Talk:John McCain/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on John McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

isis

Yes, John McCain is “directly responsible” for the rise of ISIS.

please add a proper section; just one of many sources

I don't think his political opponent is really that reliable as a source. She will say what she wants to try to win an election. ~ GB fan 19:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

McCain's appearance at the Comey hearing

I have removed, for discussion, a paragraph about McCain's comments at the Comey hearing. [1] Yes, his seemingly befuddled questions generated a lot of coverage and speculation in the press. But IMO this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. I think all this commentary will pass as a one-day wonder. The material is too negative to include in a BLP on that basis. If the press is still talking about it a week from now, I will reconsider. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Everything begins as News. Were NOTNEWS to be taken literally, it would require the deletion of the entire project. Items should be added when they are timely, as this is the easiest time to obtain information on them, before the memory clouds. Why not include, and then delete later, when/if it ceases to be notable (unlikely) rather than prophesizing that it will fade from notability? Mishigas (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLP. Wikipedia has special rules about including negative content about living people. Such material must be well cited (which this material is), AND it must be important enough that its information value outweighs its negative value (which IMO this is not, unless it becomes a broader and more lasting story). "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mishigas: @MelanieN: I looked at the McCain article this evening to remind myself that he had been reelected this past November, and went down to his comments about the AHCA bill. I was surprised that there was no mention of the June 8th hearing, since it had drawn such a huge amount of coverage. Here's the URL for the transcript of that hearing, with the http, so it doesn't carry to the bottom of this page. ://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295 I should add that I have often had considerable respect for McCain's courage and intellect over the years, though I have sometimes disagreed with him over various issues. I sat in the Senate Gallery over 15 years ago as McCain-Feingold was being debated, and remember how thrilled I was as he, Feingold, Boxer and Wellstone walked from desk to desk to desk, rounding up votes for passage. I thought it was a great moment in American history. That said, when I was watching Comey's testimony live on CSPAN nine days ago, I was astonished when John first clearly referred to Trump as "Comey," while he was actually questioning Comey, then moments later, as "President Comey," after which he corrected himself, I was quite alarmed. He proceeded to question Comey about the Clinton and Trump campaign investigations, and he was obviously quite confused. I was involved doing slight edits on the AHCA textual reference, so I went to review reports on his participation in the hearing. I got 285,000 hits on my query specifically about Comey, Trump, and McCain's behavior in the hearing. At that point, not realizing that it had already been discussed on this TALK page, I added a brief mention of the circumstances to the article. I came to the McCain article talk page some time afterward, after making edits to another TALK page, and discovered the prior discussion. I'm worried for him, and hope he can finish his term, but I'm also hoping he's seen a neurologist about this. He's a multiple cancer survivor, as well as having received horrible beatings while he was imprisoned, has been involved and injured in plane crashes, and he'll be 81 in August. I personally feel that the mention should stay, but its presence should be reassessed in say a month or so, to see if it remains a continuing issue. If our consensus here says otherwise, I'm comfortable with that. Activist (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm mostly retired from articles like this, and the pressure to deal with recent events such as this one is part of the reason why. Any time something happens that grabs people's attention, it will get repeated in every media outlet under the sun and you'll end up with 285,000 hits. That doesn't mean it has real importance or could pass the WP:10 year test. To me here the answer is clear: the hearings incident does not belong at this time. Yes, the man had a bad five minutes. You try talking in public and on television all day, every day, for decade after decade and see whether you sometimes have a bad five minutes. Could it possibly be evidence that a decline is underway? Hopefully not, but if so and if that becomes publicly clear at some point, this incident can then be included as the first sign that the public saw of it. Otherwise it's just a bad five minutes. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Activist, but I removed it. This was kind of a one-day wonder as far as the coverage went. You said reassess in a month to see if it is still an issue, and I agree with that, but in the meantime IMO it is too negative and hurtful to leave in the article on the off chance that it turns out to be an important incident in his life. If it is still a big deal a month from now, we can then add something with the perspective of history. (My reaction, watching it live, was the same as yours:"Oh, this is sad!") {And BTW, user:Mishigas, who added it to the article originally and argued here for retaining it, does not count toward consensus; they turned out to be a sock of a blocked long-term abuse account.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
opinion/speculation --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Wasted Time R: Thanks for your response, Melanie. Since McCain's term ends in 2022, so there won't be any campaign, we quite possibly might not hear about this at all. If he had such lapses around the same time Hillary had her fainting spell, we probably would have heard about it on a daily basis, made an issue in a primary and/or general election. I suspect this may be very bad news, though, and if that's the case, it will be a great loss. Similarly, I knew Rep. Dennis Moore, for a decade or so, since his first year in Congress, in 1999. He was a very bright guy, a criminal defense and prosecuting attorney before he was elected to congress. He announced in November 2009 he would not run for reelection and his wife ran unsuccessfully to succeed him in 2010. As was with McCain, I didn't always agree with him, but I had a lot of respect for him as a public servant. In early 2012, he announced he had been diagnosed with early stage Alzheimer's which I gathered was the reason he left office at only 65 years old. There was nothing about his behavior that gave me any idea he was having problems, nor did I hear about it private. Activist (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Like you, I have always been a big admirer of McCain. Not politically, but as a human being. That's why I found it so sad to see him like that. I suspect we will not hear him making public speeches very often from now on. Mostly staff-written statements from his office I suspect. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: He could have really been extremely sleep deprived, so this was a one-off, or he could have had a mini-stroke, in which case the brain typically rewires itself. I do hope for the best. Thanks. Activist (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
You guys are jumping to fearful conclusions at this point. McCain holds the all-time record for most appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows and I don't expect him to retreat from those or anything else. For example you can see this live Facebook town hall he did just three days ago. I watched the first 16 minutes or so - he seemed fine to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
In any case this is all WP:FORUM. Would you all mind if I hat most of it? --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hat away! Activist (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on John McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

John McCain's bewildering questions at the Comey v. Trump hearing deserves own section in this article; one of the memes of the year

It should go without saying these questions were notable; I daresay the meme was notable enough to deserve its own article. Rarely has the collective populace been so befuddled, in unison, than by McCain's suggestion that Hillary Clinton may have used a secret e-mail server to hack her own campaign and conspire with the Russians to lose the election. At minimum, this article needs a major expansion to include this information. Alternatively, we might just draft an article titled John McCain's Puzzling Questions. Thoughts?

[1]

References

  1. ^ the internet

72.69.194.99 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Already discussed in a section above, see #McCain's appearance at the Comey hearing. Consensus was not to include it. It was a one-time thing and there has not been followup. But you are welcome to comment there, particularly if you can show coverage that lasted more than a day or so beyond the actual hearing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I know you're on vacation so you may have have been aware. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Absikd_EZ-4 I hope that he's okay and well enough to finish his term, 5 1/2 years hence. He'll be 81 next month. Activist (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Where to put the cancer diagnosis

People are adding this here and there in the article. I think it belongs as a subsection of "Sixth Senate term". Not as a standalone section, not in the lede. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any better place than as a sub-section of Sixth Senate term. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Cocoruff has added a standalone section, whereas I agree with the the comments above that it belongs as a sub-section of Sixth Senate term to keep things chronological. So, I will combine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Wikimandia has now created another standalone section about health, and removed the health information from chronological order to put in that new standalone section. I prefer keeping the chronological format, which is how almost all of this featured BLP has been organized since 2008. If we change to a subject-matter type of layout, then there are lots of other headers we could create, like personal life, ancestry, disagreements with Trump, Senate friendships, etc, etc. Better to keep things chronological. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course should also be mentioned in the Sixth Term section as it will affect his ability to be a senator, and they've already postponed a vote. However, we need to look at the big picture - an aggressive form of brain cancer doesn't belong as a sub-sub-subset of a term in DC. There is significant interest into his health, When you add the many years of coverage of his physical disabilities, it far meets the standard for a section on his Health. It makes sense that this info is compiled in one place - I came to the page looking for info on his previous health issues, of which I was vaguely aware, but wanted a refresher. People shouldn't have to read a 280k life story to see he's had melanoma removed three times. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The subsection can be found easily because it's in the table of contents. The last sentence of the subsection says: "McCain has beaten cancer before, in particular melanoma.[1][2]
Sources

  1. ^ Altman, Lawrence. "On the Campaign Trail, Few Mentions of McCain's Bout With Melanoma", The New York Times (March 9, 2008). Retrieved May 10, 2008.
  2. ^ "McCain Recovering After Cancer Surgery". ABC News. January 6, 2006. Retrieved July 20, 2017.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ugh why did you remove all the info I added in the health section? For example the dates of his three melanoma surgeries, the fact that he retired from the military on full disability, his transparency regarding his health issues and that he was part of a Navy study of physical/mental health of POWs? NONE OF THAT has to do with his brain tumor, which itself is not related to his being in Congress at all, excluding the timing. Why are you so opposed to having a health section that comprehensively discusses all of his health issues, which have been discussed prominently for 40 years? McCain himself gave 1,500+ pages from the Navy study to the press and gave his doctors permission to be interviewed (which people would be able to see if you had not deleted it), so I hardly see the reasoning for removing a health section as some kind of protection or BLP issue. Do I need to do a RFC? —МандичкаYO 😜 00:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The BLP says these things in a chronological way, including this: (1) "He had been treated for a type of skin cancer called melanoma, and an operation in 2000 for that condition left a noticeable mark on the left side of his face". (2) "He was designated as disabled and awarded a disability pension." Additionally, I have just restored some material removed by another editor: (3) McCain is a survivor of previous cancers, including melanoma.[1][2] Additionally, I think you erred about the 2006 date, and I have corrected it. I'll respond further in a few minutes after looking at the rest of the points you raise.
Sources

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Altman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "McCain Recovering After Cancer Surgery". ABC News. January 6, 2006. Retrieved July 20, 2017.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to do an RFC, but the main issue here is merely whether to preserve this BLP's chronological format or not, and several editors have already explained why the former is preferable to the latter. As for the 1500 pages released as a part of Navy study of ex-POWs, I don't think that's significant in itself; what could be significant would be particular findings of that study that are unusual or otherwise notable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It has to do with him taking part in the study and the fact he released the findings to the press and invited media to interview - which is hugely notable and unprecedented, as the source I added stated. The way you have it, it is NOT chronological. You have his previous cancer treatment under the latest term, which is absurd, not to mention insulting to people with melanoma, which is not some trivial health issue. A one-off health incident makes sense for chronological format, such as Bill Clinton having heart surgery after he left office, but McCain's health is notable enough that it deserves its own section, because of long-term, in-depth coverage of his health issues. His health has been the primary subject for a considerable amount of time, thus it deserves a comprehensive section. "It's been set up to be chronological since 2008" is a poor reason, especially considering his health has nothing to do with his term in Congress. If he murdered his entire family for the insurance money and then pledged allegiance to ISIS would you file that under his latest congressional term? —МандичкаYO 😜 05:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you're being accurate here. His release of information to the press and his previous cancer treatment are both discussed long before the section on his latest term: "McCain addressed concerns about his age and past health concerns, stating in 2005 that his health was "excellent".[218] He had been treated for a type of skin cancer called melanoma, and an operation in 2000 for that condition left a noticeable mark on the left side of his face.[219] McCain's prognosis appeared favorable, according to independent experts, especially because he had already survived without a recurrence for more than seven years.[219] In May 2008, McCain's campaign briefly let the press review his medical records, and he was described as appearing cancer-free, having a strong heart, and in general being in good health.[220]" Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Democrats too?

In the section about his speech urging a return to regular order, User:Anythingyouwant inserted the bolded phrase: Along with that vote, he delivered a speech criticizing the process used by the Republicans to prepare those bills as well as by the Democrats in passing Obamacare to begin with, and McCain urged a "return to regular order" utilizing the usual committee hearings and deliberations. I disagree with that phrase. In the first place, it was a passing mention pretty much ignored by Reliable Sources. In the second place, the Democrats actually DID follow regular process with Obamacare. That act went through two Senate committees (in the Health committee they spent 60 hours over it and 13 days, in the Finance committee eight days) and three House committees. The Senate debated the bill for 25 straight days and considered more than 130 amendments from both sides. Many concessions were made to the Republicans in an (ultimately unsuccessful) effort to get at least one Republican vote. The claim that the Democrats lacked transparency or went outside of regular order to pass Obama care has been rated "false" by Snopes.[2] I think that phrase should be struck, since Reliable Sources did not give it any WP:WEIGHT and it is factually inaccurate. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Also, that point is not mentioned in the source cited for that sentence, so it is unsourced as well. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
It will take me a few minutes to see if I agree with you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I've revised the paragraph to read as follows:

References

  1. ^ Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo. "Cheers for McCain, then a speech like impassioned prophet", Washington Post (July 25, 2017): "Obama and the Democrats shouldn’t have pushed the Affordable Care Act through on party-line votes when they controlled Washington back in 2010, McCain said, 'and we shouldn’t do the same with ours....'" See also "McCain Delivers a Key Health Care Vote, Scolding Message", New York Times (July 26, 2017).
  2. ^ Carney, Jordain (July 25, 2017). "McCain urges senators to work together on healthcare in fiery speech". The Hill. Retrieved 28 July 2017.
  3. ^ Fox, Lauren (July 28, 2017). "John McCain's maverick moment". CNN. Retrieved 28 July 2017.

WaPo and NYT both reported about McCain's concern that this shouldn't be done on a party line as Democrats did previously. Many other reliable sources did too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, now it is sourced. My points about WEIGHT and factual falsehood remain. (P.S. The Dems did not "do it on a party line" as McConnell did this time. The Dems fell over backward trying to get Republican buy-in, and they did follow procedure. In contrast, McConnell ignored the Dems, excluded them entirely from discussions which were carried out entirely in secret among Republicans only, and did away with all normal procedures.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. That's not a separate New York Times article. It's the Washington Post article, sourced to the Associated Press. The Chicago Tribune and other papers did the same thing. But it's all the same article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
That's why I bundled it into one footnote. ABC, NPR, etc. are available too. I have to go now for a few hours, but here are some further brief comments. First, the actual vote on Obamacare back then was strictly party line. Second, if you dispute what McCain said, take it up with him, but in this case I think it's accurate. In any event, it's not our role to delete stuff that we think he was wrong about, or use sources like vox and huffpost editorial writers to sprinkle our own views throughout this BLP, or any other IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Huh? Nobody is using "editorial writers to sprinkle our views throughout this BLP". Please confine your comments to the discussion at hand. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are not arguing for this BLP to say "McConnell ignored the Dems" and are not arguing for us to say that McCain was engaged in "factual falsehood" (i.e. lying) regarding how the Dems relied on party-line votes to get the thing passed, then please confine your comments to what you're arguing for. It's hard for me to tell. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm arguing for it to say what it said before you altered it: Along with that vote, he delivered a speech criticizing the process used by the Republicans to prepare those bills, urging a "return to regular order." He was talking about the process of writing and proposing the bills, not the "voting process" as you changed it to. The voting outcome was the same; no Republicans voted for Obamacare, no Democrats voted for repeal. But that result in 2009 was not due to some "voting process" (whatever that is) chosen by the Democrats; they wrote the bills in the open, in committees and on the Senate floor, with participation from Republicans as well as Democrats; in other words, they followed regular order. It WAS due to a deliberate decision by the Republicans in 2017 to exclude the Democrats from any participation in the creation of the legislation, with no committee hearings and virtually no debate. McCain made it clear he was talking about the legislative process. But it's also true that he made some nods toward blaming both sides, so how about if we eliminate "by the Republicans"? Let's just say Along with that vote, he delivered a speech criticizing the process used to prepare those bills, urging a "return to regular order." --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, as of your most recent comment at 21:32, here is what the section says:

References

  1. ^ Werner, Erica. (July 28, 2017). "McCain, fighting cancer, turns on GOP and kills health bill". ABC News.
  2. ^ Cowan, Richard; Oliphant, James (July 25, 2017). "In hero's return, McCain blasts Congress, tells senators to stand up to Trump". Reuters.
  3. ^ Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo (July 25, 2017). "Cheers for McCain, then a speech like impassioned prophet". Washington Post. Obama and the Democrats shouldn't have pushed the Affordable Care Act through on party-line votes when they controlled Washington back in 2010, McCain said, 'and we shouldn't do the same with ours....' The same Associated Press article was published at: "McCain Delivers a Key Health Care Vote, Scolding Message". New York Times. July 26, 2017.
  4. ^ Fox, Lauren (July 28, 2017). "John McCain's maverick moment". CNN. Retrieved 28 July 2017.

As best I can tell, this includes all of the information that you want it to contain ("McCain also urged a 'return to regular order' utilizing the usual committee hearings and deliberations"), but contains too much by mentioning the party-line votes. However, there is no dispute that Obamacare was adopted on party-line votes in both the House and the Senate in 2008, and that Republicans were also attempting a party-line vote this week. I don't see why that cannot be mentioned in the present BLP, given that McCain has emphasized this point many times over the past month, including in the speech at issue here according to the cited sources (ABC News, Reuters, and both the Washington Post and the New York Times via Associated Press) as well as many sources that we have not (yet) cited. I feel that you are attempting to skew this section by omitting McCain's definite criticism of the Democrats as well as the Republicans on the matter of party-line votes. You may disagree with McCain on this point, but it was a major part of his argument (just like security was a major part of Trump's argument for the travel ban though you have put only alleged religious motives into the Trump lead because of your disagreement with Trump). Disagreeing with McCain is not a valid reason for changing this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have explained multiple times why I think the comparison with Democrats is invalid and violates WP:WEIGHT (since most Reliable Sources did not mention it) and should not be in the article. I proposed what I thought was an elegant solution to our disagreement - omitting "Republican" so as to leave out any implication that he blamed his own party. You have rejected that proposed compromise and are determined to keep this minor point from his speech in the article (which it still is, although it should probably not be because it is contentious). I think there is not much point in continued debate between you and me, and I want to hear from other people. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
You have argued for omitting not just "Republican" but also any mention of "party line" because you "think the comparison with Democrats is invalid". Right? I am telling you that it is 100% irrelevant whether you think it's invalid. The reliable sources say McCain thinks it's valid. Please stop trying to have your POV override the POV of the subject as evidenced by reliable sources (lots of them). McCain objects to the tribalism and lack of bipartisanship that he saw in both this repeal effort and in the original enactment, and he's said so on many occasions including today.[3] Feel free to disagree with him, but not by editing this BLP. Opinions of other editors are more than welcome regarding whether we should omit all McCain opinions that we Wikipedia editors think are invalid. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wikimandia, Power~enwiki, and Activist: I see that you have recently commented at this talk page. Do you care to weigh in on this discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, @Anythingyouwant: I appreciate the invitation and will watchlist the page. I need to read a bit more to get a better grasp of the situation you two are discussing, and I will do that. However, I clearly remember that the ACA had many hearings in the Senate in 2009, with Max Baucus excluding testimony from the left, barring advocates of a single payer system. I don't recall that he restrained Republicans from participating, though I recall he was a bit heavy handed. The final vote for Senate approval only passed because Paul Kirk, who briefly replaced Teddy Kennedy, before Scott Brown's election, gave the Democrats their necessary 60th vote, which included that from Bernie Sanders, who was halfway through his first senate term. In the House, the only Republican who voted for the bill on final passage was Joseph Cao, though many Democrats voted against it. In a prior vote, even Dennis Kucinich cast a "No" vote, I presume because single payer wasn't equitably considered. I've noticed that current T.V. coverage of the repeal has referred to the opposition as "the Democrats," even though Angus King and Sanders are Independents, though they caucus with the "D"s. Each sometimes votes against the caucus. This time McCain clearly said that he was voting to proceed though he didn't like the bill and the process. I think it was being written on the back of envelopes with only a dozen plus McConnell in attendance. Lindsay Graham said he didn't like the bill and still cast a "Yes" vote. Graham and Murkowski both spent a lot of time talking to McCain shortly before the final vote, as did Mike Pence. I read that Jeff Merkley offered or filed 100 amendments and motions on the Senate floor, but I did not hear that any were voted upon or even that they were discussed. Activist (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN regarding the original mention of the Democrats in that it gives the false impression that the Democrats did not utilize the usual committee hearings and deliberations in passing Obamacare. The current, modified wording is worse: it falsely claims that McCain criticised specifically the party-line voting process used by both parties. He did no such thing. Looking at the sources, they do give some weight to his criticism of the Democrats, so I don't agree on the issue of weight. I have another alternative: keep the original wording, including the mention of the Democrats, but make it clear that the criticisms are based on McCain's perception of the process used by both parties. @Anythingyouwant: Cjhard (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

He did no such thing? The cited source says, "Obama and the Democrats shouldn’t have pushed the Affordable Care Act through on party-line votes when they controlled Washington back in 2010, McCain said, 'and we shouldn’t do the same with ours...." Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
One source says that. The other two do not, because that isn't the language he used. To quote from the transcript[4]: "The Obama administration and congressional Democrats shouldn't have forced through Congress without any opposition support a social and economic change as massive as Obamacare. And we shouldn't do the same with ours." It's not a specific comment on party-line voting, it's a comment on the lack of collaborative process which proceeds party-line voting. That's why he later goes on to talk about committees and hearings to pass bills full of compromises. Then he took a walk. Cjhard (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The cited source characterized that statement as McCain bemoaning party-line voting. Here's another McCain quote from a few days ago: "I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of Obamacare was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict-party line basis without a single Republican vote. We should not make the mistakes of the past that has led to Obamacare’s collapse...." I disagree with your proposal that we should contradict the secondary source's characterization, and contradict McCain's own explicit criticism of party-line voting, and instead you seem to be suggesting that we interpret McCain to have meant something that was factually false (i.e. that there were no regular hearings when Obamacare was originally developed) and that we say McCain was factually incorrect. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Lost to Barack Obama" in Intro Paragraph Should be Trimmed Out

Both Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton articles simply state that they were their parties nominees. The McCain intro paragraph stands out because that sentence should be reduce like other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.219.55 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2017

2602:30A:C0F2:1AC0:8CDF:6F6A:8E69:59CF (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

John McCain was convicted and sentenced to death for treason against the United States. Was pardoned by Richard Nixon a impeached President

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John McCain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

In the lead, after it gives the electoral vote totals for the 2008 presidential election, please append to that sentence: "... and by 53-46 percent in the popular vote."

This is an important change because the electoral vote count, while determining the winner, does not give the full picture of a candidate's strength or weakness overall, due to patterns of how votes are distributed. And foreign readers may be completely confused into thinking the general vote was 2-1 against McCain. 2600:1001:B10E:976E:342F:A22D:16E8:ACE7 (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The lead only summarizes the article and the 2008 Presidential Election section fully explains the results, including not only the electoral college and popular vote results, but even the county-by-county results. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Forestall Fire

Study of Video taken as John McCain jumps off wing of aircraft shows him running away, while a Chief Petty Officer and Airman running into smoke and fire when explosions take place.174.22.235.18 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC) <ref>Safety Video used in training 1978-1979 aboard USS Kitty Hawk</>

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2017

When talking about McCain's family, edit the bit about his daughter's "blogging and twittering" presence. Also, the line directly after that includes "maverick" is a joke and should be edited. AdamO19 (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The sentence is this: “His daughter Meghan became a blogging and Twittering presence in the debate about the future of the Republican Party following the 2008 elections, and showed some of his maverick tendencies.[403][404]” Can you please be more specific about how and why it should be edited? Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @AdamO19: for response. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2018

The health status and prognosis in the very first paragraph of the intro is inappropriate. Please move it to the end of the last paragraph of the intro. 2600:1002:B129:59A5:553:2CF0:EE06:4B7C (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

This change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=791510603&oldid=791503709 mangled the meaning and should be reverted. He was flying his 23rd mission over North Vietnam but not his 23rd over Hanoi - some were over other targets such as Haiphong, infrastructure in various locations, etc. 174.200.10.227 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Repatriation offer?

The article states as fact, without any attribution,that McCain turned down on an offer of repatriation. We hear this all the time, but is there any evidence for it, other than McCain's own statement? This is the foundation of his reputation as a hero. He was in the war, he did get shot down, captured and tortured, no doubt about any of that, but I find it somewhat hard to believe that he turned down such an offer, or at least that it was as simple as the way the story is usually told. Even if you believe it, even if it doesn't raise any questions for you, it seems like something that there should be a reference for.Wood Monkey 17:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurodog (talk • contribs)

There are references for it in this article, see the "Prisoner of War" section and footnotes 44, 45, and 35. The first two of those refer to the two major works on the American POW experience in North Vietnam, Hubbell's P.O.W. (1973) and Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound (1991), both of which build histories of what happened by cross-referencing prisoner accounts and other available evidence. In addition, if you read the detail subarticle Early life and military career of John McCain, you'll there is independent corroboration of the repatriation refusal: McCain's declining to be released was remarked upon by North Vietnamese senior negotiator Lê Đức Thọ to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman, during the ongoing Paris Peace Talks. Specifically, a cable that Harriman sent on September 13, 1968, said: "At tea break Le Duc Tho mentioned that DRV had intended to release Admiral McCain's son as one of the three pilots freed recently, but he had refused." The source for that cable is Timberg's An American Odyssey, p. 209. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Wasted Time R. The fact that he refused to be repatriated (which would give him special treatment as an Admiral's son) unless his fellow captives were also released is well documented. IMO it makes him one of the bravest people I have ever heard of. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there any discussion of John McCain's nickname "songbird"?

As a part of crucial American history and in respect to those American's that died due to John McCain spilling is guts at the mere suggestion of torture I believe that a discussion of this topic is merited. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.210.202 IP (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of your facts are wrong. McCain did indeed make statements against the United States, but it was after actual mistreatment/beatings/torture (either initially after his shoot-down or later after he refused repatriation), not the suggestion of it, and the statements were of no military value (anything he told them of that nature, they already knew) but rather were provoked purely for propaganda purposes. No Americans died as a result of anything he (or any other POWs) said. You can actually listen to what he said after he was broken in August 1968 in this Arizona Republic story from 2016 after recordings of the Radio Hanoi broadcasts got some public attention again and judge for yourself what the consequences were.
The phrase "songbird" is not in this article, but the "First two terms in U.S. Senate" section does allude to this line of criticism: "McCain was vilified by some POW/MIA activists who, unlike the Arizona senator, believed large numbers of Americans were still held against their will in Southeast Asia." For more on this, read the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue article. A lot of people who believed in the "live prisoners" theory hated McCain, and did everything they could to disparage McCain's record as a POW. Then of course there is argument advanced by the current occupant of the White House, which is that people who get captured are not to be admired, which is covered in the "Fifth Senate term" section. This argument ignores the fact that Hanoi during the war was one of the most heavily defended airspaces in military history, but historical knowledge is not exactly the strong suit of the person who said it. Now I'm not sure which of these anti-McCain tropes General McInerney meant by his recent "songbird" comment, but ironically what he said is actually evidence for the inaccuracy of torture-produced statements, since all it did in McCain's case is get him to confess – "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate" – to that which he clearly did not believe. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
...and which were of absolutely no military value to his captors. As for "Songbird John", is there any evidence that this nickname existed before McInerney said it? (His comment was so offensive that it even got him kicked off of Fox News.[5]) As for Trump's "I admire people who are not captured," that comment merely displays Trump's lack of understanding of military situations. A person who is flying over enemy airspace in obedience to his orders, and is shot down, is either killed in the encounter or bails out and is taken prisoner upon reaching the ground in enemy territory. There is no point at which he had the choice whether to be captured or avoid capture. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Gibel/roof

By his birthplace and roof-regularities and his Sr. he is Anglo-American by East Prussia and Israel.

195.57.92.210 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_McCain/Archive_18&oldid=1079704072"