boundaries for the land that the hospital would eventually be built on.

Here is a link to the 1936 newspaper birth announcement that John McCAIN was born at the

"Submarine Base Hospital" ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf

... on 2nd page in thin red box.

Picnics (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Timberg doesn't say Coco Solo Navy Hospital, he says "Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone", which doesn't say anything about a hospital. The Panama American announcement says "at the submarine Base Hospital". Presumably this is the base hospital whose function was replaced by the better one built in 1941. If you can find a mainstream newspaper article stating that this base hospital was in fact outside the PCZ and in Colón, then we can use that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is from the WashingtonPost.com blog, so it doesn't quite meet your requirements

... however for informational purposes to end off our conversation ...

In 1936 John McCAIN's grandfather commanded the Coco Solo Naval Air Station &

John McCAIN's father was the executive officer of a submarine based in Coco Solo.

John McCAIN's birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. IRVINE.

The Naval Register for 1936 available here ...

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_irvine_2.pdf

(near the bottom) ... shows during that time period, William Lorne IRVINE was

director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone.

Coco Solo was on the Atlantic Ocean (northwest) side of the Panama Canal Zone, near Colon, Panama.

Picnics (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a small point, but you should take out the word "Air" in his birth place because the submarine base was not used as an air facility until World War 2 which was years after McCAIN's birth.

Picnics (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No point is too small for accuracy! But what is your source for this? I've tried working on the Coco Solo article but I've never found a good source for what names it had for what years and what kinds of functions it did during those periods. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ya ur all leaving one thing out the law that grandfathers him in to being a u.s. citizen because he was born on a u.s. base in panama went into effect one year AFTER john mccain was born now either the lawyers havent done their research as well as i have or this will be the most fantastic and scrumptious october suprise EVER! --Redskies08 (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Dickinson Rolling Stone article as source

This Tim Dickinson article in Rolling Stone, which was published a few days ago, is one of the scuzziest hatchet jobs I've seen in a long time. It does very little new reporting, but instead takes facts from McCain's life and twists and distorts and misinterprets them to a maximal degree in order to paint as dismal a picture of McCain as possible. Its value as a WP:RS for us is as close to zero as you can get. Indeed, it's the mirror image of those fevered rantings you can find now on National Review Online about how Obama is the creature of Alinsky and Ayers and is determined to introduce True Socialism to America. In other words, it's rubbish and we should ignore it. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything more than invective? Rolling Stone is a well-established publication. It presumably has fact checkers. I think the criticism of McCain's conduct could just as well be omitted, and my original edit merely included a factual statement from the article, about what McCain did in the immediate aftermath of his escape from his plane. Do you have any basis for implying that the author made up that assertion out of thin air, or even that he twisted or distorted or misinterpreted it? JamesMLane t c 22:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As for the question of McCain's switch from Forrestal to Oriskany, the source being used (Timberg) writes "An officer explained that the Oriskany, another carrier on Yankee Station, had been losing pilots and was looking for volunteers to fill the ranks." That's the reason "volunteered" is in the article. Yes, the mechanism by which that volunteering would take place was a transfer, but it's the volunteering that's important. Note that non-volunteers might or might not have ended up back in the Vietnam theater, depending upon what happened to their squadrons post-fire. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As for what McCain did during the Forrestal fire, by the standard description (Timberg, Alexander, the NYT article used as a cite) McCain tried to help another pilot, got blown backwards when the first bomb when off, went below to help clear some bombs overboard from the hangar elevator, then went to the ready room to watch the firefighting on closed circuit tv, then went to sick bay to get his minor wounds treated. The RS story manages to twist this into the notion that he was shirking firefighting duty by doing this. There is no evidence of this. There is no evidence about what his firefighting duties were on the ship was, if any. In many cases having too many untrained people trying to help out in a disaster actually hurts the collective effort, not help it. The fact that some other pilot saw a specific opportunity and performed heroically in the fire does not mean McCain did anything wrong. It's clear that if you, say, ranked the top 100 sailors on board Forrestal in terms of heroism that day, McCain wouldn't be among them, nor has he ever claimed he should, nor does our article claim he is. If you can find in the lengthy official Navy accounts of the fire (some of which are footnoted here) some criticism of McCain's actions before, during, or after the fire, then by all means we can include them. But not this pathetic innuendo attempt by Dickinson. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)When I originally reverted, this was the edit summary: "It doesn't seem notable that McCain watched something. Is the implication that he declined to help out when he could have? If so, why not be explicit about it?"[2]

I still feel that way. It's kind of like summarizing Genesis by saying that on the seventh day God rested. (Not that I'm a religious nut or anything!) It seems to elevate one aspect of what he did during the Forrestal fire above the rest. And, I think there are plenty of reliable sources that indicate McCain was not the only pilot who went into the ready room that day, nor was he the first. I don't see anything particularly notable about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet, strikingly, it's considered notable that he "was trying to help another pilot" when his help apparently consisted of taking a few steps in the other pilot's direction before being knocked over by a bomb blast. I don't think the test is whether someone can make an airtight case that McCain's actions were cowardly or a dereliction of duty. I'm perfectly OK with omitting the information that someone criticized him. It's just, to my mind, a striking image, and certainly a bigger part of his eventful day than his attempting to help another pilot. Why don't we just include the fact, without criticizing him? Alternatively, why don't we get rid of the puffery about his trying to help someone else? JamesMLane t c 01:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at this history.navy.mil page on the Forrestal fire. (Be patient, it takes a long time to load, it's obvious our defense budget is being directed to places other than this site's web servers.) Here's what it says about McCain's role in the fire: "LCDR John S. McCain, III, sitting in Aircraft No. 416 preparing to launch, afterward described the horror: “I thought my aircraft exploded” he recounted as the first blast ripped through the aircraft assembled on the flight deck. “Flames were everywhere”. The young pilot climbed out of his Skyhawk, poised perilously on the A-4C and then leapt through the flames and ran for his life. As he did so the naval aviator saw another pilot jump and roll clear of his aircraft but the flames caught his uniform ablaze. LCDR McCain turned back to help the man when a bomb exploded and knocked him off his feet and backward about 10 feet. He never saw his shipmate again. [Then some stuff about McCain's later POW days and political career.]" This isn't puffery, any more than the description of Herbert Hope's actions [which Dickinson quite approves of] is right above this on the page, or any of the other descriptions in this long account. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain took a few steps toward the other guy. Then he went all the way down to the ready room and stayed there for a while. For describing his experience of the fire, what's the difference between these two undisputed facts? Well, there are two obvious differences. One is that the second fact relates to a much greater portion of the time he spent after the initial missile firing. The other obvious difference is that the first fact makes him look good and the second fact makes him look bad (at least in the eyes of some hatchet-jobbing journalists).

In answer to the question in Ferrylodge's ES, neither of these facts is to be included or not based on whether it can be linked up with an "implication" that's favorable or unfavorable to McCain. They're both just facts that help the reader get a sense of what McCain did on one of the most eventful days of his life. There's no reason for us to pick and choose on the basis of what implication might arise. The basis for picking and choosing is importance, and his trip to the ready room is more important. JamesMLane t c 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain took steps toward the other guy back into the fire that he had just barely escaped with his life. That's more notable than what he did later in the course of the fire, when we don't know what he assigned duty would have been. As for describing all of what he did on this fateful day, that's way too much detail for this summary article. We don't even describe the details of what led to his shootdown, which would be even more eventful. If you want to add his watching the fire and going to sickbay in Early life and military career of John McCain#Vietnam operations, I think I'm okay with that. But Dickinson can't be the cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this summary can't include every detail. It's certainly not clear to me that McCain was about to run into the fire -- it appears that the other guy had escaped the fire but his flight suit was still burning in places. If McCain had actually gone to his aid, McCain probably would've risked some burns himself but it's not like he was running into an inferno. Anyway, if his decision to run toward the guy was important enough to note, then so was his decision to go to the ready room. I think moving both factoids to the daughter article is appropriate. And, as for the sourcing, an author for a mainstream publication can express opinions and still be a source for facts. That you don't like Mr. Dickinson's tone is no basis for a pronouncement that he can't be the source for something. You apparently have no problem with extensive citation to Timberg, described by the Times as offering "effusive praise for those who served in Vietnam, peppered with his contempt for 60's draft dodgers". [3] There is simply no basis for suppressing the citation to the Rolling Stone article unless and until there's some good-faith challenge to the accuracy of the particular factual assertion(s) for which it's cited. JamesMLane t c 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(a) Have you read in full either of the Timberg works? Do you really consider them the equal in fairness to the Rolling Stone piece? Timberg, among other things, dug out McCain's extramarital affairs in the mid-1970s. Dickinson didn't do any original reporting on the Forrestal fire, he just distorted and selectively interpreted existing accounts. (b) Let's say you, James M. Lane, are caught in a burning building. You're almost trapped in the fire, but you leap out of a first-story window to safety. You then see someone else caught in the building, and go back to try to help him. Suddenly there's an explosion in the building and you're thrown backward and hit with pieces of debris. Now the fire department arrives, and as they fight the fire and try to rescue people, you stand out on the street and watch. Which is more notable, that you tried to go back in or that you're standing out on the street? Any newspaper writer would include the first and not bother to mention the second. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment largely ignores the arguments I actually made.

• I'm not calling for excising Timberg (whom I have not read in full) from the article. My point was that an author can have an opinion -- perhaps expressed, perhaps obvious even though unexpressed -- and yet be accepted as a source for assertions as to matters of fact. Rolling Stone is considered part of the MSM. It has all the indicia of reliability that Wikipedians value: large circulation, published by a for-profit enterprise, deriving most of its revenue from advertising. If a statement as to a matter of fact appears in a story there, that's a reliable source for that statement.
• You charge that Dickinson "distorted" unspecified information. If you have a basis for asserting that this point is distorted, go ahead and present it. I agree that just because the statement is in a reliable source doesn't mean it's true. The source creates a rebuttable presumption. We can still consider a good-faith challenge to the accuracy of the particular factual assertion(s) for which it's cited.
• Your account of my hypothetical heroism is moving but it's beside the point. My comment on McCain was that I didn't see evidence that he did the equivalent of running back into a burning building. Furthermore, no one would contend that a random civilian should do anything other than stand back and let the Fire Department handle the situation. With McCain, his sojourn in the ready room was perhaps cowardice, or was perhaps the coolness to recognize that he should leave the work to the designated firefighting teams, as you speculate above. We don't know, so we shouldn't state an evaluation of his decision. That doesn't mean that we can't report the fact of his decision, though.

The image of somebody who's on a ship that's on fire, but he's watching it on CCTV, is a striking one. On your scenario, it's as if, instead of escaping to the sidewalk, I got to the TV lounge in the basement and watched the firefighting efforts on the screen there. I contend that, putting aside any implications as to McCain's cowardice or coolness, that's an interesting aspect of what he did on that momentous day. We should look at it from that point of view, instead of seeking political "implications". JamesMLane t c 05:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dickinson and Rolling Stone constitute a perfectly reliable source despite not being to the extreme right of the political spectrum. — Writegeist (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if you disregard intellectual honesty. There is definitely room for a more skeptical biography of McCain, since the Timberg and Alexander ones, while done honestly, lean towards the favorable. Some of the biographical research done by New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and other newspapers over the last year or two will add balance and better detail to McCain's pre-political and political years. And certainly any treatment of McCain's 2008 campaign will rub most or all of the sheen off the McCain 2000 model that so many writers fell for. Some of Matt Welch's writing on McCain, to give an existing example, is very critical but is honest from a libertarian perspective. But the Dickinson piece is just a classic hatchet job. It's the mirror image of what Limbaugh does every day. Worthless. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"The piece, which Rolling Stone says has garnered 2.5 million hits on the magazine’s Web site since Oct. 6, has been the talk of the liberal blogosphere, but gotten zero attention from the mainstream media."[4] If it goes mainstream then we can deal with it some more.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This CQ Politics article on the Dickinson piece was already partly out-of-date when published, as four days earlier this LAT story came out, detailing McCain's three pre-Vietnam crashes and collisions in a fair and reasonable way. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the CQ Politics article remains correct that Dickinson's article in Rolling Stone has "gotten zero attention from the mainstream media."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason the Dickinson article has gotten little mainstream media attention is that there is very little new reporting in it; most of it is just Dickinson's interpretation of known facts. The only thing that I believe is new are the comments of Dramesi:

1. McCain was an obsessive skirt-chaser
2. McCain told the North Vietnamese that his father was a big admiral
3. McCain doesn't deserve to big the most famous POW, he didn't do anything that others also did, sometimes in worse circumstances

Well, #1 is true (and other POW memoirs bear this out; our articles in Wikipedia paper over this aspect of McCain, but don't get me started on that). #3 is true, and is also the crux of the Philip Butler piece from earlier this year. But this isn't McCain's fault; both his 1973 USN&WR account and his 1999 memoir give lots of space to the travails of other POWs, and state that a number of them had it worse than he did. I've tried several times to include this in this Wikipedia article too, but don't get me started again. As for #2, we don't know and don't say how the North Vietnamese discovered who he was. But it's not a major point because it was public knowledge anyway; the association had been stated in this page one story in the New York Times in July 1967, three months before he was shot down. And we know the North Vietnamese leadership read the U.S. press, to see how the anti-war movement was doing. So bottom line, there isn't much new in the Dickinson article. Finally, note that Dramesi himself was a controversial POW. He took an extremely strict interpretation of the Code of Conduct, including conducting doomed escape attempts that put the rest of the POWs at risk. See Rochester & Kiley, p. 479ff. Dramesi "was a fearless, abrasive type whose rigid commitment to the Code of Conduct and open contempt for those with any less zealousness aroused in his peers both respect and resentment." Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Supported the Patriot Act

I didn't see any mention of his vote in favor of the Patriot Act. This is a real test of someone's commitment to uphold the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.5.139.85 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It also wasn't mentioned in Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, which seems like a real oversight. I've added it there, both his vote in favor of the original in October 2001 and his vote for renewal of the modified act in March 2006 (but what I added could use some expansion in terms of what modifications/amendments McCain supported). It was already included in Political positions of John McCain. Whether it merits inclusion here in the main article, I'm not sure. It's obviously very important legislation, but on the other hand both votes were lopsided (99-1 and 89-10) and McCain was with the majority both times. Let's see what others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain anticipating more wars in the future

McCain told an audience at a rally in Polk City, Florida, "there will be other wars." http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCISY40qns 118.5.139.85 (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Given humanity's track record so far, that's a pretty safe bet. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

HES A MAAAAAAAAVERICK! 68.116.254.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC).

Over-protective editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Earlier today, I submitted a thread pertaining to the troublesome languaging that Sen. McCain has, sometimes, chosen to use when referring to his opponent. That thread was almost immediately deleted. I question the right and privelege of that editor to superimpose himself over the others editors working here. At this time, I will not confront his disdain (for fellow editors capacity to discuss edits or comments they find questionable) by undoing his edit. I'm not interested in a war. I do request that, in the interest of a community working toward a common goal, other editors search my entry out and tell me if it was outside the bounds of propriety....Also, I left the following at the editors talk. (I have retrieved it to provide a bit of my own support)....--Buster7 (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand how my comment is not admissible at Sara Palin but, please, tell me why it is not allowed at McCain. It directly pertains to the destinct possibility that McCain may be prejudiced. He ranted about "gooks" way back when. Now, he chooses to use jargon that conveys a real threat to a person of color. My guess is that you are not black and you are younger than 50. That would explain why it's not insulting...to you. Propriety is one thing...censorship is a whole different bag. Why not let others decide in a consensus creating discussion rather than taking it upon yourself to be the judge and jury. 50 years ago, Obama would have to give up his seat on the bus to McCain. That is the America that he grew up in.Respectfully, --Buster7 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "gooks" comment, please see the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of this talk page. Regarding the "whip" comment, it's pretty standard fare for presidential elections.[5] I don't know who removed your prior comment, or why, but I hope this reply will be helpful.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

@ ferrylodge. When Carter said it about Ted Kennedy...it was a white guy to a white guy...no racial confrontation. Just two white guys gonna duke it out. But this is different...this is new...this is NOT standard fare. Also, McCain used the term about Asians. I regret having to use it to make my point.--Buster7 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Writegeist's talk. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to including the "whipping" comment in one of the sub-articles, but I just don't think it's notable enough (yet) for this main article. If it gets more attention in the media, or if Obama gets bent out of shape about it, then maybe it will become more notable. Obama's ancestors weren't slaves, as far as I know, and even if they were that doesn't necessarily mean that he needs to be spoken to any differently from how Jimmy Carter spoke to Ted Kennedy, IMHO. We're supposed to be colorblind, right? Anyway, that's just my opinion, and others may differ.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely BECAUSE Obama is black that he needs to be spoken to differently than Carter spoke to Kennedy. The rules of conduct are different. Maybe Obama's ancestor's weren't slaves, but many Americans that hear McCain speak, had slaves in their family trees. When your eyes sit in the middle of a black face and your ears are the color of chocolate, you see and hear things a little different. Obama is a gentleman. He probably won't get bent out of shape. But I'm no gentleman. Lets wait and see what happens Thursday. I could be wrong.--Buster7 (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not the most civil reply. The problem is that your justification thus far for including this kind of content seems largely based in personal opinion, and nobody's personal opinion can be incorporated here if we are to build a healthy encyclopedia. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It was uncivil of you to remove my entry before anyone could see or reply. We are not children here. We don't need our sensitivities protected. We can handle a little difference of opinion. What we can't handle is subterfuge. Censorship is devastating to the free and well-intentioned transfer of ideas. Consensus to add or remove. Simple.--Buster7 (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not removed any of your content. Look through my contribution history if you don't believe me. But again, it is uncivil to accuse fellow editors of engaging in censorship. I find it a bit odd that you say here we don't need our sensitivities protected, when in your prior post you make it seem that we need to do the same for Senator Obama. This line of conversation isn't achieving very much, so I suppose I'll cut right to the point: What is the policy basis for including the content you wish to include, and what is the exact wording you would propose? Let us discuss that. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) You removed my entry here, on this talk page, prior to any possible discussion to see how my viewpoint could be added to the article. The wording was to come about thru discussion. If you had not censored, I could not accuse you of it. Your incivility preceeded my incivility. The policy basis is that I have two things that allow me to present material...a Wikipedia account and a voters registration card.--Buster7 (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster7, would you please provide diffs -- for your post that was deleted, and for the edit that deleted it? The arguments above appear to amount to disagreeing with what you said, which is not a reason to remove it. I can't be clear on the situation, though, without seeing some specifics. I spent a few minutes trying to fish it out of the page history but couldn't. JamesMLane t c 06:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes - if you are going to continue making such accusations against me, then by all means prove it by showing me the diff. I have not deleted a single word that you have written. I am inviting you to focus back on what this page is meant for - discussing improvements to the article. But if you're not interested in doing that, then it will not be added, plain and simple. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First, my apologies to Jc-Soco. He was not the editor that undid the talk. A serious error on my part for which I am sorry. I made an assumption without checking..--Buster7 (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I've been looking through the page history - this is where the post was added. This is where it was deleted, about an hour and twenty minutes later. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SOCO...James see [[6]]....--Buster7 (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster7, I guess I owe you an apology. It wasn't nice of me to remove your comment. It's just that it seemed to me at the time that it was "irrelevant to the improvement of the article" and not "objective" (WP:TALK). But you're right, I should have waited instead of removing the thread. My apologies. Tempodivalse (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here it is...no worse for wear...

Whip his Ass

"I'm gonna whip his you-know-what!" The last debate brought us, "That one"....before that..."He's not like us".'

Considering John McCain's age I find it extremely hard to believe that he would innocently use the term "whip his (ass)". Didn't he grow up in The America before the 1960's civil rights movement? Doesn't he remember what it was like to be a person of color in those long ago days? Wait! He WAS a person of color...but it was the Right color...White! Consider...his daily experience with racial epitaphs has never been as the receiver, as the one the epitaths are about!

It is without a doubt another in what is becoming a long list of derogatory terms that both McCain and his sidekick, Saint Sarah, have chosen to spew. My fear is that some right-wing wacko is going to take their racist rhetoric as permission to do more than just "whip his uppitty ass".

Also, let us not forget that in the "bad-old days" in America only "da massah" could whip his slave. So, additionally, is McCain lording himself over the lowly sub-human, Obama??? (I say that only as an explanation of more "unspeakable" meaning in McCains whipping comment)

I had heard that the Republican Leadership had asked both McCain and Palin to tone down their communications. Maybe they are just ignorant of what "others" might hear. I somehow doubt it! I think they know exactly what they are doing--Buster7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

((Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_McCain"))

Again, the "whip" comment is pretty standard fare for presidential elections.[7] I don't object to including the "whip" comment in one of the sub-articles, but I don't think it's notable enough (yet) for this main article. If it gets more attention in the media, or if Obama gets bent out of shape about it, then maybe it will become more notable. Obama's ancestors weren't slaves, as far as I know, and even if they were that doesn't necessarily mean that he needs to be spoken to any differently from how Jimmy Carter spoke to Ted Kennedy, IMHO. We're supposed to be colorblind, right? Anyway, that's just my opinion, and others may differ.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(I also repeat)...It may have been standard fare for Carter and Kennedy but it is precisely BECAUSE Obama is the first black to get this close to the White House that he needs to be spoken to differently than Carter spoke to Kennedy. The rules of conduct are different because the complexion of the combatants is different.. Maybe Obama's ancestor's weren't slaves, but many Americans that hear McCain speak, have slaves in their family trees. When your eyes sit in the middle of a black face and your ears are the color of chocolate, you see and hear things a little different. Obama is a gentleman. He probably won't get bent out of shape. But I'm no gentleman. Lets wait and see what happens Thursday. I could be wrong.----Buster7 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To Buster7 and Ferrylodge: A circular discussion will not soon result in consensus, and there's no need to clutter up the talk page with duplicate posts. I would recommend reading each other's posts in full and then responding accordingly. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Buster7. The racist context and subtext are transparently obvious, as he has so eloquently and patiently explained, particularly in light of McCain's record of uttering racist epithets ("gooks"). However I can find no qualifying source (yet) that covers the coded racism of McCain's threat to Obama. A qualifying source would make it sufficiently notable for the main article IMO. I expect it will come in due course. Meanwhile, as the threat anticipates the upcoming debate, it is relevant to the McCain Campaign article and should appear there. Judging by McCain's previous performances the outcome of the debate will give the threat an ironic twist. More fodder for SNL? — Writegeist (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote can probably be included in the subarticle, as it is sourced - but accusations of coded racism cannot be included here or in subarticles without equally reliable citations. The policy applies everywhere. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The McCain sub-articles contain dozens of accurate McCain quotes that are reliably sourced. This main article is supposed to summarize things, so not everything in the sub-articles is supposed to go into this article. Also, please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Soco, just so that we understand each other: I thought I had already said that the racist overtone, although evident, cannot be addressed unless/until qualifying sources are available, but that the remark itself, which is already noted in multiple qualifying sources, should go in the campaign article. Sorry I did not make this clear. I don't know why FL is banging on yet again about articles vs. sub-articles. I can only think it's a hobby-horse and he feels compelled to keep showing it off. Writegeist (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Your previous wording has just seemed to suggest something else, that's all. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SS explains the nature of summary style and sub-articles. It's not possible to fit every fact about a person in the main article when his biography is long and well-documented, like McCain's. Coemgenus 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If The Future President isn't bothered by McCain's aspersions, neither am I. Please disregard.--Buster7 (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed.Tempodivalse (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Back to the POW days, once again

I'm seeing some really ill-founded edits here. We don't have a specific article on the American POW experience in Vietnam, although Hanoi Hilton is sort of serving as a proxy for that right now. But that is the place to include the North Vietnamese claims that they never tortured any American POWs, not the McCain article. Because their claim is not McCain-specific. And because if we include it here, we have to include it the 30 other BLP articles in Category:Vietnam War prisoners of war. Which is senseless, because there are no WP:RS which actually challenge the fact the Americans POWs were systematically tortured in North Vietnam through fall 1969. None. Even Jane Fonda's memoir concedes this point! The only people who challlenge it are the Vietnamese, and their version is just not credible. It would be like believing everything Pravda stated in the 1960s. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Next, I'm seeing someone add "One guard has stated that McCain arrived at the camp with serious injuries from his ejection." This is an absurd addition; don't you read the article? He broke both arms and a leg in the ejection! In fact, per Hubbell p. 363, no POW arrived at the Hanoi Hilton in worse shape than McCain during the whole war. This fact is uncontested and we don't need a camp guard to additionally say it! McCain's wartime injuries and the physical limitations he still has from them came from the ejection fractures, poor North Vietnamese medical care of those fractures, and from the torture. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WT: their claim is not McCain-specific.

Balderdash. Read the sources. Two guards interviewed in 2008 deny that McCain, specifically, was tortured. The "serious injuries from his ejection" predates my edit. I shall revert you. It is not for you to decide as to the credibility of either side's stories. The Vietnamese guards' rebuttals are on record, in legitimate sources. They are neutrally noted in the article. That fully complies with WP policies. You have no right to delete—it's censorship, pure and simple. Writegeist (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no Vietnamese who say that they didn't torture McCain but they did torture other prisoners. Their claims are all absolute across the entire POW population. Yes, there is a place for the Vietnamese claims, but it is in the article about the POW experience as a whole -- currently the Hanoi Hilton article -- not in the articles about each individual POW. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As an analogy, you sometimes see these nutso revisionist tracts that claim that slavery in America wasn't bad, the slaves were treated well, they benefited by being taken from Africa, blah blah. Would you pepper the Frederick Douglass article with these baseless claims, just because he is perhaps the most famous American slave? Of course not. You would include them as a WP:FRINGE viewpoint somewhere in the articles about American slavery overall. Well, the Vietnamese claims about no American POWs being tortured is WP:FRINGE too. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As the statements by the guards who imprisoned McCain are about McCain specifically, the PoW section of the McCain article is the place for it. So far as McCain's imprisonment is concerned, what was or wasn't done to other prisoners is irrelevant. Impartiality is core to WP. If you selectively exclude notable information about the McCain imprisonment (i.e. the guards' documented rebuttals), you exert bias in the account. This violates WP:NPOV. NB: The Washington Post article clearly states: Accounts of [McCain's] torture by the Vietnamese are largely based on his own reminiscences, particularly his 1999 memoir, "Faith of My Fathers." This makes his jailers' statements more, not less, relevant.

Context is everything. What you are advocating would be like mentioning that someone was arrested in 1968 for civil disturbance, without noting that they were part of the anti-war movement and that thousands of others were arrested for the same thing. Solid biography doesn't ignore context. As for Dobbs, he wrote a good and interesting article overall, but the notion that McCain's whole account is uncorroborated is incorrect (see the Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley references in the bibliography, the two standard works on the American POW experience in Vietnam and cited frequently in our articles) and the notion that McCain waited until 1999 to "reminisce" about his experience is wrong -- see his lengthy U.S. News & World Report account here, published two months after his release in 1973 when it was all still fresh. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your: There are no Vietnamese who say that they didn't torture McCain but they did torture other prisoners. Their claims are all absolute across the entire POW population. Find a source for that and include it. Otherwise it's irrelevant to this issue as it's OR. — Writegeist (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've read on Vietnamese attitudes towards the war, you would know what I'm talking about. The war is viewed with considerable pride by them. Look at this interview with Bui Tin, a noted dissident who eventually went into exile because of dissatisfaction with the post-war Hanoi regime. Even he won't acknowledge that American POWs were severely mistreated and tortured. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is fringe theory nonsense. No reliable source claims that the North Vietnamese prison guards refrained from torture, and many, many sources show that torture was quite widespread. Let's not turn this article into a collection of conspiracy theories about the peace-loving nature of the "agrarian reformers" of Viet Nam. Coemgenus 13:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) While what's in the article now is less odious than what was there yesterday, it still bothers me. To say of the North Vietnamese guard statements: "which contradicts prisoners' personal experiences" frames this as some kind of he said, he said situation. It isn't. There are no WP:RS historians who accept the North Vietnamese claim. There were medical examinations of the POWs upon their return which confirmed the rope bindings and some of the other techniques used. There are extensive histories of the POW experience which cross-check POW testimonies about the jailors and techniques across multiple camps, solitary confinement, etc. What we have is extremely widely accepted fact on one hand and decades of propaganda on the other. I still maintain that the North Vietnamese claims are fringe assertions that are not specific to any prisoner, and thus don't belong in this article, and that the current phrasing will lead unsuspecting readers to believe there is more of a question here than there really is. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WTR and Coemgenus. The stuff about Vietnam POWs not having been tortured ought to come out of this article. However, if it stays, I do think that "which contradicts prisoners' personal experiences" is much better than "which contradicts prisoners' personal accounts." The former tracks the cited source, and suggests that the actual experiences of POWs included being tortured.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time: "What we have is extremely widely accepted fact on one hand and decades of propaganda on the other." No. (WP:NPOV) What we have is decades of propaganda from the loser nation, by whom it is widely accepted, on the one hand and decades of propaganda from the victors, by whom it is widely accepted, on the other. (It is a commonplace of all wars for allegations of torture to be made by one lot—in this case the invading aggressors—and refuted by the other—in this case the invaded nation's defenders. McCain alleged he had been tortured. His so-called "gooks" refute the allegation. Perfectly normal.)

Wasted Time still persists in his fiction that there are no North Vietnamese refutations specific to presidential candidate John McCain. Interesting.

• “The chief prison guard of the jail in which he was held [stated]: ‘We never tortured McCain. On the contrary, we saved his life, curing him with extremely valuable medicines that at times were not available to our own wounded.’"
• McCain’s former jailer Tran Trong Duyet says that “the presumed Republican presidential nominee made up beatings.”

Clearly Wasted Time wasted time believes this is some other McCain; a McCain who isn't running for president. However if he or she troubles to read the articles it's as clear as a pikestaff that this is prez. candidate John McCain. The same John McCain whose own reminiscences form the main basis for accounts of his torture

Either the torture story should be omitted from the article or it should be included fully; that is to say, it should include honest and explicit reference to instances on record where the American propaganda is balanced by the Vietnamese. What is odious is not the inclusion of the Vietnamese side but its suppression. The Vietnamese voices are highly relevant to the issue at hand. They should be heard regardless of American opinions as to their veracity.

Some of our editors need reminding that Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia. Neither is it a white supremacist encyclopedia. It should not be exploited to push an American POV of McCain's prison experience while expunging the contrary Vietnamese POV (which is also, as we know, supported by other American PoWs). Only by representing both--or neither--shall we approach genuine neutrality. And if there's a source that states, per Wasted Time's protestations, that all WP:RS historians repudiate the Vietnamese version, let's have a reference to that also. — Writegeist (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) I can see from your user page that you have strong feelings about the Vietnam War and U.S. foreign policy. That's okay. It's not necessary to re-debate the Vietnam War here. The matter of North Vietnamese treatment of American POWs is a narrow and specific one. It's perfectly possible to recognize that treatment for what it was, and still believe, for example, that the U.S. intervention in Vietnam was extremely ill-considered and at times immorally conducted, that the South Vietnamese regime was corrupt and lacked popular support and legitimacy, that for better or worse the Vietnamese Communists in the north and the south more effectively represented the nationalist aspirations of the Vietnamese people and culture, that the U.S. anti-war movement was correct in trying to stop its country's involvement in Vietnam, and so forth. I'll bring up Jane Fonda again, because she's become the piñata for the perceived excesses of the U.S. anti-war movement. In her My Life So Far memoir, she is generally unapologetic about her actions then. But she does now acknowledge that U.S. POWs were systematically tortured for a long stretch during the war. If she can fit that into her viewpoint, then all other opponents of the U.S. role in Vietnam can too. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Now as to the specifics of what you said. What I am saying is that there are no North Vietnamese claims that POWs in general were tortured, but McCain wasn't. The AP/USA Today story you cite is a good example: "At the same time, he denies prisoners of war were tortured. ... His statements seem to echo the communist leadership's overall line on America: It insists the torture claims are fabricated, but that Vietnam now considers the U.S. a friend and wants to lay the past to rest. ... Duyet, 75, grew testy during the interview when repeatedly questioned about torture and why so many other former POWs say they too were mistreated. ... Other former POWs also say they were tortured by communist forces at the jail, and many say they still suffer physical pain from it. 'They are liars. What they said is not true,' said Duyet." So again, this is a blanket denial across all POWs, and is thus not a McCain-specific issue. And it's in the Hanoi Hilton article (or some future Prisoners of war conditions during the Vietnam War article), and not here, that the Vietnamese POV should be represented.

As for historians, try Stanley Karnow's Vietnam: A History, one of the most respected works on the war, pp. 655–656. (He also makes clear that South Vietnamese prisons frequently mistreated their North Vietnamese and Viet Cong captives.) And your theory that this was all U.S. propaganda is misplaced. During the Johnson administration, the Pentagon actually suppressed information from released POWs about the mistreatment going on, for fear it would make conditions worse for those still there. The Nixon administration reversed that policy, and the international criticism that resulted was part of the reason (along with Ho's death) for the end to systematic torture in fall 1969. But even then, the full story of what went on didn't become known until the POWs' release in 1973, and the publication of various accounts during the 1970s, when most of the American public just wanted to forget about Vietnam. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I agree with you that this is not an American encyclopedia. I've gone out of my way to try to represent the North Vietnamese aspect to the conflict as part of the McCain story. I wrote the subarticle material about which military unit and commander was responsible for shooting McCain down, for example, and other similar details. I researched and wrote the Hanoi Hilton#French era section of that article, which details the horrific conditions and treatment of Vietnamese prisoners by the colonial French there. In some cases I've been frustrated that we don't have articles to link to, for example North Vietnamese Air Defense Command needs an article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"I agree...this is not an American encyclopedia. I've gone out of my way to try to represent the North Vietnamese aspect to the conflict as part of the McCain story. I wrote...about which military unit and commander was responsible for shooting McCain down"

As you must know, that does nothing to assuage the very real concern that you push a biased American POV with regard to McCain. In fact its effect is quite the opposite. And it is irrelevant to the discussion about the Vietnamese POV re. McCain's claims. Also of concern is that you say it's not necessary to re-debate the Vietnam War here, then proceed to do just that. Presumably you meant it's not necessary for anyone else to re-debate it.

You cite Jane Fonda in support of your argument that the one-sided American propaganda about torture in Vietnam is the only possible truth.

• Jane Fonda told the New York Times in 1973, "I'm quite sure that there were incidents of torture...but the pilots who were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that's a lie."

I'm referring to what she said in her 2005 memoir My Life So Far, where she recanted the statement you quote above. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Research by Hubbell, as well as 1973 interviews with POWs, shows that Vietnamese behavior meeting any recognized definition of torture had ceased by 1969, three years before the Fonda visit.

You completely missed my point. I'm not accusing Fonda of having caused POWs to be tortured; that's a myth that's well debunked by Snopes. And yes, the policy of systematic torture ended in fall 1969, although there were individual flareups after that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• James Stockdale, the POW who emerged as Ross Perot's running mate in 1992, wrote that no more than 10 percent of the US pilots received at least 90 percent of the Vietnamese punishment, often for deliberate acts of resistance. Yet the legends of widespread, sinister Oriental torture have been accepted as fact by millions of Americans.

Stockdale was just talking about the 141 Navy POWs. The actual quote is "... I was obsessed with getting special rewards for that standout 10 percent of those navy prisoners easily identified in Hanoi as the golden nuggets, always in solitary, taking 90 percent of the overall punishment, and making our underground organization go during the tough early years." Well, McCain was in solitary for his first two years, and is well documented by other POWs' testimonies to have been among the resisters in the camps. On the other hand, he arrived at the tail end of the 'tough early years'. So I'm not sure what your point is here. Members of underground organizations deserve to be tortured? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• The popular delusions about Fonda are a window into many other dangerous hallucinations that pass for historical memory in this country.

• It will be easier, I am afraid, for Americans to believe that Jane Fonda helped torture our POWs than to accept the testimony by American GIs that they sliced ears, burned hooches, raped women and poisoned Vietnam's children with deadly chemicals.

— Hayden, The Nation, March 2004

Off-topic. Belongs in the constellation of articles such as Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Files, Tiger Force, Phoenix Program, etc., not to forget on the other side Massacre at Huế, Dak Son Massacre, et al. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reconstructing the crucial early phase of McCain's imprisonment is complicated by the lack of independently verifiable documentary evidence.

• Accounts of his torture by the Vietnamese are largely based on his own reminiscences.

— Dobbs, Washington Post, Ocober 2008

It's true there isn't much documentary evidence of any of this, and there won't be, unless the Vietnamese kept honest and self-incriminating paper records of what they did and still have them around and decide to release them (the 'blue files' that Dobbs mentions). It's often fully or partially true of massacres and tortures that they lack comprehensive documentary evidence. What investigators, journalists, writers, and historians do is sift what evidence is available, find corroborations, sift through all the testimonies and cross-check them, sift through all the known context, and then present the fullest and most truthful description of events they can. That's what Hubbell did, that's what Rochester & Kiley did, that's what Timberg did (who interviewed a lot of POWs), that's what various writers and historians on both the Vietnam War and McCain. And these people have all concluded that yes, there was systematic torture of American POWs held in North Vietnam and that yes, McCain was tortured. Show me the mainstream history or newspaper article that agrees with the North Vietnamese on this? There aren't any. And note that several parts of McCain's POW story have been conclusively corroborated, such as his refusal to accept early release, which was remarked upon by the North Vietnamese at the Paris Peace Talks. And finally, as I pointed out before, Dobbs' use of "reminiscences" is unfortunate; McCain first published his story in May 1973, two months after his release, when it was all still fresh. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your adamant refusal to permit inclusion of the published Vietnamese refutations is censorship, pure and simple, based on your personal opinion that they are untrue and therefore must not be permitted the oxygen of publicity. That's an attempt to WP:OWN the article. — Writegeist (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source that says no Americans were tortured in Vietnam? The Vietnamese jailers seem to be the only ones making that claim, so why not put the oxygen of publicity into a Wikipedia article about them?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Red herring. One might as well ask the equally fatuous and irrelevant question, "Is there any reliable source that says all American PoWs were tortured in Vietnam?" Torture went on, on both sides. That's not at issue. The question is, was McCain tortured? He says he was. We only have his word for it. (Commentators have simply repeated his story.) The Vietnamese say he wasn't. We only have their word for it. The claims are reported by reliable sources. I do not say this makes the claims reliable. Neither have I made the slightest suggestion of presenting the Vietnamese claims as factual. Please stop trying to give the impression that that's what I advocate. For the purpose of a neutral article, the inherent veracity or otherwise of these opposing and ultimately unverifiable claims is not the concern. The onus is to cover them responsibly, without bias. The article already covers, with due responsibility, McCain's claim that he was tortured. Likewise it should include the fact that his jailers claim he wasn't. And the article should also include, as it's relevant to the Vietnamese claims, the fact that the Vietnamese deny torturing any PoWs. Refusal to include the Vietnamese claims is blatant WP:CENSOR, and therefore also WP:OWN. — Writegeist (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Vietnamese say that no one was tortured. Their claims would be more credible about McCain if they acknwoledged that some Americans were tortured, but they don't acknowledge that AFAIK.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As you simply repeat again what you and the oh so appropriately named Wasted Time have already repeated,I shall also repeat what I have already said, as it already answered your point. This time I shall shout, in case deafness, rather than deliberate obtuseness, accounts for your apparent ignorance of what has already been said. If this is not so, I ask that you forgive me and that you stand, or sit, well back.

• Judging the inherent veracity or otherwise of these opposing and ultimately unverifiable claims is not the concern. The article already covers McCain's claim that he was tortured. It should state the fact that his jailers deny that he personally was tortured, and also the fact that the Vietnamese deny torturing any PoWs.

It's transparently obvious that the persistent refusal by you and Wasted Time to include the documented, reliably-sourced Vietnamese POV is based on a personal agenda. The refusal violates numerous sections of WP:FILIBUSTER,WP:CENSOR, and therefore also WP:OWN.

Furthermore may I remind you that the habit of "deleting the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first" also violates WP:FILIBUSTER: "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict WP:BOLD. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." — Writegeist (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Writegeist, if you look back through these talk archives you'll find that the two people you accuse of "owning" the article spend much of their time here in strong and occasionally nasty disagreement. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean like hyenas in the same pack? Writegeist (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to ask: Do you seriously think that acting this way ultimately helps you? That attacking people like this helps build a case to include your material in the article? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(Grrr! Yip! Snap! Woof!) I have already built the case (as if you hadn't noticed). It needs no further "help". That our McCain propagandists studiously ignore its foundations only serves to illuminate their strength. And when people say they're sorry for asking a question, the apology is always accompanied by a strong whiff of insincerity, don't you think? Really, you must learn to get over your personal likes and dislikes, and judge on merit. I do, and nobody has stronger personal likes and dislikes than I do. So if I can, you can. If you want to continue this off-topic discussion bring it to my Talk page. — Writegeist (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current text gives all the weight that is due to the point of view of the Vietnamese guards - more, perhaps, than it deserves, since there is no mention in the subarticle detailing his POW experience. I can't help but view this as an attempt to tear down a current presidential candidate - if McCain were not presently involved in a presidential race, do you seriously believe we would currently be having this discussion? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly in the absence of AGF on either side there can be no common ground. I regard those of you who would conceal the facts at issue as Republican stooges pushing a pro-McCain agenda, and you have just shown that you regard me as a Leftist stooge pushing an anti-McCain agenda. (Although, in fact, my contempt for Obama is only marginally less than for McCain.) It gets us nowhere. Writegeist (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist, you've called me a string of names here. I don't intend to reply in kind. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Writegeist, do you think that every Wikipedia article about a holocaust survivor ought to mention the people that deny a holocaust occurred? Or that every Wikipedia article mentioning evolution ought to also mention the creationist POV? See WP:Fringe.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time: List them. I was under the impression that I had called you the name by which you are known best here, to wit: Wasted Time.

You've called me a censor, an article owner, a filibusterer, a hyena, a stooge, and a Republican. The last one really hurts! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time, I've replied on your Talk page to the accusations of name-calling. — Writegeist (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded to there. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge. "Holocaust." Oh please. You're bracketing a racist American bomber pilot who went to Asia to participate in the slaughter of four million civilians with a holocaust (sic) survivor? You insult the intelligence of everyone here, including your own. Not to mention insulting the Holocaust survivors, the Holocaust victims and the Vietnamese civilian dead. Please note that the Holocaust's initial letter is upper case, to distinguish it from your more run-of-the-mill holocausts, such as the one visited by McCain and his buddies on the populations of Vietnam and Cambodia. Show some respect. — Writegeist (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether McCain was tortured or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether LBJ started an imbecilic war.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the non sequitur Ferrylodge? I have never linked the question of whether McCain was tortured to the question of whether it was LBJ's war, or the question of whether it was an imbecilic war. Neither—must I really walk you through this again? Apparently I must—neither do I question whether McCain was tortured. I don’t know the truth of that any more than you do. (McCain has helped suppress the release of documentary material that might throw light on the subject.) My concern is that the article’s content should include what is known, such as it is. Here’s what is known: McCain says he was tortured; several other PoWs say he was; several other PoWs say he wasn’t; Vietnamese jailers X and Y say he wasn’t; and the official Vietnamese govt line is that no PoWs were tortured. All of this material is relevant to McCain’s time as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. All of this material is WP: RS. Suppression of the rebuttals is in violation of numerous WP rules and guidelines including NPOV. — Writegeist (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You said that McCain participated in the slaughter of four million civilians. All I meant was that that is not relevant to the question of whether or not he was tortured.

I am unaware of any Vietnames officials or jailers who admit that any American POW was tortured, so it doesn't seem notable that they would deny McCain was tortured. Who are the POWs who say he wasn't tortured?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Glittering Generalities

I would like to suggest that the following elements of the text should be evaluated for their relevance or construction. I am not suggesting errors of factuality, but rather that portions of text in question seem inappropriate.

The last sentence of the third paragraph states "McCain has [...] opposed pork barrel spending [...]" The inference in this last sentence suggests that there are two distinct groups of legislators, one group supporting the concept of pork barrel spending and one group that opposes the concept of pork barrel spending. I suggest that the term "pork barrel spending" is a subjective perjorative in that, it is not necessarily the case that a faction exists supporting pork barrel spending, and another faction exists which supports such pork barrel spending. Rather, it is perhaps more likely that distinct expenditures could be perceived as pork barrel based upon a subjective evaluation. To support my suggestion, I refer to the Wikipedia entry for "Pork Barrel" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel , which does not in any way suggest that there are two distinct groups of legislators, those who support pork barrel spending, and those who do not. As a result, the text could more appropriately describe specific examples of spending that Senator McCain has identified as pork barrel, rather than the more general assertion that he "[...] opposed pork barrel spending [..]," and this seems especially relevant in light of the fact that it appears there is no legislative group that advocates a political concept called "pork barrel spending." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Info@charliemorriss.com (talk • contribs) continued below

On this matter, I tend to agree with you. This needs to be made more specific. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the lead needs to be more specific, since it's the lead of the main McCain article, after all. But, I did rephrase to try to address the concerns expressed here. He opposed spending that he considered to be pork-barrel, whereas many legislators have not voted against spending that they characterize as pork-barrel.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I assert that the following sentence in the final paragraph under the heading "Formative years and education," should be evaluated. It states, "McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899), despite a high IQ." This sentence infers that disobedience to "the rules" results in educators reducing the grades of those they are charged with instructing. Referring to the Wikipedia article describing the United States Naval Academy, no documentation exists to support the concept that the institution considers "always obeys the rules" as a factor in assigning class rank. Furthermore, the web site for the registrar of the United States Naval Academy does not indicate that class rank is somehow affected by factors other than academic performance. Again, using Wikipedia as a reference, a description of how U.S. academic institutions determine class rank, gives no weight to whether or not a student obeys "the rules," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_rank) and it is not clear specifically what rules Senator McCain may have violated or been disobedient of. While it can be assumed that academics in the U.S. are familiar with the penalties of academic dishonesty at most accredited universities, it cannot be assumed from the manner in which this particular Wikipedia article regarding Senator McCain is written, that he violated academic rules or some other sort of rules which eventually led to his low class ranking. Therefore I suggest that either the specific rules violations committed by Senator McCain at the United States Naval Academy be revealed and supported , and in the abscence of such supporting fact, there is no reason why the reference should not be removed entirely. Footnotes 11 and 12 are attributed to the claim that Senator McCain's class rank was affected by his disregard for rules, however, a reading of those references provides no evidence that his academic ranking was officially lowered by the school as a result of anything other than academic performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Info@charliemorriss.com (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On this matter, you are wrong. Rules and conduct were a factor in class rank in Naval Academy in those days (may still be, don't know). Look at footnote 11, which is the Timberg chapter which is available online here. See this passage:

Despite his woeful class standing, McCain was smart, quick, and thoughtful, if not intellectual. So how did he wind up scraping bottom at the Academy? For one thing, class standing was not solely a function of academic performance. A grease grade, relating to conduct and leadership, was also cranked in, and those factors dealt McCain's standing a severe body blow. He piled up an astonishing number of demerits, though always just below the threshold that meant dismissal. The leadership issue was more complicated. Whatever your talents, you cannot routinely thumb your nose at the Academy and expect the system to reward you. Personal appearance, for example, was an important element in the leadership grade. Outsiders may think that all midshipmen look shipshape in their uniforms, but within Bancroft Hall there are sharp divisions. Do shoes gleam from spitshining? Has a toothbrush been run around the soles to scrape off the mud? Do brass belt buckles have a mirror finish? Does the collar stay known as a spiffy sit out of sight under the collar? Is the dimple in the tie dead center? Do any extraneous creases show up below the knot? Are shirts tucked correctly in back, with equal widths of overlap on each side? Are uniforms free of all lint and Irish pennants? There is more, much, much more, and in that game McCain was a real loser. "I don't want to say seedy, but he was just not your squared-away midshipman," said Frank Gamboa. "He just didn't put any effort into it. I just don't think he gave a shit." Said Jack Dittrick, "Nobody was as sloppy as John."

This 'grease grade' is what the text in our article is referring to. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ill-founded burnishing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[I've restored this section despite it being deleted twice. It does contain some suggestions/complaints regarding the article, in amongst the McCain opinionation. We are getting too aggressive about removing Talk sections; that should only be done if they are completely irrelevant to the purpose of this page or contain BLP violations. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)]

If this candidate is actually in shape for presidency, suppoters wouldn't need to burnish him like they do in this article. He is incapable and no-match to the challenging economical events in the US. Being captured during a war doesn't make him practically up to economic and politic challenges. However, undoubtedly, it does iconize him as a US Hero and you, the writer, don't need to emphasize more on that. The trials are too obvious! Does he, as a candidate, require such efforts? If he does, then it proves how horrible he will be as a president, on the internal and foreign fronts, and his crew will spend the entire presidential period just covering up his downs. Start emphasizing the background he has that will aid him upholding US and Global objectives throughout his presidency. I think the writers are, unconsciously, disrespecting his decorations as a US Naval officer. They are not enough as they don't make a capable president who will face economic and politic challenges. All respect goes to Mr. McCain and hope this remark will go positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.94.122 (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What you have to realize is that this article is a biography of McCain, not an assessment of what kind of president he might be. His military career and especially his years as a POW are a major part of his biography, and we have to treat it as such. We don't use the word "hero" in the article. We don't suggest in the article that his war record either does, or does not, make him qualified to be president or anything else. We don't, and can't, analyze whether his background would or would not "aid him upholding US and Global objectives throughout his presidency". That's not our role. We just describe his life. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:NOTAFORUM. This page is for discussing changes to the article only. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thread closed. Tempodivalse (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carol Shepp

Why is none of the following Wiki-accepted content included in the Wikipedia John McCain article under the section "Naval training, first marriage, and Vietnam assignment"?

The following two pieces of content are lifted from Wikipedia's "Carol Shepp: Second marriage and years with John McCain"

"However, the McCains' marriage began to falter as he [John McCain] had extramarital affairs.[26][25]"

"John McCain would later say, 'My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine.'[26]"

Mwarrenlane (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Early life and military career of John McCain has much of that and is the parallel to Carol McCain in terms of level of detail. This John McCain main article is a quick summary, and thus just says "During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, and the McCains' marriage began to falter, for which he later would accept blame.[63][64]" Wasted Time R (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

‘Joke’ Concerning Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno

I would like to add that Mr McCain has not apologized to any of the women in this matter - only to President Clinton. Source: Ed Pilkington, The Guardian, ‘The Joke That Should Have Sunk McCain’, Sep. 2, 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/02/women.johnmccain

Can this fact be put onto this entry? I am quite surprised that no one has picked this matter up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeysparrow (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The McCain "joke" about a woman being raped by a gorilla should also be included as another example of what the article coyly refers to as his "sense of humor". — Writegeist (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The alleged ape joke is covered in the sub-article Cultural and political image of John McCain. Reports conflict about whether it was in 1984 or in 1986, and McCain said in the 1980s that he did not recall telling that joke. It seems to be adequately covered in the sub-article.

Regarding the Chelsea joke that he did acknowledge and apologize for, the sub-article quotes a White House spokesperson: "To make a further issue of the matter would lend further exposure to an offensive joke. In light of the senator's apology, they [the first family] decided to drop the matter." Since the First Family decided to drop the matter, it appears that the First Family was satisfied by McCain's apology, and of course the First Family included Chelsea. I'm not aware that Ed Pilkington or any other reporter has seen the apology, but it seems understandable that McCain would have dropped the matter when the White House said it should be dropped.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversies...Where?

Why is it that neither McCain or Obama have either of them a paragraph on their controversies? It seems to be standard for any other nation's leaders, I'd like it if someone would revise their apparent immunities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.104.56 (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

They have Obama's controversies with Rev. Wright and William Ayres on his entry. There just seems to be a biased base at Wiki. Threre is no mention on G. Gordon Liddy, and only scant mention of the Keating 5 involvement that says he was "cleared" of legal wrong doing, instead of saying he was reprimanded for ethics violations by the Senate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.71.4 (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is written chronologically, up to the "political positions" section. So, controverises are described where they fit chronologically. For example, this article says:

"McCain became enmeshed in a scandal during the 1980s as one of five United States Senators comprising the so-called "Keating Five".[93] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful[94] political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, along with trips on Keating's jets[93] that McCain belatedly repaid in 1989.[95] In 1987, McCain was one of the five senators whom Keating contacted in order to prevent the government's seizure of Lincoln, and McCain met twice with federal regulators to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[93] In 1999, McCain said: 'The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.'[96] In the end, McCain was cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee of acting improperly or violating any law or Senate rule, but was mildly rebuked for exercising 'poor judgment'.[96][94]"

That is not a scant mention about the Keating controversy. Regarding Ayres, he's not mentioned in the Obama article, and even if he were that would not necessarily be a valid reason to mention Liddy in this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding why there aren't separate paragraphs to collect controversies for either McCain or Obama, see Talk:John McCain/FAQ Q4. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

verification wanted

According to John McCain, during the Cuban Missile Crisis he was "in the cockpit, on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise, off of Cuba". The articles Early life and military career of John McCain and John McCain do not mention anything about this. Can we verify or refute what he is saying? Kingturtle (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article Early life and military career of John McCain says: "McCain was made a lieutenant in June 1962,[53] and was on alert duty on Enterprise when it helped enforce the naval quarantine of Cuba during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.[59]"Ferrylodge (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Shot down while...

What was McCain's target when he was shot down? I've heard that it wasn't military, but civilian infrastructure? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The target was the Yen Phu thermal power plant in central Hanoi. A classic sort of strategic bombing target. Only a few raids were flown against the plant, for fear of collateral damage. The AGM-62 Walleye, one of the first smart bombs ever deployed, was used by some planes on the raids, although not McCain's. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture

He has a cameo in the movie "Wedding Crashers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.88.148 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Already mentioned in Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, not important enough for here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If McCain is elected

We should not describe him as president-elect, as the Electoral College doesn't vote until mid-December. In the meantime, we should use presumptive president-elect. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And of course the same is true if Obama wins. What about after the EC votes on 15-Dec, but before the votes are counted on 6-Jan? (I think those are the correct dates.) Is the winner president-elect at that point? I think officially not. -- Zsero (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Meeting Pinochet

I agree with Zsero that this proposed addition: "In 1985, MacCain, who was at the time a member of House Foreign Affairs Committee met with then Chile's military junta ruler, General Augusto Pinochet." does not belong. Members of Congress meet with foreign leaders all the time, some allied some not, some savory some not, and unless there's more to this (I don't know Spanish) it doesn't merit our attention. (It also manages to misspell "McCain" as well as contain an unnecessary "at the time" and "then".) Our article has already established that McCain supported Reagan's foreign policy in Latin America and there is thus nothing notable in his having no qualms about meeting Pinochet. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the material about his meeting with Pinochet being deleted? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your comment here, you obviously didn't see this section. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is that it is a notable fact in McCain's bio. Can you name other notable US politicians that met with the dictator during these years? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm at a big disadvantage here in not knowing Spanish, so I can't read your sources. But as it stands now, the text in the article doesn't explain to the reader why McCain's visit was significant. If in fact no other U.S. Member of Congress visited with Pinochet during his time in rule, then yes I would agree it's notable, and should be explained as such. If in fact there was an official U.S. policy banning or discouraging congressional members from visiting with Pinochet, then yes again. But I don't know if your cites establish that. I do know that in general, members of Congress do visit with unsavory types (think of the brouhaha over Pelosi's visit with Bashar Assad in Syria, something of course other members of both parties had also done), and of course Presidents visit with foreign dictators too (various summits with the Soviet Union, Nixon going to China and Mao, etc). Now this Huffpo account says that the objection is that during his visit McCain didn't publicly support opponents of the dictatorship, or meet with pro-democracy groups. And it gives the example of Ted Kennedy doing those things a short time later. But the Huffpo account is told from a particular perspective on this issue, and we know there is an opposite set of beliefs (i.e. Kissinger, the Milton Friedman crew, etc., all of whom were in bed with Pinochet or at least considered Pinochet better than the alternatives). If many Republican members of Congress also met with Pinochet, then we don't have much here other than the usual partisan divide on an issue. If they didn't, then maybe we do have something. But the current state of the article is untenable, in my opinion; it's either got to explain why the visit is significant or go out. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Machine translations of these articles here: [8] and [9] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the Pinochet material relevant. It looks like an inclusion that only tries to paint some sort of guilt-by-association. Sure, it's probably bad judgment to have met ("without preconditions") with a brutal dictator... but it's hard to claim with a straight face that this was "an important event in the bio subject's life". FWIW, I've edited this article only very little, but have edited the one for the other major party prez candidate quite a lot: over there we have a lot of "guilt-by-association" insertions, which are very properly removed (usually very quickly by now). LotLE×talk 18:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For decades, U.S. foreign policy backed, propped up, and yes visited all sorts of brutal dictators, as long as they were our dictators, i.e. anti-Communist. We need something here that says that the policy had changed in the case of Pinochet, and that McCain was thus in formal or informal violation of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a certain systemic bias toward US-based sources as it pertains to notability... The fact is that there is no mainstream newspaper in South America that does not carry this story, and that in itself is a notable fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said they weren't good sources or shouldn't be used. In the old days, U.S. graduate students were required to have reading comprehension in at least two or three foreign languages, so that they could understand and cite foreign journal articles in their field. All I said was, I couldn't read them, alas. As for your last point, I'm not so sure; should we add Joe the Plumber to this article, on the same grounds? How many houses McCain owns? Lipsticks on pigs? Each of these has dominated U.S. press coverage for a while too. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See above. I have posted translations of these two sources (Google Translate is getting darn excellent...) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say excellent, although it's far better than the other free online ones out there. But it seems clear from looking at the translations that these two articles were mostly just recapitulations of the John Dinges HuffPo piece I pointed to earlier, right? Except that they appear in mainstream newspapers and thus are more WP:RS than the Huffington Post. (Actually I consider some HuffPo stories to be decent reporting, but most WP editors rule it out as a source on sight.) Wasted Time R (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually is the other way around; the Huffpo reported one of the articles (the one from Chile) published by the "Centro de Investigación Periodistica: (Center for Investigative Journalism) or CIPER. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, both the CIPER piece and the HuffPo piece have notes at the bottom acknowledging the simultaneous publication of the other, and both are credited to Dinges. So effectively it seems to be some sort of collaboration between the two organizations. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess this isn't much different from what I commented above, but let me try to be clear on it. I am perfectly happy to accept the Spanish language sources as reliable; I don't disagree that there is a bias towards US sources on en.wikipedia.org either. I still think the sources reliably report news. If I were writing a political editorial, I might well point out that McCain has "palled around with dictators", "met without preconditions", etc, and that this is hypocritical given his campaign's accusations against Obama, etc. What I would't do is put any of those accusations and analyses into an encyclopedia. Whatever it's political meaning for this election cycle, one meeting in the 1980s just is not a important biographical event for McCain's whole life. LotLE×talk 23:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if this item is here for the purpose of showing 2008-era hypocrisy, it doesn't belong. All the "without preconditions" stuff we've heard about the debates is just typical inflated campaign baloney that we can safely ignore. But, if McCain's visit was significant in the 1985 context, if he was on some rogue mission or doing something that other members of Congress didn't, then it becomes significant in a biographical sense, as it tells us something about his approach and philosophy on foreign relations. I'm still waiting for other sources to weigh in on this, to illuminate different perspectives on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's completely ridiculous. Pinochet was the president of an important US ally, of course he met US congressmen, especially members of the foreign affairs committee! There was nothing in the least bit illegitimate about him, or any reason why congressmen should not have met him. He was not being treated as some kind of pariah. This "news" is no more remarkable than that McCain brushed his teeth or saw a movie. I thought it was being put in to contrast with Palin's supposedly never having met any foreign leaders; now I guess if she had she'd be blasted for having met them! -- Zsero (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, what we need here are more facts. How many congressional members did meet with him around the time in question? Remember, the Reagan administration's support for pro-U.S. strongmen started to fall off around this time: they distanced themselves from Marcos in the Philippines, for example, and Pinochet's hold on power was loosened beginning in 1987, when he legalized political parties. So we need to know whether McCain was acting against formal or informal U.S. policy at the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No need for us to speculate. The onus is on those who want to include this, to show why it's notable. -- Zsero (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I agree with LotLE and Zsero that it's premature to include this without further reasons explaining notability.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the people above that this meeting with Pinochet is not worth noting in the main article, unless there's something very special about its circumstances or what came of it. Mentioning it gives the impression of guilt by association. Presumably a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee would meet foreign heads of state, including US-friendly dictators, somewhat regularly.  Sandstein  14:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that if something (unexpected) is shown about why this meeting is very unusual, and not something other congresscritters would have done around that time, it might rise to article level. Something like that is conceivable, but we haven't bee presented with any evidence that it's something other than business-as-usual (within a very bad Reagan foreign policy normality, sure, but that's not for us to editorialize). LotLE×talk 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the arguments above and I am unconvinced that these arguments for deletion of the material in questions have any merit. Who are we to assess if this was an important milestone in McCain's political life or not? In Wikipedia we simply report what reliable sources say about a subject, and in this case, all major newspapers in South America report this as notable, period. Restored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, South America is one continent of many. Major newspapers in every other continent have not deemed this notable. Eveery other editor who has commented in this talk page section has not deemed this notable. Accordingly, I will revert.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Ferrylodge, but that is a very poor argument. Pinochet is from South America, and that is where the meeting was! This item is most notable given the massive amount of sources reporting it. Pinochet, for South American people is like Saddam Hussein for Americans, so of course they will report it! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Five editors, or even twenty cannot trump WP:V and WP:NPOV. These most prominent newspapers in South America re reporting on it, and it is indeed notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just for the record, I'm currently on the fence on this one; I want to know more about the context at the time. But I will say that Jossi's "In Wikipedia we simply report what reliable sources say about a subject" test doesn't allow for selection of importance, especially in a WP:Summary style situation. I could catenate Early life and military career of John McCain, House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, John McCain presidential campaign, 2000, Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, and Cultural and political image of John McCain together, all of which contain what reliable sources have said about McCain, but it would quintuple the size of this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Then move the material to House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, and keep a short mention here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Here: From El Clarín , one of the top 3 newspapers in Buenos Aires:

The Republican candidate, John McCain, who has strongly criticized the idea of meeting with dictators without conditions, seems to have done just that. In December 1985, he traveled to Santiago for a meeting with the dictator Augusto Pinochet, one of the greatest violators of human rights. The meeting was described by McCain as "friendly and warm at times," but noted that "the president seems obsessed with the threat of communism." This is described in a cable sent to the U.S. Embassy in Chile, declassified in Washington.

McCain, then a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, made no public statements criticizing the dictatorship. A careful check of the newspapers of the era and interviews with key opposition leaders indicated that his visit did not meet with any representatives of the democratic opposition. At the time of the meeting, U.S. Chilean government seeking the extradition of two men close to Pinochet: Manuel Contreras, former head of its secret police, and Brigadier Pedro Espinoza, for his responsibility in the assassination in 1976 of former ambassador and a former Chilean foreign minister Orlando Letelier and his assistant Ronny Moffit, in Washington. In Chile, opposition leaders sought the support of the democratic world to pressure to put an end to Pinochet's dictatorship who wore 12 years.

The Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy landed in Chile only 12 days after McCain in a public demonstration of support for democracy. He was greeted by demonstrators who fired eggs and blocked the road from the airport. He met with Church leaders, human rights and opposition.

McCain's presence in Chile apparently remained as silent as possible. He and his wife, Cindy, arrived in Santiago on Dec. 27 and traveled south to spend a few days as guests of prominent supporter of Pinochet, Marco Cariola. The trip was coordinated by the U.S. ambassador in Chile, Hernan Felipe Errazuriz, who arranged a special government liaison to help McCain, who he described as "one of the most conservative lawmakers close to our embassy."

On Dec. 30, McCain returned to Santiago, where at 5 in the afternoon he met with Pinochet. According to the document, "most of the 30-minute meeting with the president (...) was devoted to discussing the dangers of communism, a subject on which the president seems obsessed. The president showed a considerable pride at the fact that the communist threat has been defeated in Chile. " But the cable does not record what he told McCain to Pinochet. There is no indication that the problem of human rights or the return to democracy has been treated. The press office of McCain's campaign said that there was no one available to comment on the story. The former ambassador Errazuriz, contacted by telephone, said "not true" that McCain has met with Pinochet, and in that case he would have known, and added that the State Department cable was possibly an invention.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've read most or all of that in the Dinges HuffPo story. What I still want to know is what was the Reagan administration position towards Pinochet at the time, and what were other members of Congress, especially Republicans, doing in terms of visiting Chile or not, meeting with Pinochet or not. In other words, I want to know if McCain's actions were an outlier. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, that newspaper article is trying to make a point specific to this presidential campaign: "The Republican candidate, John McCain, who has strongly criticized the idea of meeting with dictators without conditions, seems to have done just that." That's why the newspaper you've quoted believes this material is notable. In actuality, McCain has NOT criticized the idea of meeting with dictators without conditions. McCain has ONLY criticized such meetings at the presidential level.

While I understand that you are excited and interested in the present presidential campaign, this is not the correct article to play "gotcha" on that subject.

No one is saying that McCain's meeting with Pinochet cannot be included in the sub-articles. But this main article is written in WP:Summary style, and you are disregarding how the vast majority of editors say this summary article should be written.

Obama will probably be elected soon enough, so he does not need you to do this for him. Please abide by consensus. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary for you to characterize things this way Ferrylodge? Are all of your edits designed to "do this for" McCain? Tvoz/talk 07:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What does Obama have to do with this discussion? Am I missing something? As I said, consensus of editors cannot trump our core policies. If you believe that a subarticle is the best place for this material, then please move it there rather that keep deleting it, and leave a short summary here.

Here is another one which adds more context, this time from Diario El Día, from Chile:

One of the distinctive elements with respect to other parliamentarians who had visited Pinochet during his regime, as Ted Kennedy, is that we were unable to confirm whether there were concerns raised by McCain's during his visit on the subject of the violation of human rights. However, McCain's spokesmen were quick to superimpose the fact that the politician was one of the architects of the return of democracy in our country. "We must not forget that John McCain was one of the key Republican legislators who supported the democratic transition in Chile, who also led several legislative initiatives that helped to carry out the elections that ended the mandate of Pinochet", lifted Randy Scheunemann , Director of National Security and Foreign Policy of the Republican campaign. However, criticism did not wait to appear after these revelation, as during his participation in the Senate, John McCain reiterated his opposition on many occasions to meet with dictators, which seems to have forgotten that afternoon in late 1985.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Where? Care to provide a link? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000. Care to explain why Jossi is entitled to put things into this article against consensus?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was me who added that there. And I will expand or change it if and when more information/context is available. And please note what I wrote there is solely in the 1985 context – that subarticle has no interest in whether this visit contradicts some 2008 campaign position of his or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough context to make sense of it yet, so I wouldn't support inclusion in the sub-article, but I'm not going to remove it from the sub-article either. If McCain was trying to obtain extradition of murderers from Chile to the U.S. then it would make sense that McCain would not be getting in Pinochet's face during that visit to Chile.

Jossi has provided two big boxed blockquotes above, to explain notability. The first sentence of the first blockquote, and the last sentence of the second blockquote, make it very clear that the cited sources are using this 1985 incident to argue that McCain is now being inconsistent or dishonest when McCain says he's against meeting with dictators. Not only is that argument incorrect (because McCain has only opposed presidential-level meeting with dictators), but furthermore even if it were correct then it would belong in the 2008 campaign section of this article (assuming that this is more important than all the other stuff in the 2008 campaign article).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally support Jossi's stand against yet another instance of Ferrylodge's habitual article-owning censorship. The meeting was clandestine--in itself notable. It has been widely reported by RS media. Nowhere do WP rules or guidelines stipulate that an American BLP subject's activities reported in RS Spanish-language media are made inadmissible by non-reporting on one or more other continents. (May I remind certain of our American friends once more that WP is not an American encyclopedia, and neither is it a vehicle for Republican propaganda.) Unlike other US diplomats, according to the reports, McCain did not meet with Pinochet's democratic opponents etc. Again, notable. So. McCain met secretly with a reviled dictator who was to be indicted for crimes against human rights--a notable event in anyone's life. There are RS cites. Of course the information qualifies. It is disingenuous to equate it with banalities like brushing his teeth. AGF? Yeah, right. — Writegeist (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist, if you build consensus to put this info into the present article, then go ahead and put it in. There is not consensus now to do so.

According to the source excerpted above by Jossi, this info is significant enough for this summary article because "The Republican candidate, John McCain, who has strongly criticized the idea of meeting with dictators without conditions, seems to have done just that." McCain has criticized Obama for the idea of meeting with dictators without preconditions, and this info is supposed to show that McCain's being hypocritical. I've tried to explain above why this argument does not wash (i.e. McCain was only criticizing Obama for the idea of meeting with foreign leaders at the presidential level without preconditions). Anyway, if you do build concensus to include this material in the present article, I would suggest including it in the section on the presidential campaign, because that's what it's really all about. However, I think it would be better for the sub-articles than for here.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CCC, WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. E.g. consensus is not a majority vote, not the same as unanimity, and not immutable etc. — Writegeist (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that you have consensus to insert this Pinochet stuff?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for deletion, if you want to be accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You have not dented Jossi's argument re. notability. Or mine. You affect to push consensus but your definition is just the numerical superiority of a particular faction. You have not established any reason for deletion. I have to leave this now. Unlike you, I do not work full-time here on behalf of any presidential candidate, and I have to turn my attention elsewhere. I do hope you will not ignore, bend or violate WP rules and guidelines meanwhile. — Writegeist (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, however much you pretend otherwise, Pinochet was a foreign head of state, a strong USA ally, and a USA congressman meeting him, especially a member of the Foreign Affairs committee, was about as remarkable as a tourist in Paris visiting the Eiffel Tower. Certainly far less remarkable than a bunch of US congressmen writing an adoring letter to "Dear Commandante" Daniel Ortega. Pinochet's rule had been confirmed by a referendum, making him more legitimate than the average South American government of that time. And he had saved Chile from communism. Nobody at the time would have blinked an eye at such a meeting. If you want something at least a bit unusual, look into whether McCain ever met Jonas Savimbi. If he did, that might be noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion somewhere. -- Zsero (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OMG. Pinochet did not "saved Chile from communism". He was a barbaric dictator, who was instrumental in the killing of 30,000 human beings. You may see that is not notable, but for South American it is mostnotable. This pedia is not a US-centric pedia, but a global one and it should represent what is notable not only for the US. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, yes, he did save Chile from communism, and for at least a decade after the communists were still attempting to take it back. The Chilean people knew that very well, which is why they kept voting him in until they felt the danger of a communist takeover had passed. His methods in keeping the communists at bay aren't really relevant. -- Zsero (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The old "saving Chile from communism" canard was a fiction to justify the overthrow of a democratically-elected leftist government by force and its replacement by a human rights-abusing extreme-right military junta in compliance with American political interests.

The Allende government was overthrown by coup d’état, and Allende murdered. Contrary to (Kissinger’s) false testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee that the US govt. was uninvolved, the US Military Group in Chile’s Navy Section Situation Report No. 2, written by US Naval Attaché Patrick Ryan, details Ryan’s close engagement with officers in the coup. See also Project FUBELT’s declassified files for more information about the CIA’s routine contacts with Kissinger and the Forty Committee during the agency’s conduct of covert ops against the Allende government. Note also the 1970-10-16 CIA cable from Santiago to Kissinger’s Track Two group: "It is a firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup...We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden." Note also the involvement of numerous US agencies in Operation Condor’s cross-border assassinations, abductions, torture etc. coordinated between Chile, Argentina and Paraguay et al. Note also the memcons of the June 1976 Santiago meeting between Kissinger and Pinochet. Note also the CIA’s own report, CIA Activities in Chile (the report forced by the Hinchey amendment to the Y2K Intelligence Authorization Act), e.g.: "CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende...Many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses...Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or US military"; also the report’s admission that Gen. Manuel Contreras, head of DINA, was made a paid (by US tax payers) CIA asset, and that he "was the principal obstacle to a reasonable human rights policy within the Junta." Etc., etc.

Fact is, for 27 years the US government concealed the active involvement of US intelligence services and US military, notably (in this context) the Navy, in the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government; and its involvement in supporting subsequent atrocious human-rights abuses by the Pinochet junta.

This adds another point of notability to the several already stated (and still not refuted): McCain, a Navy man, was sent on a clandestine mission to meet Pinochet, whom the Navy had supported in a military coup against a democratically elected government and whose officers, known to be instruments of systematic and widespread human rights abuses, were contacts/agents of the US military of which McCain was a member.

To claim that the visit was no more notable than McCain brushing his teeth or watching a movie, or than tourists visiting the Eiffel Tower, is a fiction worthy of Larry Craig. — Writegeist (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, the question of whether the Pinochet bit goes into this article is unrelated to whether Pinochet was a great guy or was instead an evil monster. It is standard for U.S. legislators to meet with both. The only way this material would be notable enough for the present article would be if McCain had truly said during the 2008 campaign that he's opposed to that sort of meeting, but: (1) McCain hasn't said that, contrary to what the cited South American sources allege, and (2) even if McCain had said it, this material would go into the 2008 campaign section of this article, rather than in the section about his early career.

Right now, the Pinochet material is in a sub-article, and that's sufficient, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That too, but the fact is that Allende was a communist, and was in the process of overthrowing the Chilean constitution and turning Chile into a communist country. Pinochet saved Chile from that fate, and protected Chile from subsequent communist attempts to seize power, and for that alone the world owes him a debt of gratitude, no matter what else he did in his life. Unless you're a communist sympathiser, I suppose. More to the point, that made him an ally of the USA, and therefore it would be unremarkable for McCain to have met him. Oh, and Allende was not murdered, he committed suicide. -- Zsero (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis

Mr. McCain recently referred to his role as a pilot on the USS Enterprise during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Does anyone know what his role was during that crisis? Did any of the US planes that flew over Cuba come from the Enterprise? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Early life and military career of John McCain: "McCain was made a lieutenant in June 1962,[53] and was on alert duty on Enterprise when it helped enforce the naval quarantine of Cuba during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.[59]" Alert duty means being ready to get into one's plane at short notice, or at the highest level, sitting in the cockpit. No, the Cuba overflights were all done by U-2s, which were land-based (although [according to our article] during 1963-1969 some were flown off carriers too). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to a message from an offWPer who knows better ... I was way off on what I said above. Low-level overflights by RF-8As and RF-101s were an important part of the Cuba Missile Crisis; see e.g. this CIA account for a description. Fortunately, our articles on both planes include their roles. I don't know whether any of the RF-8A's came off Enterprise, but in any case, McCain's A-1 Skyraiders certainly weren't being used for this role, since high speed was essential. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's always good to know people who know more than you do. Per this web page, the RF-8As were land-based, flying out of naval air bases in Florida. The film processing and intelligence distribution requirements made this much preferable to doing it from carriers. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Torture questioned

This Times article describes his capture from the point of view of his captures, who deny torturing McCain. Could be used to provide some NPOV. Malick78 (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the long talk section above. The problem is that these Vietnamese claim to have never tortured any of the American POWs: “I never tortured or mistreated the PoWs and nor did my staff.” This claim is in stark contradiction to both the many, many testimonies of the POWs and the medical examinations they were given when they returned to the U.S. There are no WP:RS historians who accept this claim. McCain's USN&WR account of his treatment as a POW was published in May 1973, two months after his release and eight years before he entered politics. Many other POW memoirs have been published since 1973, by people who had no interest in political careers. So the claim that Vietnamese make in this story that "But all the talk of being tortured is for the sake of votes" is nonsense. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain's Vietnamese captors claim that he was not tortured. See From The Times October 25, 2008 ‘John McCain was never tortured in my jail’, says Tran Trong Duyet' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5010491.ece

If nothing else, this could be said: "He was a prisoner of war until 1973, experiencing episodes of torture, though his Vietnamese captors claim he was not tortured. [and a link to the article citation].

I do not know if someone has interviewed the other captives about this specifically, but the Vietnamese knew that they had "a prince" -- the son of a top Navy admiral -- and they plastered the newspapers with the information. kem (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)kmedina

Please read the Talk page first; we're well aware of this Times story and others like it. See extensive discussions above. Also please read the article, which does say (against my strong opposition) "Former prison officials have denied that American POWs were tortured,[50] which contradicts prisoners' personal experiences.[51]" As for the "Crown Prince" references, that is included in Early life and military career of John McCain, but didn't make the cut into the once-over-lightly that this summary article gives. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing Information

There should be more information about the USS Forrestal fire. In particular that it was a rocket launched from John Mccain's airplane that started it. I think this should be included with the careless and reckless pilot part.

Another thing is how the article says his torture resulted in significant lifelong disabilities. People with significant lifelong disabilities don't remain on flight duty, nor do they stay in the Navy on active duty for another 14 years. I served as a US Naval officer aboard USS Nassau, an amphibious assault ship during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. [12:32, October 25, 2008 199.43.48.147]

Rubbish on the Forrestal claim. It was a Zuni rocket from an F-4 Phantom accidentally fired across the carrier's deck that hit either McCain's plane or the one right next to it. You don't even have the wacko McCain-Forrestal conspiracy theory right, try again! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On the disabilities, as Early life and military career of John McCain indicates, McCain went through several operations and months of grueling physical therapy to get enough movement back to pass the physicals for flight status. It didn't last long, though; by a few years later, his condition deteriorated and he was failing the physicals, and that was one of the reasons why he retired from the Navy. If you really doubt his disabilities, just watch him during the campaign, stiffly going up or down airplane ramps or the horizontal arm motions he makes to crowds. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally, as a piece of advice, don't believe everything you read about the candidates in the final stages of a U.S. presidential election. In 2004, this year, every year, all sorts of crazy shit is out there. For example, did you know that both McCain and Obama aren't natural-born citizens of the U.S., and are thus ineligible to assume the presidency? Hell yes! Bob Barr, welcome to the White House ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

PICTURE

Cmon guys, the pic is obviously fiddled with to make him look bad. The original: http://penkaushistory.com/439px-John_McCain_official_photo_portrait-cropped-background_edit.jpg It's a terrible picture in any case, but could you at least give the man the benefit of a fair portrait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neodada (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone just "enhanced the colour" of Image:John McCain official portrait with alternative background.jpg. I dunno. I still think he looked best on the real original Image:John McCain official photo portrait.JPG from his Senate site — black on black, belies his years a bit and shows attitude to boot. All the versions since then have been concocted to make him seem what he is not. But that's just my view. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally think something between the two would be best - the new one looks enhanced on the face of it, but on my display at least, his suit in the original photo practically blends in with the background; it's really not that good of a picture. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge has reverted the most recent fiddle, so Neodada's complaint is resolved. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, thanks for making a note of it.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown

Well, I always figured the article would get locked down at some point before the election (has never happened until now), but I never imagined it that it would be what it was that would do it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Chalk another one up for Pinochet, I guess.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If it had been just me and you, this wouldn't have happened. Despite all, we had a methodology that avoided outright reversion batttles ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The article will be unprotected in a few days. In the meantime, I will ask for an RFC on the Pinochet material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Now John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 has been fully locked down too, over a dispute even more peripheral to the core content of the article than this one. No matter, I gave up on that article once the invasion of material thrown overboard by the Sarah Palin folks began. Someday this will all get straightened out ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Is material related to McCain meeting with Pinochet notable for this article?

Comments by involved editors

• I believe so. See #Meeting Pinochet: there is no mainstream newspaper in Latin America that does not report this meeting. This is the edit that caused the article being protected for editing disputes: [10] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• A USA congressman, what's more a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, met with a foreign head of state; and not even a hostile one but a USA ally. That's about as notable as the fact that he wore trousers. We don't list all the foreign leaders that McCain met, or the ones that Biden or Obama have met, and the fact that Palin has not met many foreign leaders became an issue in itself. No matter how many South American newspapers find this interesting, it just isn't at all remarkable and doesn't belong in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• See WP:Summary style. This material already is given more attention than it warrants in the sub-article. The cited sources say that it's notable merely because it contradicts McCain's alleged opposition to meeting with dictators, but this distorts McCain's position: he has only opposed presidential-level meetings with dictators who fail to meet preconditions. The US and European press have not deemed this Pinochet-McCain meeting notable, perhaps because they realize that McCain did not say what the cited sources say he said.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the Pinochet material in House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 fell into a bit of an edit war itself; my text was removed, alternate (and wrong-headed in my view) text was put back in, and that was then removed again. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, so I see. Then this RfC should perhaps be adjourned so we can go do an RfC at the sub-article instead.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• The key issue here is not what this says about McCain's 2008 campaign – that would be material for John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 – but what it says about McCain in 1985. Note that contrary to what Zsero says above, U.S.-Chile diplomatic relations were in at least a little flux in 1985. Pinochet had renewed the official state of siege early in the year, to considerable criticism, and the U.S. was applying soft pressure on him to follow through on the promised transition to democracy, with speculation that U.S. policy might undergo a more substantial change. See this NYT story from Feb 1985 for example. We need to have better understanding of what was going on with the U.S. and Chile in 1985, and whether the nature of McCain's visit was unusual in that context, to know what to do with this. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The big change in U.S. policy did come, in March 1986, not that long after McCain's late December 1985 visit. Per this NYT story from 13 Mar 1986: " The Reagan Administration, in a reversal of policy, expressed 'deep concern' today over what it called 'the troubling human rights situation in Chile.' It called on other countries to support an American resolution condemning Chile at the United Nations Human Rights Commission. State Department officials said the United States had been quietly pressing for months for changes under the military Government of President Augusto Pinochet, which has been in power in Chile since 1973. But they said that the efforts had been frustrated and that the United States had therefore decided not only to publicize its unhappiness but also to denounce Chile in a resolution introduced last week at a meeting of the United Nations commission in Geneva." This suggests that McCain's secretive visit, in which he did not criticize Pinochet publicly or privately, might possibly have undermined U.S. policy. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Or it might suggest that McCain was quietly pressing Pinochet on behalf of Reagan.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • If you read the State Dept cable describing the meeting, there's no evidence of that. He heard Pinochet complain about the Ambassador (see the NYT story right below, this is in reaction to that) but there's no record of McCain saying anything in support of the changing U.S. policy. Instead he later reports that Pinochet was obsessed with the fight against Communism, which was not exactly a new insight. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I've read the cable, and there is nothing in it to suggest that McCain was undermining Reagan, or was not assisting in pressing Pinochet on behalf of Reagan. The cable mostly reports what Pinochet said to McCain rather than vice versa, so it's hard to draw conclusions about what McCain said. But it's very clear from the cable that McCain did not look favorably on Pinochet. The cable repeatedly says that McCain found Pinochet to be "obsessed", and says that McCain compared him to the head of the John Birch Society. That is not a compliment!Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Per the existing sources on this meeting, "McCain, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, made no public or private statements critical of the dictatorship, nor did he meet with members of the democratic opposition in Chile, as far as could be determined from a thorough check of U.S. and Chilean newspaper records and interviews with top opposition leaders." No, we don't have to say he undermined U.S. policy. But compared to the Ambassador and to Kennedy (right before and right after him), he's an outlier in both these respects (no criticism of Pinochet, no meeting with the opposition). That's all we have to say. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
            • • WTR, go ahead and say it in the sub-article, but not here. And please read your quote again: "McCain ... made no ... private statements critical of the dictatorship ... as far as could be determined from ... newspaper records and ... opposition leaders." How would newspaper records or opposition leaders know what McCain said in private to Pinochet? It's like saying that news reports do not indicate that McCain has ever helped with the household chores, and do not indicate that he ever stopped beating his wife. Are there any reliable sources that suggest McCain refused any request by the Ambassador or by anyone else to meet with opposition leaders? You must realize that a typical opposition leader would have been much more eager to invite a high-profile Senator such as Kennedy, as opposed to inviting a low-level Congressman like McCain.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                • • The cable supports McCain not criticizing Pinochet in the private meeting (the cables are supposed to describe what happened, had McCain laid into him the cable would have said so). The thorough check etc. supports McCain not publicly criticizing the regime or meeting with its opposition. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                    • • Does the cable indicate one single thing that McCain said to Pinochet? No it does not. It simply reports what Pinochet said to McCain. Does that mean McCain sat there mute the whole time? Of course not. There is no indication AFAIK that McCain did not do and say exactly what the Ambassador asked him to do and say.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                        • The cable says the meeting was "friendly and at times warm". From that it's pretty clear that McCain didn't criticize Pinochet. Otherwise it would have been not so friendly and at times cold. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                          • Ever hear of friendly persuausion? It's usally the most effective kind. And the fact remains: there is no indication that McCain did not do and say exactly what the Ambassador asked him to do and say. You seriously want this article to imply that McCain was undermining the foreign policy of a president of the same party? You have no basis for that.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And here's another data point from very soon after McCain's visit, from a 27 January 1986 NYT story: " Since the arrival of a new American Ambassador to Chile, the United States has taken a more aggressive role in supporting moderate opposition leaders seeking a return to democracy, according to diplomats and opposition leaders. During his first months in Chile, Ambassador Harry G. Barnes Jr., a 59-year-old career diplomat, has raised some eyebrows by holding frequent meetings with political and human rights officials. Typical of his more visible image was a photograph that appeared in local newspapers showing him attending a human rights candlelight service. ... The Ambassador's style has irritated the Chilean President, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who said publicly less than a month after Mr. Barnes's arrival in November that the 'function of some diplomats' was not to act as 'correctors.' To do so, the general added, was to 'leave behind the minimum norms of good relations.' The Ambassador's actions have been warmly welcomed by opposition leaders who say they have been unable to make any headway in negotiating with the Government. For the same reason, they say, Sen. Edward Kennedy's recent visit was important. During his one-day stop here Jan. 15, the Senator made a point of applauding Mr. Barnes's commitment to human rights." Again, the style and substance of McCain's visit seems to have been contrary to what the State Department and U.S. Embassy were doing at the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not aware that congressmen are bound to the State Dept's policies. Especially since the career State Dept runs its own foreign policy, often in near open opposition to that of the president of the day, especially if the president is a Republican. A more nuanced view of the above news items is that a weakened Reagan administration was no longer able to keep State from running its own agenda. In any case, any change of policy came about after McCain's visit. And none of this is anywhere near as notable as the infamous "Dear Commandante" congressmen (Steve Solarz, et al) just a few years earlier. As far as McCain's opposition to unconditional negotiations with hostile dictators, the key word is hostile, which Pinochet was not. Tiff with State or not, Pinochet was friendly to the USA, so the whole issue doesn't arise. -- Zsero (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • This was not the State Dept running amok, it was a Reagan policy change. Look at this NYT story from mid-March 1986: " In a major policy statement to be made public on Friday, President Reagan says explicitly for the first time that his Administration will oppose dictatorships of the anti-Communist right as well as the pro-Soviet left. The core of a message that key Administration officials said would be sent to Congress says, 'The American people believe in human rights and oppose tyranny in whatever form, whether of the left or the right.' This new approach differs in emphasis from the one enunciated by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the former delegate to the United Nations. That policy held that 'traditional authoritarian' regimes were 'less repressive,' more susceptible to change and better for American interests than Marxist rulers. Mr. Reagan's statement still calls leftist dictatorships the greater and 'unique' threat to world peace. But his intention is take advantage of his recent role in helping to remove right-wing dictators in the Philippines and Haiti and to blunt charges that he has a double standard on human rights." Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, while the denunciation of Pinochet's Chile came after McCain's visit, the policy change was already underway, since the arrival of the new Ambassador in November. We're not saying that McCain was bound to toe this line; of course, members of Congress are free to disagree with the administration, and often do (in the case of Kennedy's visit, no doubt, or Solarz or whatever). What we're saying is that this action by McCain was notable, because it was contrary to the U.S. actions of what was going on. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That is pure original research. What did McCain say or do that was contrary to the U.S.? You have absolutely nothing to back that up, WTR. Did the U.S. Ambassador criticize McCain? Did the White House?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
          • OK, let me clarify what I would put in the article. Unlike Jossi's version, it wouldn't be a separate paragraph and it wouldn't say "It was revealed in 2008 ...". It would be part of the existing paragraph that discusses Reagonomics, Central America, Lebanon. It would just say: "In late 1985, McCain traveled to Chile and met with its military junta ruler, General Augusto Pinochet; unlike the U.S. Ambassador and other congressional visitors around that time, McCain did not publicly or privately criticize the dictatorship or meet with its democratic opponents." The purpose is to illustrate McCain's approach to foreign policy at the time, just as our existing material on his Lebanon deployment opposition does. That's it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I disagree with this emphatically: "unlike the U.S. Ambassador and other congressional visitors around that time, McCain did not publicly or privately criticize the dictatorship or meet with its democratic opponents". We have no idea whether McCain did exactly what the Ambassador asked him to do. And why would opposition leaders even invite an obscure congressman to meet with them, as if he were as prominent and influential as Ted Kennedy?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Given that the NYT story says the Ambassador was meeting frequently with opposition and human rights groups himself, it's a stretch to think he would have instructed McCain not to. And opposition leaders always want anyone to meet with them, to build up the notion that they have American support at some levels. Similarly, even semi-obscure (McCain was never fully obscure) congress members will seek out opposition groups to meet with, if they oppose the regime; it's always good for publicity back home. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                • • Let me try to be more clear: we have no idea whether McCain did exactly what the Ambassador asked him to do, when McCain met with Pinochet. There is zero evidence that McCain departed one iota from script with Pinochet. And we have no idea whether the Ambassador suggested McCain meet with any opposition leaders (I think it's a stretch to imagine that McCain would have refused such a suggestion from the Ambassador). Keep in mind, please, that diplomacy is often like good cop/bad cop, and the Ambassador may well have asked McCain to ingratiate himself to Pinochet, which would have involved not meeting with opposition leaders. We simply don't have the info.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                    • • The visit wasn't arranged by the U.S. Ambassador to Chile, it was arranged by the Chilean Ambassador to the U.S. (i.e., the Pinochet gov't): "McCain's presence in Chile was apparently kept as quiet as possible. He and his wife Cindy arrived December 27 and traveled immediately to the scenic Puyehue area of southern Chile to spend several days as the guest of a prominent Pinochet backer, Marco Cariola, who later was elected senator for the conservative UDI party. The trip was arranged by Chile's ambassador to the United States, Hernan Felipe Errazuriz. According to a contemporary government document obtained from Chile, Errazuriz arranged for a special government liaison to help McCain while in Chile for the "strictly private" visit, and described him as "one of the conservative congressmen who is closest to our embassy." Errazuriz also arranged the invitation for the McCains to stay at the farm of his wealthy friend, Marco Cariola, according to Cariola, who did not know McCain previously. The McCains spent the three and a half days fishing for salmon and trout and riding horses. The area is one of Chile's most beautiful tourist attractions, with dozens of crystal clear lakes and rivers surrounded by luxurious estates such as the Cariola farm where the McCains were staying." The evidence suggests that Pinochet's govt was trying to rally support among conservatives in the U.S. Congress, to push back against the U.S. Ambassador's initiatives. There's no evidence of your theory that McCain was operating under the orders of the U.S. Ambassador. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                        • • • And there's no evidence for your theory that McCain was undermining and defying, rather than coordinating and complying with, the U.S. Ambassador to Chile.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                              • That's not my theory (my words above that may have suggested that were just talking out loud as I was looking up the NYT articles). Indeed, he may well have just been on a junket and been oblivious to what was going on in Chile. Again, my proposed text is just this: "In late 1985, McCain traveled to Chile and met with its military junta ruler, General Augusto Pinochet; unlike the U.S. Ambassador and other congressional visitors around that time, McCain did not publicly or privately criticize the dictatorship or meet with its democratic opponents." The text does not suggest why McCain didn't do those things, it just says that he didn't. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                                • • It would be more accurate and neutral to say: "In late 1985, McCain traveled to Chile and met with General Augusto Pinochet; unlike the U.S. Ambassador and some other congressional visitors around that time, there is no evidence that McCain publicly or privately criticized Pinochet or met with opposition leaders, but also no evidence that McCain did anything contrary to the wishes of the U.S. Ambassador." This is much more neutral, but I still disagree that it's sufficiently notable for this main article. I'll repeat: the cited sources claim it's notable because it refutes McCain's current alleged opposition to meeting with dictators, but that is a distortion of McCain's current position (he's only against presidential-level meetings with dictators who don't meet preconditions). There is no hint that the cited sources would deem this story newsworthy absent that alleged refutation of McCain's current position about meeting with dictators.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                                    • • The cited sources are 90% about 1985, 10% about 2008. As Jossi makes clear, in South America the legacy of Pinochet is a major, lasting topic (as well it should be), not obsessions about the 2008 U.S. election. As I've stated before, I don't care about 2008; "without preconditions" is an inflated campaign issue that Hillary tried to use against Obama without any tangible success, and ditto McCain. I'll agree to your first "there is no evidence" if you really want, but your whole last clause is unnecessary since it refutes something we aren't saying (and it would have to be extended to the whole State Dept and Reagan admin, not just the Ambassador). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                                        • • Without the last clause, you're implying that McCain was undermining U.S. foreign policy. In reality, there is no evidence that McCain did anything contrary to the wishes of the U.S. Ambassador.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                                            • No, the proposed text is not saying that. Anyway, it's late and we're repeating ourselves ... the whole idea of an RfC is to let outsiders comment, so no more from me unless I discover something new. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                                              • That's right, it doesn't say it --- it implies it. We'll see what outsiders say. Personally, I wouldn't mind if this article is frozen through the election, but I'll do my best to reach some kind of consensus before then.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• This topic only seems to gain significance in relation to its (perceived) inconsistency with McCain 2008 presidential campaign positions, not as a sufficiently notable event in its own 1980s context. Politically, I quite agree that the meeting was a terrible thing, but it was a terrible thing that was perfectly ordinary within the context of a terrible foreign policy in general. We already indicate McCain's general support for Reagan's foreign policy, this detail does not add to that notable biographical fact; spending multiple sentences on it is WP:UNDUE weight for this general biography (For a book-length biography, I'd mention it, but not here). I'm not sure if I count as "involved" or not: I've commented on the issue above, but have not edited the article in the last weeks). LotLE×talk 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• • With all the due respect that I can muster, note that it does not matter what we consider notable or not notable. What counts, per WP:NPOV is what published sources say about a subject. And unless we want to dismiss all major newspapers of an entire continent as irrelevant, this material is notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Some Chile-USA background:

• The Allende government was overthrown by coup d’état, and Allende murdered. (Incidentally, and contrary to another editor’s bogus claim that Allende committed suicide, the US govt. long ago officially recognized that he was murdered.)

• At the time when McCain was sent to meet in secret with Pinochet, the following, which all violates international law, was still kept secret and covered-up by the US govt.:

• The CIA had routine contact with Kissinger and the Forty Committee during the agency’s conduct of covert ops against the Allende government. (Project FUBELT’s declassified files record them.)

• The 1970-10-16 CIA cable from Santiago to Kissinger’s Track Two group states: "It is a firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup...We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden."

• The US Military Group in Chile’s Navy Section was involved with the coup. (Although Kissinger falsely testified to the Foreign Relations Committee that the US govt. was uninvolved, the Navy’s involvement is documented in the UDMGCNS Situation Report No. 2 written by US Naval Attaché Patrick Ryan, declassified long after the coup and after McCain’s secret visit.)

• Numerous US agencies were involved in cross-border assassinations, abductions, torture etc. coordinated as Operation Condor between Chile, Argentina and Paraguay et al.

• Memcons of the June 1976 Santiago meeting between Kissinger and Pinochet record reassurances from the US govt. to Pinochet that US govt. public statements re. Pinochet’s abuse of the human rights of members of the pro-democracy movement were for domestic consumption and did not represent the true position of unconcern.

• The CIA’s own report, CIA Activities in Chile (the report forced by the Hinchey amendment to the Y2K Intelligence Authorization Act) documents clandestine payment (of US taxpayer dollars) to numerous CIA and US military “assets” who were human rights abusers in Pinochet’s military, e.g.: "CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende...Many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses...Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or US military"; and the report states that, specifically, Gen. Manuel Contreras, head of DINA (Chile’s secret police) and “the principal obstacle to a reasonable human rights policy within the Junta” was made a paid CIA asset.

McCain’s mission to Pinochet:

• McCain’s meeting with Pinochet was covert—this alone makes the meeting a significant BLP event, and notable.

• Unlike other US diplomats, according to the reports, McCain did not meet with Pinochet's democratic opponents etc.—again, notable.

• McCain’s secret meeting was that of a US Navy man with a military dictator whose overthrow of a popular leftist democratic government had received secret US Navy assistance—again, notable.

To summarise:

McCain was sent on a covert mission to Pinochet.

Pinochet had overthrown a democratically elected government with assistance from the US Navy, of which McCain was a prominent member.

The Navy’s complicity in the overthrow of Allende, and the US military’s comlicity in Pinochet’s human-rights abuses, were secret at the time of McCain’s visit, which makes its occurrance, and its secrecy, all the more significant and notable.

Unlike other US diplomats who openly met with the Pinochet regime, McCain did not also have contact with any representatives of Pinochet’s opponents in the pro-democracy movement—another significant fact, and notable.

Therefore the meeting was a highly significant and notable event in McCain’s life.

Its notability stands up independently of any subsequent utterances McCain may or may not have made about the legitimacy or otherwise of meeting dictators without preconditions. It goes without saying that it does add perspective and context to any such utterances.

There are qualifying RS cites for the meeting. Writegeist (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• • OK, I am officially no longer A'ing Writegeist's GF. He is obviously a communist sympathiser and a kook. Just to take one item, have a look at Death of Salvador Allende to see that almost nobody today doubts that he killed himself. Not that it matters to me who killed him, any more than I care who killed Hitler, but the fact is he killed himself, and only the tinfoil hat brigade insist otherwise. Writegeist clearly is in that category. -- Zsero (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, actually the two of you mirror each other. You both see everything in ultra black and white, and you are both trying to drag the whole history of U.S. and Chile into what actually is a narrowly defined matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well pardon me if I refuse to see any good in communism, any more than in its ideological siblings, fascism and national socialism. I know that in WP articles we must maintain NPOV even about Hitler, Stalin, and Mao themselves, but in talk we need not pretend such detachment, and may recognise that this is the most evil ideology ever to be invented by man, and there is nothing good to be said about it. I have become convinced over the past week or so that Writegeist is either an outright Marxist or a fellow traveler, and thus I cannot A his GF. Of course he would see any meeting with Pinochet as highly notable, because he idolises those whom Pinochet brought down, just as a follower of David Koresh would consider notable any meeting someone held with one of Koresh's many enemies. But objectively that would not be notable, and nor is a meeting between a congressman and a US ally, even one who was having a tiff with State. And that's especially so if one of Writegeist's claims above is true, that Pinochet was assured that US public condemnations were for domestic consumption only. -- Zsero (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, quite a thread to make it through! Looking at all the comments, I am not convinced that we need any mention of the 1985 meeting in this article. However, a description like that suggested by WTR that weaved the meeting into McCain's overall policy approach in congress seems workable. E.g. something like: "In late 1985, McCain traveled to Chile and met with its military junta ruler, General Augusto Pinochet; unlike the U.S. Ambassador and other congressional visitors around that time, McCain did not publicly or privately criticize the dictatorship or meet with its democratic opponents." I think that's probably a little longer than is needed. And I don't like the speculation of what McCain did "privately"... but it seems suitably balanced and not attached to a 2008 campaign issue. LotLE×talk 06:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree we don't need the material in this article. I also agree that the speculation is inappropriate, because we have no idea whether McCain applied friendly persuasion to Pinochet. We also have no idea if the U.S. Ambassador wanted McCain to merely gather information. Whether he was applying friendly persuasion or merely gathering information, it would be wrong for us to imply that McCain was not living up to the standards of the U.S. Ambassador, given that there is no hint that McCain was defying the ambassador's wishes or deviating from the Ambassador's instructions.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've researched this matter some more, and I would like to emphasize that the cited sources are full of obvious falsehoods. As I've already mentioned, the cited sources are wrong that McCain now opposes meetings with foreign dictators; McCain's position is that there should not be such meetings at the presidential-level without preconditions. Also, McCain's 1985 visit to Chile was actually not secret; it was reported, for example, by the Miami Herald. See "CHILE OFFICERS SAID TO FAVOR ENDING PINOCHET RULE IN 1989" (1986-01-23). A further falsehood in the recent cited sources is that McCain met with no pro-democracy leaders, when actually this cable makes it very clear that he had a "warm and very friendly" meeting with Admiral Merino, who said that he opposed Pinochet taking part in 1989 elections which Merino said should give Chileans "a free and open choice." Thus, McCain came home to the U.S. with a Chilean commitment to democracy that was publicized in the U.S. press. I also wonder whether we have any info about McCain's other statements and actions regarding Pinochet. Surely this 1985 meeting was not the only thing that McCain ever said and did on that subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • a) Don't care about 2008! b) Good find on the Herald article; strike all references to secretive. c) Admiral José Toribio Merino was one of the founding and leading members of the junta, and hardly qualifies as the opposition. d) Agreed. If I had Worth the Fighting For here, I would look through it, but it might be hard to find anyway (no index, organization is off-beat). Wasted Time R (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Regarding Merino, the Wikipedia article about him says: "he impelled all the Constitutional Statutory laws, which allowed the Military Government to fulfill the constitutional itinerary and deliver the power to the civil elected authority." McCain got a commitment from this guy and from the junta to restore democracy. Do you think opposition leaders would have preferred to meet with McCain instead of receiving the junta's commitment to restore democracy? I don't. And how about if we rely on contemporaneous sources, instead of biased current sources that have an axe to grind?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
        • "McCain got a commitment" is grossly inflated language which implies that McCain was asking for something or was able to work out a deal, neither of which are supported at all. Rather, McCain was told something. As the current source says, "From his meeting with junta member Merino, however, McCain passed on an tidbit of political intelligence that the embassy found useful. 'The most interesting part of the conversation, according to the congressman, was Merino's statement that he and other members of the Junta had recently told Pinochet that he should not expect any support from the junta if he should decide to be a candidate for president in 1989.'" And many were the junta's "commitments" towards democracy; it was pressure from opposition groups and international diplomatic pressure that (among other factors) finally made it actually happen. Think of the Mideast: commitments towards the 'peace process' by various parties are a dime a dozen, doesn't mean anything changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
          • • This is from the 1986 Miami Herald article linked above: "During a visit this month, Rep. John McCain, R-Ariz., met with navy commander Adm. Jose Toribio Merino and quoted him as saying that he would vote against Pinochet's nomination to continue as president. The air force and national police commanders share that position, according to several Chilean political leaders who have spoken with them." There is no indication in this news article (or in the cable) whether Merino blurted out this commitment, or whether McCain instead extracted the statement (it would seem very coincidental that several others would have said the same thing to McCain without prompting by McCain). In either event, McCain was key in delivering this commitment to the public (which obviously includes Chilean opposition leaders). Are you seriously saying that you're not going to further modify your draft language in view of the 1986 article? Even if we didn't have the 1986 article, I emphatically oppose your draft language, because it speculatively denies that McCain applied friendly persuasion to Pinochet and the junta, and because it would be wrong for us to speculatively imply that McCain was not living up to the standards of the U.S. Ambassador, and also because there's nothing in the sub-article about this, et cetera, et cetera. By the way, WTR, did Merino keep the commitment he made to McCain, or not? And if words are meaningless, then why would it have been so important for McCain to exchange words with the democratic opposition during that trip?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
              • • The whole point of cables like this is to recap who said what and what their impressions were, so diplomatics who weren't there can know what happened; if McCain had extracted or persuaded anybody of anything, the cable would say so. The cable clearly says that the junta had recently told Pinochet that they wouldn't support another bid by him. (Pinochet did run again, in fact, so it's not clear how valuable this intel was; I don't know whether Merino and these other junta figures supported him in 1988 or not, would have to look it up.) So the junta position already existed, and McCain wasn't extracting anything. Yes, it's possible that these junta figures were using McCain as a conduit back to Washington. Yes, I'm willing to add language to the subarticle that says McCain made public this message upon his return. As for the main article, I have no clue how to capture all these aspects without giving it undue weight. Maybe we should just say he went to Chile and visited Pinochet, nothing more, and let the subarticle cover the rest. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • • Well, the visit was not secret. Only one newspaper in the United States thought it was notable enough to mention. The only reason why a bunch of sources are currently mentioning it is because they incorrectly believe it rebuts McCain's stance on meeting with dictators. And none of those sources currently mentioning it are US newspapers, who would be most familiar with McCain's actual stance. Need I say more? Apprently, this RfC was not set up properly, as there are error messages at the top of it. If we just say he went to Chile and visited Pinochet, then I think we ought to clearly and accurately state (somewhere in this article) his current position regarding meetings with dictators. Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                      • You're still hung up on "without preconditions". I'm willing to put off all additions of this material until after the election, if that's what's bugging you. Because by then no one will care, because whoever becomes president will muddle through with their diplomatic policy and meetings in a messy, ad hoc way that combines some idealism with some pragmatism with some bureaucratic infighting with absolutely no regard whatever for what was said in presidential campaign debates the year before. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                        • • Within his first year, Obama would have public sit-down meetings with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea. McCain would not have such meetings. This was a sore point during the debates, and during the Couric interview of Palin. I think it's best to leave this general issue, as well as the Pinochet stuff, out of this main article until after the election. But please feel free to include it now in the sub-articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
                            • Obama's unlikely to sit down with anyone, or if he does, it'll be with people we haven't thought of. My point is that in foreign policy, debates are lousy predictors of real events or what the winner actually does, and thus we shouldn't pay attention to them in formulating the content of our articles. Go back and read the transcript of the first Bush-Gore debate in 2000, that covered a lot of foreign policy ground. Everything international issue they talked about turned out to be mostly or completely unimportant; Bush said he wouldn't nation-build; terrorism was never mentioned by anyone; etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Zsero: I based my opinion re. Allende’s death on various sources including the US govt.’s 1983 acknowledgement, during litigation involving Hortensia Bussi de Allende, that her husband had been murdered in the coup. I was unaware of the intervening exhumation and the finding, reported in a leftist Chilean publication, of suicide. BTW, thank you for the hilarious personal attack, which I have saved as a worthy addition to my stock of Rabid Rants of the Right. Yours is in exalted company--D. Duke, S. Palin et al. Congratulations!

Ferrylodge: Admiral Merino (yay, another navy man!) was Pinochet’s prime enforcer. (Seems your sources need updating also.) That falsetto cry of "Falsehood!" is itself false.

McCain’s meeting with Pinochet was clandestine. The visit to Chile was given one column inch of a US newspaper. However the meeting with Pinochet was successfully kept secret. Ferrylodge, Zsero and Wasted Time have failed to prove otherwise; and Wasted Time’s premature ejaculation ("strike all references to secretive!") arises from a misunderstanding caused by Ferrylodge's diversionary (so what's new?) and irrelevant reference to the junket itself. The Pinochet meeting’s secrecy is one of the aspects that make it notable. Another is that, unlike other US emissaries (Kopechnekiller Kennedy for example), Gookincinerator McCain met no pro-democracy opposition leaders and made no show of support for the pro-democracy movement at this critical time. Again, notable.

Ferrylodge, as a matter of interest, are you paid by the word? Or by the shovelful? — Writegeist (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am paid by no one, but I surely deserve a King's ransom for politely responding to you. When Ted Kennedy visited Chile in 1986, neither Pinochet nor his ministers would meet with him.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. So you devote every waking minute to those deadbeats purely for the glory of the ridicule?

Kopechnekiller's non-meeting with Pinochet, another typical Ferrylodge red herring (where do you find the time to keep fishing for them?), is irrelevant to the issue under discussion, namely McCain's secret meeting with Pinochet. Please. Focus. Maybe they're working you too hard? Oh, and please drop the atypical pretense of politeness, it doesn't become you; besides, you're definitely more fun when, as is more your style, you try to be insulting. — Writegeist (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See your previous comment that brought up the allegedly irrelevant Mr. Kennedy.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What's irrelevant here about the Cheeky Chappaquiddick Chappie's trip, as you well know, is the non-meeting with Pinochet. I mentioned the CCC, as you well know, as an example of several American politicotossers who visited Chile ostensibly to boost support for the pro-democracy movement by meeting with its representatives. In this respect your Puppenspieler McGookincinerator, as you well know, was an exception.

Oh well. Just another instance in your long history of endlessly raising irrelevant obstacles to the introduction of any information into biographies of right-wing political candidates unless it furthers your agenda. The intensity and duplicity with which you push your political candidates' propagandist agenda is in such flagrant violation of numerous core WP policies (and not least WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CCC etc., etc.) that if it were not for the fact that we all know you'll bale out in a few days' time, when your work here is finished, some public-spirited editor would surely snitch to the admins.

And do you represent your candidates here on a no win no fee basis? — Writegeist (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist, what is your purpose for editing this article? Is it for your own amusement?

I would venture to guess that over 95% of Congresspersons did not visit Chile to boost support for the pro-democracy movement by meeting with its representatives. McCain was among that 95%. Big deal. McCain's purpose in visiting Chile was evidently to meet with top governmental officials, and he would not have been able to do that had he been among the 5%. So, I don't really see anything notable here. Yes, his meeting with Pinochet was evidently kept under wraps. So is 99% of American diplomacy. Perhaps if something notable had come out of his meeting with Pinochet, then it might have been leaked, as happened with the meeting he had with Merino. Ferrylodge (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have demonstrated why it was notable. You have not refuted the salient points of my argument. Instead you've shown that all you can bring to bear is unsupported speculation, personal opinion, and the usual diversions and filibustering typical of an agenda-pusher. To save you the trouble of trotting out the next tedious tactic in the Ferrylodge handbook of obstruction and delay: no, I will not list for the umpteenth time the reasons why the meeting was notable.

My purpose here? That's none of your business. On the other foot, your odious agenda- and POV-pushing purposes--and your blatant exploitation of WP in service to the McGook campaign, evidenced by your 24/7 employment sanitizing its candidates' BLPs--should concern us all. — Writegeist (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia volunteer, unemployed by the McCain campaign, and not in communication with them or anyone connected to them. I edited Wikipedia before this campaign, and will do so after it. This is something I do on my own, just like thousands of other Wikipedia editors.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Related factoid: On November 4 1909 British aviator JTC Moore-Brabazon took a piglet aloft on a stringbag aeroplane. — Writegeist (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by respondents to this RFC

• ...
• ...

New image

I can't change John McCain's photo

With permission, I would like to change John McCain's photo to today's presidential election, so it would be improved

KingScreamer (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Change it to what? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Improve what? John McCain still looks like John McCain. --James599 (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing compared to Obama's article

I have a question about senator barak obama's support website. I just visited it and I saw that all of the sources that he had were from his own web site or a known liberal news paper, so why can't he get a reputatble neutral source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.50.169 (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume you're asking this here because Talk:Barack Obama is semi-protected. In fact, both Barack Obama and John McCain use the same kinds of sources: published biographies, mainstream newspaper stories, mainstream magazine articles, occasionally a scholarly article. As for "a known liberal news paper", Wikipedia articles tend to gravitate towards newspapers and magazines whose websites don't hide their archives behind paywalls. That biases the sourcing selection far more than purported ideology of the publication. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First marriage

It seems that there should be a little more information on the page about his first marriage. He calls it his "greatest moral failing" so it seems to be playing a large part in who he is as a person.

I'm a bit wary of jumping in to add this, however...given McCain's page contents here are pretty hotly contested I'd rather someone else added this after we reach some sort of consensus on what should be said. --Kickstart70TC 03:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Many lonnnng "discussions" of this in the Talk archives ... you don't wanna go there. And more detail than here can be found in Early life and military career of John McCain and Carol McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound insulting, but this is crazy. There's tons of detail on Carol McCain's page that is much more applicable to John McCain's bio page than hers (or at least just as applicable). Was there consensus not to include it here? Was this efforts of biased editors? --Kickstart70TC 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Kickstart, is there material at Carol McCain that you think should also be at Early life and military career of John McCain, but that is not? If there's material missing at Early life and military career of John McCain then it should be inserted. The purpose of the present article is to summarize Early life and military career of John McCain rather than summarizing or repeating what's in Carol McCain. See WP:Summary style. Carol McCain's notability arises primarily from her marriage to John McCain, and therefore a large percentage of the Carol McCain article discusses their marriage. In contrast, John McCain's notability does not primarily arise from his marriage to Carol McCain, and therefore a large percentage of the present article does not discuss their marriage. Ferrylodge (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Like he said. Kickstart, if you really want to learn about John McCain, don't read this main article at all. Start with Early life and military career of John McCain, which leads right into House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, which leads right into John McCain presidential campaign, 2000, then continue on to Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, and then finally go to Cultural and political image of John McCain. Then you will have read the equivalent of a short biography that you'd buy in a bookstore. Well, not quite, but you get the idea. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:McCainGallupPollRatings.PNG

This image should be rmeoved immediately.

1. It's original research 2. It's stale 3. It's misleading

216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't think it is original research. The research is Gallup's. All User:Wasted Time R did was to collate it and present it in graph form. That's no different than what we do whenever we write an article on WP.

2. If it were in the 2008 campaign section it would be stale, unless it were updated very regularly. But it isn't in that section, and as an overall view of McCain's popularity it's still just as useful as it was when WTR made it.

3. I guess you'll have to explain this one.

-- Zsero (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As Zsero said, it's not original research, it's just charting Gallup data. I update these periodically, and I'll be doing another update after the election's over. The nature of general elections tends to make every candidate's ratings more volatile and to drive their negatives up. But for most of McCain's career, he's had a large 'net positive' (the gap between blue and pink) and that is quite meaningful. If you look at the same numbers for political figures who get a more polarized response (Hillary or GWB, for instance), you won't see that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Growing family section

Quick punctuation correction: There is absolutely no need for the Quotation marks around the names Jack and Jimmy. Please remove these. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the next section plese remove the quotation marks around Keating Five the use of the term "so-called" renders them unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The quotation marks around Keating Five in the lead are also unnecessary seeing as the name is a wikilinked topic. Robert K S (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Malformed RFC

Whoever placed the RFC did it improperly, and it's not listed (which would explain the lack of outside views here so far). In light of that, I'm leaving the page protected until the RFC is corrected and starts to bear fruit. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried twice to correct it, but something is not working with the template format. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay. Well, I'll try lifting the full protection, then, with a warning to all editors to refrain from edit-warring. If there's persistent edit-warring, I won't hesitate to reprotect, unless it's coming only from one or two parties, in which case I'll use blocks. And note that I'm quite prepared to make liberal use of the portion of WP:3RR that states that it "does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, disregard that - it looks like there's been a decision to full protect the articles of all major figures in the election, so I'll leave the full protection in place pending a decision as to whether to continue the across the board full protection. Just note that the rationale for the protection has changed from edit-warring to vandalism prevention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't; see the discussion lower on this page, and at ANI. We should treat all 4 articles the same here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I caught that right after I posted my first message. Full protection stays for now, per my second message. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-existent "heavy vandalism"

"Heavy vandalism" of the McCain article? Total bullshit, as anyone who has followed the article knows. The lockdown is uncalled-for. Except of course by McCain's poodles. — Writegeist (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with continuing the lockdown thru November 5. However, the huge tag is hideous. The small padlock symbol would work just as well. We have been through this before.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made known my unhappiness about the four-way lockdown here at WP:AN/I. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This page was already full protected on 2008-10-27 by Sarcasticidealist. So the 4-way lockdown didn't affect the protection level here at all... Even if you don't agree to it, I hope that I can make you see there is some benefit to treating all 4 of the election biographies equally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not try to sell that load of manure here. None of the 4 articles needed protection. Each had a squadron of editors from each political persuassion ready and willing to protect. --Buster7 (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't believe the page was protected on Oct. 27, you can read the log. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is very simple. It is not a matter of when the page was protected. It's a matter of why. You're an administrator? — Writegeist (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page and any other candadates page should not be fully protected. A semi-protection is proper, but to keep out everyone invites too many problems and too many speculations. Anything properly cited should be allowed according to its weight.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I have requested unprotection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, lets unprotect all four pages.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. And while we're on the subject, the tag at the top of this page is a lie and should be changed/deleted. The article has NOT been "subject to (sic) heavy vandalism". — Writegeist (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama's page is only semi-protected, which would be quite enough for this one as well. Unprotect this. Eceresa (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I can only go so fast... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Eceresa (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the vandalism?

... that would warrant page protection? I do not see any evidence of such vandalism that would warrant protection of this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected... for now

Hi again everyone. Something of a compromise has been worked out and for now, I have returned this page to semi-protection. Please watch it carefully to ensure that vandalism is reverted ASAP. The page will be re-protected on the morning of Nov 4 until [within reason] the election results are officially posted. Thanks for everyone's patience and have a wonderful halloween. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and you too! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done. — Writegeist (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Reminiscing

I reverted an edit that said: "accounts of his torture are largely based on his own reminiscences." I just want to make a note here of the reasons. As I said in the edit summary, this is not a fringe statement, but still it's not in the sub-article, per WP:Summary style. More importantly, I don't think it's notable, because obviously few people were in the room when he was tortured. This article already says that "former prison officials have denied that American POWs were tortured." So that leaves only him. Repeating this in the article seems redundant, and designed to discredit what he's written.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

With almost no exceptions, the American POWs were interrogated and tortured in isolation from each other. Thus all accounts are, to some extent, based on what was told to other POWs after each incident, what was told to debriefers after the end of the war, and what was told in various public accounts and memoirs. What historians of the war have done is to conduct extensive interviews with a couple hundred of the POWs, and piece together and cross-check all of these accounts, along with medical evidence from after the war, into coherent, validated narratives. The two standard works that have done this, Hubbell's P.O.W. and Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound, as well as the two more narrowly focused McCain biographies (from Timberg and Alexander), have all established and stated as fact that McCain was tortured. And these are the sources we use in this article. To insert the statement "accounts of his torture are largely based on his own reminiscences" is to deny that this whole historical process has taken place, and is clearly just an attempt to discredit McCain's account. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This dog and pony show, blatantly working as a team to WP:OWN the article on behalf of the McCain campaign through obstruction, filibuster, delay and distortion etc., has exhausted ability to AGF. Waste of Time's boast elsewhere that he and Ferrylodge are the "lead editors" on McCain speaks volumes of their concerted POV-pushing. These characters' tendentious editing has plagued this article for weeks. It's high time admins put an end to it. — Writegeist (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I said I was a co-leading editor in this comment here disagreeing with the lockdown of all four candidates' articles. That's based purely on edit count, as shown by this tool: Ferrylodge 1160, me 950, next highest 83. In saying this, I was simply trying to establish that I have a lot of experience regarding these articles. (Incidentally, if I were interested in owning the article, I would have been happy to leave it in lockdown and avoid having to deal with the likes of you, no?) Even a passing glance at this Talk page and archives will show that the notion that Ferrylodge and I 'work as a team' is ludicrous, the long Pinochet debate being the latest counterexample. We do manage to avoid outright edit wars with each other and our endless arguments, which are mostly civil but have sometimes turned nasty, usually result in hacked-up compromise texts that neither of us likes very much. That doesn't sound like ownership to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Tudjman and Milosevic to me. Or, er, Pinochet and Merino. — Writegeist (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

More like Tom and Jerry.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really--only one of them is a loser. If you're going to compare yourselves with cartoon characters, at least get it right: Mary-Kate and Ashley. Or John and Sarah. — Writegeist (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)