Talk:John McCain/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is McCain a "Native Born American"?

This section of Wikipedia's Panama Canal Zone article has reliably sourced information, some of which should be included here, at least the last paragraph, I think. If the matter is already included within the article, please advise. It will be pretty embarassing if he gets elected and then thrown out by the Supreme Court and this encyclopedia included nothing about the well-known and reliably reported issue. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


"Almost from the inception of the Canal Zone, questions arose as to whether the Zone was considered part of the United States for constitutional purposes, or, in the phrase of the day, whether the Constitition followed the flag. On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated, "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country.[1] In 1953, Congress passed legislation to specify the status of Americans born in the Canal Zone--and to exclude non-Americans born there from citizenship. Title 8, Section 1403 of the United States Code grants citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen. This differs from the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment which grants citizenship to all born in the United States, regardless of parental nationality.

These provisions came to public attention in 2008, when Senator John McCain's Presidential bid raised questions concerning whether he was a "natural born citizen" of the United States entitled to seek the presidency (only "natural born citizens", resident in the United States for fourteen or more years and aged at least 35, may be president, pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution). McCain was born in the Canal Zone to United States citizen parents.

On February 28, 2008, the New York Times published an article [2] concerning the question. The article reaches no legal conclusion, stating that there is confusion about the natural-born provision and uncertainty about who would have standing to bring suit to prevent McCain from taking office based on his birthplace."

If anywhere, that issue would belong in the article about McCain's 2008 campaign. This main McCain article is about to be substantially reduced in size, so only the most essential stuff will belong here.
Also, it's not entirely clear why this issue would be any more legitimate than the issue of whether Obama's citizenship is lawful, given the allegedly unlawful annexation of Hawaii.
The NY Times article is unlikely to gain any traction. If you would like to read an actual legal analysis of the issue, in response to the NYT, see this blog post. I'm not suggesting that the blog post should be included in Wikipedia, but the sources cited by the blog post might appropriately be included in this encyclopedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. Getting back to the Hawaii comparison, Hawaii was a State when he was born. Panama Canal Zone was not when McCain was born. You may be right that it belongs in the 2008 campaign article but it is also something that affects his earlier campaign and maybe his personal history. I just think it is an issue which should be mentioned in 1 of the 2 articles. I'm definitely not going to start including information about this myself because I don't think it should matter when it comes to McCain: I have a conflict between my own pov and what I think should be in an encyclopedia. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I very much doubt that this kind of question can be resolved on a Wikipedia talk page; nor can it be used to improve the article. Perhaps the interested parties would like to add a note on this constitutional matter to their respective blogs. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Who's asking for resolution of this in the John McCain article? People are simply asking for a reference to the question of eligibility. Reading through this talk page I see alot of intelligent, researched posts attacked by apologists and gatekeepers making juvenile, contradictory replies. Activity like this is what gives Wikipedia a bad name. Hutcher (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please. This is not an issue. John McCain is many things, among them a vile scumbag who hijacked the GOP, but he is still an American citizen. He was "natuarally born" with U.S. Citizenship. Any court would find that he was "born" an American citizen. JimZDP (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's odd that so many "editors" know for sure what the Supreme Court or "any court" is going to decide in this particular case. There have been some surprises before, Brown vs. Brown and Roe v. Wade being two. Is there a reliable source which states what any court will decide on this matter? If so, let's include it. Let me ask you this hypothetical. Suppose a baby was born today in North Korea in an apartment rented by the US Government to provide housing for 2 Americans who work for the U.S. Government inside N.Korea, would that baby be a "native born American" ? Areyou sure that any court would find that to be the case? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is not the slightest question that that baby would be a native-born citizen of the USA. Even if the birth was by caesarian section. This is black-letter law. Questioning it is like questioning the roundness of the earth. -- Zsero (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This part of Natural-born citizen reads "One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."[5] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[6]" and there are many reliable sources in addition to the New York Times which see this as an important and unresoved issue. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Again from that same article: "Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."" It's a non-issue... since 1790 it's been US law that anyone born to US citizens, are natural born citizens, regardless of where they were physically born. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hutcher that our function is not to resolve the issue but simply to recognize and include the fact that there is an issue according to many reliable sources, including (but not exclusive to) the New York Times. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to show there is an issue first. A newspaper article does not necessarily show a real legal issue. The issue can only arise if McCain is challeneged on the point. So unless a seperate candidate challenges McCain on the point--there is not issue. It seems that pushing this point, unless there is something more, is simply POV pushing. See WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:NOR. CraigMonroe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The New York Times is a reliable source and its report, and the fact being native born is a qualification for the office, make it POV pushing to leave it out. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder: this issue is covered in the article about his 2008 campaign. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for the link. I'm not pushing it anymore for this main article but I'll support anyone else who does. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain is an American citizen without a doubt. He was born of American parents at a American military installation. American military installations are considered US territory so on both counts he is an American.

MDaisy (former USN dependent and born at an American Air Force Base)

MDaisy (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)MDaisy

Note:Someone has stepped up to the plate and followed Wasted Time's suggestion by creating John McCain presidential eligibility. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is going to add something about the "native born " issue? - Dispute Resolution

Topics 28,29 and 32 seem to me to provide a consensus that the eligibility for President question needs to be in this BLP and probably the 2008 campain article as well. I personally prefer not to be the one to add it, but in the interest of building a comprehensive encyclopedia of reliable sourced information I think it should be included. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the main article, here. That's where this question should be addressed. See WP:Summary Style.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've requested Editor assistance as per Step 6 of Dispute resolution and plan to pursue this until resolution. There are editors of this article attempting to block all efforts to include this notable/verifiable point in an uncivil and irresponsible manner. This behavior does not belong in Wikipedia. Hutcher (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hutcher, is there a problem with discussing this at the main article? That article is supposed to be summarized here in this article, so the place to begin is there.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, someone suggested at Early life and military career of John_McCain that the material on his citizenship ought to be moved to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, so I moved it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I imagining it, or are some editors suggesting that Wikipedia should investigate McCain's constitutional eligibility to run for president, on the grounds that the lawyers of neither the Republican nor Democrat parties have sufficiently investigated this? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, there is no issue. It's a made-up issue by a few idiots with time on their hands who can't read simple English. The meaning of "natural-born citizen" was black-letter law in the 18th century, there was not the slightest doubt about it, indeed it was cited as an example of a phrase that would never need interpretation by a court because its meaning was obvious. There is no doubt whatsoever that McCain is a natural-born citizen, and nobody of any importance is questioning it, so where's the notable issue that needs to be mentioned on WP? If a candidate were born on the 29th of February, and some idiot were to claim that he can't be president until his 140th birthday, would we cover that? -- Zsero (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This part of Natural-born citizen reads "One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."[5] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[6]" and there are many reliable sources in addition to the New York Times which see this as an important and unresolved issue. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The 14th amendment isn't the issue here. The 14th amendment doesn't use the term "natural born citizen". "Natural born citizen" was a common term in the 18th century, and there was no dispute whatsoever about its meaning. Everybody understood it to mean born under the protection of some sovereign, and everyone understood that children of ambassadors born abroad were natural-born citizens of their father's country, not of the country where they were born. This was taken as a completely obvious matter, and one that no court would ever be called on to interpret because it was so obvious and universally agreed to. -- Zsero (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the best place to discuss this would be at the talk page for John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. This kind of material would have to be included there before possibly being summarized here in the present article. Right now, this issue is only covered by a footnote in that other article on his 2008 campaign, so it doesn't currently seem significant enough to summarize here in this article. See WP:Summary Style. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the definitive answer to what "natural born citizen" meant in the 18th century. -- Zsero (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And here is the definitive answer to what it means in the 21st. Needless to say, McCain's covered. Kirchherr (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We are not constitutional authorities nor should we presume to know the answer to the question of whether McCain is a "natural born American" and it is weird that so many of us have such a determined opinion that they do know the answer to a question which most Reliable Sources and some U.S. Senators frame as an unresolved and important question. Who here is qualified to dispute U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill's assertion that the matter is unresolved, important and needs to be resolved? I agree with Hutcher that our function is not to resolve the issue but simply to recognize and include the fact that there is an issue according to many reliable sources, including (but not exclusive to) the New York Times. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would argue its not an issue until another candidate, or someone with standing challenges it in court. Without this, it is a non-existant issue. Thus, recognition is merely POV pushing and giving undueweight. CraigMonroe (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times is a reliable source and its report, and the fact being native born is a qualification for the office, make it POV pushing to leave it out. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder: this issue is covered in the article about his 2008 campaign. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


This is my response from above which also is documented in the footnotes. McCain is a US citizen as he was born on American soil. See below for statement I made earlier.

McCain is an American citizen without a doubt. He was born of American parents at a American military installation. American military installations are considered US territory so on both counts he is an American.

MDaisy (former USN dependent and born at an American Air Force Base)

MDaisyMDaisy (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note:Someone has stepped up to the plate and followed Wasted Time's suggestion by creating John McCain presidential eligibility. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"American military installations are considered US territory". I wouldn't be so sure about that. Didn't the Bush administration successfully argue that Guantanamo Bay wasn't American territory and that it was therefore OK to deny the prisoners some of the rights they would be entitled to if they had been imprisoned inside the US proper instead?

IMHO the rule that the president must be natural born is silly and it would be silly to consider McCain unfit for president BUT it is an interesting and valid point and should therefore be included. However imagine how the world would cringe (or laugh) if the presidential election disaster of 2000 was repeated by actually having elected a president whou wouldn't be eligible to be president and then had to resign (actually: would he have to resign if he was elected but couldn't be elected?). There's no need to worry about that though, because once you spent so much money to become president you are automatically right. --Soylentyellow (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the base is US Territory; it would be the same if he had been born in a civilian hospital. An ambassador's child is a natural born citizen even if he's not born inside the embassy, and there's no reason to a serviceman's child would be any different. -- Zsero (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good progress

Wow; I just popped in for the first time in a while to see if progress was being made, and was relieved to find a more encyclopedic-sized 38KB of readable prose and tidy external links. I see some missing lastaccessdates on sources, See also shouldn't be there (that nav template can be relocated somewhere else, it's awkward there), electoral history should be fixed (there shouldn't be scrollboxes in the text as they don't work on mirror sites or printable versions), I saw many WP:PUNC logical punctuation issues on quotes, "Political positions" is listy and could be converted to prose/paragraphs, there is some faulty punctuation on image captions (see WP:MOS#Captions, the difference between sentence fragments and full sentences), and make sure the article consistently uses either % or percent. Nice progress !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revisit. We'll try to address those things you mention. Regarding "%", it's only used in the electoral history section. Is that really a problem? MOS:NUM says that "%" is preferred in tables.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that there is great potential for this article. Ferrylodge asked me to weigh in on this page so I've watchlisted it and I will continue to participate in discussions and make edits as I see fit; in a few days will present, like Sandy, a "report" on my views (consider it a mini-peer review). My sincere congratulations to each and every editor of this article for all of his/her hard work. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
PS - I don't even support electoral history sections, but that's another matter :-) --Hap
Thanks! We'll look forward to your mini-peer review (and your edits). Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As a comment. I actually agree that the sliding scroll bars are eh and would not have them by default, but another editor - User:Wikidudeman - complained on the talk page about the horizontal scrollbars when they aren't used. See Talk:John_McCain/archive2#Formatting.

Also, since I added it, I obviously support the inclusion of electoral histories - they're much easier to read than a prose rendition of the same, which would be far longer and prone to editorial omission. This is fundamentally tabular data, so presenting it in a table makes sense. SnowFire (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about if we just eliminate info about candidates who got less than 3% of the vote? That way we can get rid of the scrollboxes, while providing only the most notable information. We can include a note saying that we've axed the peons (worded more politely, of course).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed candidates so that only the candidates in first, second, or third place are shown. The scrollboxes are gone now.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Gooks" language buried in sub-article

Thanks to WastedTime for this. I think it proves that much fewer readers ever get to what I call the Wikipedia Hinterlands than get to the main article. That means that very few people who come to this encyclopedia for information about John McCain will find out that he publicly used the word "Gook" for 30+ years and that he publicly called an 18 year old Chelsea Clinton "ugly". The core function here is to inform and I think that WastedTime's research proves that our process is interfering with our function. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And I think you are still trying to add POV to this article. I've said it above twice and I'll say it again: it is POV to nitpick certain specific facts from McCain's cultural and political image and add them to this page, be them positive or negative. A lot of well written material once on this article had to be cut and placed in other articles because of size concerns.
I will admit that Wasted's findings are intriguing and revealing about sub-articles. But the sub-articles present details to what we editors are supposed to generalize here, and I'd surmise that people only visit them if they want more details. McCain saying that Clinton is ugly and using the word gook for thrity years are statements which merit inclusion in the other detailed article because they are details (although I'm not sure what using "gook" has to do with anything and find it largely trivial). I might point out that on this article's "Cultural and political image" section, there is a phrase that states, "...his well-known temper, his admitted propensity for controversial or ill-advised remarks, and his..." Since this page generalizes his image, I think his Clinton comments and "gook" would fall under those contentions. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Re: "(although I'm not sure what using "gook" has to do with anything and find it largely trivial)". According to Wikipedia "gook" is a racial slur. The use of such slurs have been seen as important to political careers; e.g. George Allen may have been a presidential candidate today were it not for his use of such a slur twice. The fact that McCain used a racial slur many,many,many times over decades is certainly not a trivial thing for a politician and for Wikipedia to treat McCain's slur as trivial or "colorful language" is blatant pov or silliness or both. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22, you must get a kick out of concerns about reducing text to comply with WP:SIZE after the merciless chopping you were held to on Reagan :-) Easy to dump out everything ever written, tougher to discriminate and write tight, relevant, succinct encyclopedic prose huh? :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You got it! ;-) Happyme22 (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You can be amused all you want, but I would argue the reverse. The fact that we are discovering that nobody ever reads biographical subarticles means that maybe the WP:SIZE guidelines need rethinking. In January 2008, Ronald Reagan was viewed 302,265 times, while Presidency of Ronald Reagan was viewed 3,707 times, Reagan administration scandals 2,110 times, and Foreign policy of the Reagan administration 1,124 times. Same kind of two orders of magnitude ratios we saw above. Anything that didn't get into the main article, almost might as well not exist. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have never supported size restrictions. Never. And these findings Wasted has presented are very valuable to that argument. However, in certain cases, I will admit that size restrictions make sense. Writing a very engaging article, but a very long article (such as this one and Reagan's), with photos to keep readers amused would be my preference; take Reagan: I had everything wonderful, until discussions got underway to remove much of the presidency section and put it in the presidency article; I stepped in and made sure that didn't fully happen, but a lot did get cut. The problem is that technical issues arise. Page loading problems and the time the page takes to refresh are all key issues that will probably prevent any further amendment to extend the size guidelines. So I guess we just have to work with what we've got. Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:SIZE isn't so much based on technical restrictions (although that matters, too) as it is on average reader attention span (max 10,000 words); Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a book. A well-written article will gel down the most relevant information; Reagan was subjected to that process, mercilessly, and came out ahead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"Gook(s)" is a racial slur. If Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee had, for many years up until 2000, been making public reference to some "N_gg_er" who slashed them or robbed them or raped their sister in the early 70's, wouldn't their frequent use of that racial slur be mentioned in their main article? Wouldn't that be considered relevant information relating to a politician just as it was considered very relevant in relation to Senator George Allen's use of the term "macaca" which carries a substantial part of his main article? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
McCain was held prisoner by them for years. Any sensible person can give him a pass.--Bedford 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bedford. Also, there are some big differences between the McCain incident and the Allen incident. Allen does not have so much information about him in a whole bunch of sub-articles, and so we have to be more selective about what goes in the main McCain article. Also, the incident with McCain is more than eight years ago, whereas the thing with Allen is much more recent. Additionally, the person to whom Allen directed his remark had not tortured Allen and crippled him for life. Furthermore, in war, derogatory terms about the enemy are not uncommon, which is not to excuse what McCain said, but merely to point out that it's getting ample coverage in the Wikipedia article about his cultural and political image. Incidentally, I would bet that every single U.S. veteran who fought against the Nazis referred to the Germans as "krauts" which is also an ethnic slur.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It's only personal pov to speak on behalf of an abstract "sensible person" because I don't think anybody with an ounce of sense would see an intelligent connection between a torturer and the use of a general racial slur against the race of the torturer. Some US troops have pled guilty to torturing prisoners in Iraq but I don't think a sensible person would say that makes it more acceptable for the tortured person to be calling the torturers "honkeys" or something like that; I know many veterans of WW2 and I have never heard them use the term "krauts" in public and I certainly don't think Eisenhower ever did it in public. This defense of McCain's right to use the slur is quite bizarre, I think. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please be more careful Grant. I did not offer a "defense of McCain's right to use the slur." I specifically said that this "is not to excuse what McCain said."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not about whether he has the right to use the word or not. His use of the word has not gotten extensive coverage in the media or public. It is not worth mentioning on his biography page. I agree with Bedford too, for what it's worth. Paisan30 (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's 3 contributors who say/agree with "Any sensible person can give him a pass." I just find it really odd and a bit disturbing because: would you also be willing to say that any sensible person would give the same "pass" to a presidential contender who made multiple public references for decades to "a gang of ni_g_rs" if that gang had done some terrible things to him/her 30 years ago? Maybe you haven't thought it through or more likely none of you see the term "gook" as being as hurtful as the term "ni__er", but are you sure it's not just as hurtful to the people of that ethnicity? What is disturbing to me is not so much the fact that you three (assuming that you see yourselves as sensible people) would give him a pass, it's that all three of you presume to speak for all sensible people which goes beyond pov into the world of presuming universal agreement with that particular pov. Maybe I'm missing something here because all 3 of you do,in fact, seem like sensible and reasonable people so perhaps it's just my own personal way of looking at ethnic slurs as, at best, an ignorant step down the slippery slope toward dehumanizing the subjects of the slur, thus never qualifing for a "pass" when used regularly by a sober sensible person. If that's the case,(that my own pov is working overtime) then I'm sorry for wasting your time on this point. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps what you're missing is that no one has suggested giving McCain "a pass" for using the term now, eight years after promising to stop. He only deserves "a pass" in the sense that this particular event of the previous millennium does not need to be featured in this main Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If any of McCain's remarks deserve mention in the main article, it's the Chelsea joke, not this. It was cruel in multiple ways to multiple people to begin with, and for a sitting senator to say that of a sitting president's family in public, when the senator is famous for valuing honor and character as cardinal virtues, well ... Robert Timberg, otherwise a sympathetic biographer, says the act was unspeakable and unworthy, and he's right. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That was certainly a disgusting remark about Chelsea Clinton. Almost as disgusting was the reaction from the White House. Here's the report in the The Washington Post by Ann Gerhart and Annie Groer on June 12, 1998:
McCain's Misfire
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) drew some gasps at a GOP Senate fund-raiser Tuesday night when he told a crude joke at the expense of the first lady, her daughter and the attorney general.
Even by the standards of Republican bonhomie, it was way over the line. Has Don Imus signed on as his speechwriter?
Late last night, McCain said of his shocking barb at Morton's: "Yes, I made a very unfortunate and insensitive remark. It was the wrong thing to do and I have no excuse for it," he told the Source.
Usually admired for his blunt talk, the war hero and potential presidential candidate admitted just the other day in The Post that "a lot of times I say things that get me in trouble."
The White House had no official comment. Noting the close working relationship the president and McCain have enjoyed of late, a Clinton aide said, "You're not gonna hear any smack from us; he's our bud over here."
Not exactly Harry Truman defending the singing skills of his daughter Margaret.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it goes to the heart of what is the mission of an online encyclopedia.Is the purpose to only repeat the more publicly known aspects of the subject of a BLP? The "in the closet" Florida congressman who was outed awhile back, for example, many Washington media people said that everybody in Washington knew he was gay:... but the fact is, the people in Florida who were voting for him never heard anything about the fact he was known to be gay. Should they have known what the media groupies knew?
Here's the question: why, IN A DEMOCRACY should some small group of people know details, that the general public do not, about someone running for public office? Why should we here on this page know about the "gooks" and "Ugly 18 year old Chelsea" comments made by this person, who, as of this moment, has the best betting odds of being the most powerful person in the world in about 9 months, and 95% of the people who squeeze in a bit of time to come to this encyclopedia to find out about this guy in between their jobs and family obligations never know, before they cast their votes, that he said such things which some of them might find stupid or ignorant or insensitive or racist.
Knowledge is power and an online encyclopedia can provide knowledge to readers which then gives them the power to act, or not act, or ignore or dismiss the knowledge. I have to wonder whether this encyclopedia would/should have included in 1999 reliably sourced information about G.W.Bush's personal history in his BLP which might have indicated to some readers that he showed a tendency towards sadism ( laughing while burning/branding(for life) a classmate in the back who was being held down on the ground by W.'s pals: blowing up animals with explosives: that kind of fun ). I wonder whether the readers would have found that information more important and inciteful than some of the other stuff that is/was on the main BLP. Obviously, I think we need to put more reliably sourced stuff in the main BLP article that readers likely don't already know. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
All I'm going to say is that whatever the concensus' descision is, I will abide by it. As for Mr.grantevans, I would strongly suggest, sir, that you keep your own POV out of editing for the good of Wikipedia. Coming from a Reagan supporter who has concentrated the majority of his Wiki time on that article, I know firsthand that it can - and must - be done. Might I also suggest that you read WP:TRIVIA? --Happyme22 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
We are not here to create the news, but to report it. Regardless of editor opinion on the offensiveness of the term, this was a minor story in the 2000 presidential campaign, and is reported as such in the appropriate article. Adding it to the biography page would make it appear more noteworthy than it actually was. As an example, some people (not me) are offended by Barack Obama's "typical white person" remark, but that doesn't merit its inclusion in his biography page. Paisan30 (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll also abide by whatever the consensus is and maybe the consensus is that this is more a case of WP:TRIVIA than anything else. I also think Obama's "typical white woman" comment does merit inclusion in his BLP. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

Ferrylodge asked me to check out this page to get my thoughts on it's status and potential future FA status. I promised a "mini-peer review" so here are some of my thoughts:

  • There are many sections throughout the article regarding his family. I realize that it moves chronlogically throughout the Senator's life, but instead of placing the sections convolutedly throughout, why not combine them into a general "Marriage and family" section? Instead of "Naval training, early assignments, first marriage, and children", it could simply become "Naval training and early assignments" getting rid of the longer title (the same goes for "Senate liaison and second marriage", "US Congressman and more children", etc.) while moving the paragraphs having to do with his first marriage and children into the Marriage and family section. It should probably go below the "Naval traning and early assignments" section.
    • In the old, one-piece article, I was adamant that the family material be interleaved with the biographical narrative, because each affected the other. His first marriage was an indication that his immaturity during and post-Annapolis was coming to an end, Vietnam and the POW years affected the break-up of that marriage, the second marriage provided in part the launching pad for his political career, their adoption of a daughter presaged the worst of the 2000 campaign, and so forth. McCain's story is character-based, and to pull this material out of sequence loses a good chunk of the narrative of that character. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • If you feel that is best for the article, I'm okay to oblige. Happyme22 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • My only comment on this is that I would like to remove the word "children" from the section headings. It just makes the headings overly-long, and after all he's not a notable figure because he had children and then had "more children." We've already got the first and second marriages explicitly appearing in the section headings, and that ought to be enough.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
          • That was one of my other concerns. I say take them out.
            • The inclusion of "children" in the headers is to make it easier for readers to find the family material. Because WP doesn't have indexes (like normal books), the Table of contents has to serve some of that role. And I've never felt there is anything necessarily wrong with longish headings. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
              • It's no big deal. I'll leave it for now unless someone else objects.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Consistent citation formats, including:
    • for book sources; either cite them all individually in the text with page numbers, or place them all in a bottom "References" section and write "Smith, Anna (1989), p.0" in the footnote.
      • I did the latter for books that McCain wrote (and that were thus already listed in the "Writings" section) and the former for books that others wrote. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • There are three citation styles recommended for Wikipedia: Harvard referencing, embedded links, and footnotes.[2] My understanding is that we have chosen WP:Footnotes. It's therefore recommended[3] that we can use the format "Smith, Short Title, 182" when a different page of the same book is being cited. We should not use "Ibid, 182", and we should not use the "ref name" format to cite different pages in the same book. We can have a separate bibliography section giving full publication details for frequently cited sources, so we’d only need to cite the author, short title, and page number in specific notes. I'm kind of leery of mxing these two allowed options (i.e. having a bibliography for different pages of some frequently cited sources, but using the format "Smith, Short Title, 182" for different pages of other frequently cited sources). My preference would be to have a bibliography for ALL frequently cited sources if we're citing different pages in a single source. The reason for this preference of mine is that using "Smith, Short Title, 182" necessitates hunting in the previous footnotes for Smith, whereas Smith can be listed alphabetically in the bibliography.
          • I've added a "Bibliography" section. This is for the situation where different pages are cited in different footnotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • italicize newspaper names; Something that I learned from my friend Wasted Time R. Either use the "publisher" parameter in the {{cite news}} template and add two apostrophe marks at the beginning and end, or simply use cite news' "work" parameter, which italicizes it for you. For works by other sources that have been republished, you will have to use both parameters.
      • Okay, I think that's done.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • wikilinks; either link all the publisher names, link them only the first time they appear, or don't link any at all; authors with wiki articles may be wikilinked.
      • since cites come and go and get moved around, the "first time they appear" approach is hard to maintain. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, so it's all or nothing. Happyme22 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I've implemented the "nothing" alternative.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • no blogs! I removed one, and have seen a few others remaining on the page. Blog sources are not always verifiable.
      • some newspaper blogs are allowed per WP:V footnote 5. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I did not know that, and thank you for clearing that issue up. Happyme22 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Citations needed:
    • In the entire "Keating five" section
      • Additional source has been added (NYT).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The mention of the "Gang of 14" needs a citation as well
    • McCain's attempts at immigration reform
    • "Cultural and political image" section
    • The "Military" section in "Awards, honors, and decorations"
      • I don't know of any source that specifically says McCain received the Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, National Defense Service Medal, or Prisoner of War Medal. However, some of those awards were routine for people with McCain's service record. I'm not sure how to cite them; maybe we should just erase them and make clear that we're only listing "some" of his medals.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, I've removed the uncited decorations, and inserted a note that the list is not exhaustive.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there any free photos of the 2000 presidential campaign? If so, it would be nice to include one.
    • Good suggestion. I've included an image of his 2000 logo that was already in the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the "Second Bush term" section, the quote "Although Bush had threatened to veto the bill if McCain's language was included," is strange. McCain speaks English, as we all know, and unless it's profanity or something else being referred to, I'm not sure what "language" the sentence is talking about.
    It seems perfectly clear to me - it refers to the language McCain inserted into the bill. Bush insisted that it be removed, or he would veto the bill. -- Zsero (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well forgive me but I am still in the dark. What language are we talking about? Happyme22 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ferrylodge cleared it up; thanks a lot! --Happyme22 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

*Above the "Cultural and political image" section, there is one big list of ratings different organizations have given McCain over the years. Those aren't his political positions; it's a list that goes on far too long and does not communicate as much as should be communicated (particularly under the "special interests groups" section). While I think one or two of the views expressed by the special interest groups and the political organizations should be kept, this section needs to describe McCain's Republican stance (moderate, conservative, or liberal) and views on the pressing issues of today (War on Terror, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, climate change, gay rights, illegal immigration, economy including taxes, healthcare, abortion, stem-cell research, etc.). I realize that much of those have been brought up in the article, but they should be made reference to here again because that is the title of the section.

    • It's impossible to summarize briefly and neutrally and fairly many of McCain's political positions. What's his position on tax cuts, for example, the 2001 one, the 2003 one, the 2006 one, or the 2008 one? What's his position on immigration, the one up to mid-2007 or the one after? What's his position on abortion, his votes in the Senate, his remark about not overturning Roe, his votes on judges, his lack of enthusiasm about really pushing it, his campaign finance reform that would hamper interest group advertising? And so on. We have a political positions article that can go into depth on each of these, and the biographical narrative (both in the main article and the no-one-ever-reads subarticles) also covers these. There was a "summary of positions" section in here until recently, and it was the worst mishmash of inaccuracy, incompleteness, inappropriateness, and pov pushing (at one point it mentioned Ted Kennedy three times) you can imagine. Better to avoid it altogether. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It probably is better without it, and a link to the Political positions of John McCain article will satisfy. I just can't stand the long list of ratings from the different groups; you really only need one or two, not ten. So I would add them all to the positions article, get rid of this section and place link to the positions article. Since some of McCain's positions are difficult to describe and largely repetitive, how do you feel about that? Happyme22 (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The interest group ratings represent how others view his political positions, which is a useful metric across some of the major issue divides. It's not the whole story, obviously, but it does tell you something, and it's inherently a "summary" type of measure. This approach has been in place in the Hillary main article for a long time now, with few complaints (and trust me, that article is a complaint generator ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Well I think something has to be done, because it's a bulleted list with too many items and hardly engaging prose. I understand that is how other view his political positions, but the current format is lackluster. I like the deletion, addition to the positions article, and addition of a link to that article in this article; do you have anything else to suggest? And Wasted, I love what you have done with this article and thank you for all you help with my projects. I hope that you don't feel that I am intruding on this matter, but I strongly feel that some action has to be taken to improve the section. Happyme22 (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't know what's wrong with bulleted lists, sometimes that's the best way to present something ... but I would have no objection to moving everything to the political positions article and just linking to it. However, that tends to freak out the WP:SUMMARY by-the-rules types. And of course there's no intrusion here; I've mostly removed myself from the (current state of the) main article anyway. I am interested in what you think about the WP:SIZE restrictions, given the stats on Ronald Reagan article viewership I gave above. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

*Get rid of the see also section and the template because it is the same one as that below the infobox.

  • I've made my opposition to elecoral histories sections clear, but I am in no position to demand that this one be removed. I do, however, recommend that the format of the content stay consistent; two elections are horozontally listed with a scrollbar and colors, while one is vertically listed (I would prefer them all vertically listed).

All in all, I think this article has great potential and definitely FA worthy when the concerns I've raised are taken care of. Your biggest challenge, however (and boy do I know about FA challenges), is the stablity issue because he is currently running for office; I think that can be argued against by the fact that Barack Obama's article is featured and he too is running for president. I hope the editors have found this insight useful, and please if you have any questions feel free to contact me. Thanks so much and good luck, Happyme22 (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice review, Happy, but you're too humble. Raul himself suggested that you be the subject of a Signpost Dispatch, featured articles in spite of adversity, because of how much you went through with the Reagan articles. That made you a solid voice of experience.
Regarding the stability issue, see this past talk page thread, and the stability criterion which is:

1 (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.

Neither Obama nor McCain are precluded from becoming or staying featured solely because of an election year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto what SandyGeorgia said. Happyme22, you've given us some uncontroversial items to work on, plus some that are more controversial. I guess we ought to tackle the uncontroversial ones first.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Check this out.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for accepting my comments; I think they will be beneficial once implemented. Another point I would like to raise: McCain's health. Yes, there are many mentions of his torture while a POW and how the repeated beatings have left many joints unable to fully function. Yet I only see one mention of his melanoma. Melanoma?!?! That's an awful, very dangerous cancer that the potential next President of the United States was afflicted with. Perhaps some larger mention of this event would prove useful. Happyme22 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, melanoma is very serious business and should be explained/described a bit more in the main article. I'll do it.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think your revison is great; thanks for that. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain role in Forrestal fire and relationship to captors

Just read an article by Roland Eyears saying that a hotshot maneuver by McCain started the fire aboard his aircraft carrier, and that he gave away intelligence to North Vietnam in exchange for preferential treatment. Don't know how much is true, and I know nothing about the author of this piece- but if others have more info, I'd like to hear it. Thanks, Paul Barrett, Seattle WA

Here's the article: JOHN McCAIN THE MOST FLAWED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN HISTORY by Roland Eyears (http://www.wcltam.com/news/special/articledetail.cfm?articleid=23261

[... copyvio deleted ...]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.120.133 (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This piece is another rehash of the full collection of anti-McCain rantings that float around on the web. See Talk:John McCain/archive3 for some previous discussions of the POW parts. If you want to see a Navy history of the Forrestal fire, see the entry for it in here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Forrestal fire was caused by a Zuni rocket mis-firing leading to the United States Navy including stronger safety tests for all weapons. The USN also upgraded firefighting training and techniques after the Forrestal fire. The Zuni misfired (See USS Forrestal (CV-59) on Wikipedia) during a preparation for another strike in Vietnam territory.

McCain was not responsible in any way for the incident. In fact, he was seated in his aircraft waiting for take-off when the fire occurred.

MDaisy MDaisy (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

as WP:BLP standards also confer upon the talk page, i would suggest that this whole section be deleted, but since there are countering comments already, i'm not sure if that's the right path. thus, this metacomment. Anastrophe (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the notion that talk page comments of this sort need to be suppressed for BLP reasons. There is a long-established, small minority viewpoint that McCain is a fraud, traitor, nepotism beneficiary, and Arizona corruption beneficiary. This viewpoint gets, and deserves, only occasional allusions to it in the our articles, but I do not think discussion about the viewpoint in the context of our articles' talk pages, especially for a very public figure such as McCain, should be off-limits. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I also don't think that editing the headings of Talk postings is wise, as was done here. The surest route to editors concluding this article is run by a pro-McCain cabal is to edit Talk contributions. (I only edited the body of this contribution because it was a flat-out copyvio, which is prohibited under all circumstances.) Wasted Time R (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Headings should be neutral and should not be critical.[4] So, I'm sure you'd agree that we should edit a heading that says "John McCain is a jerk." But what if the heading says, "Is it true that John McCain is a jerk?" This was the type of heading that I edited here. I very rarely edit headings, but this seemed like an excellent time to do so. You can change it back if you think I'm wrong, and I won't revert. And I agree with you 100% that the comments below the heading should not be suppressed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
my comments were based upon WP:BLP, to wit: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." . emphasis mine. and i'll add, i'm not saying it should be supressed - that's why i added the metacomment rather than merely deleting based on BLP. repeatedly adding these claims on the talk page can be a means of insinuating the material into the encyclopedia, if only by the proxy of 'talk'. i simply question the value of leaving the material here, if it has been covered previously in talk/talk archives. Anastrophe (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think both of you are headed down a wrong path, but I guess I'm in the minority. You'd better scrub the headings in the Talk archives too, because at the time, I dealt with this viewpoint head-on rather than sanitized it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's hard for me to imagine any less neutral than one like this: "Isn't it true that John McCain is a traitor who also got hundreds of U.S. military personnel killed?" And that's basically what the heading of this section says. Out of deference to WTR, I will not revert, but I very much doubt whether there's any heading in the archives as critical and non-neutral as this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If you wanted to change it neutrally, you would have made it "McCain role in Forrestal fire and relationship to captors". By changing it to just "Forrestal Fire" you dropped half the contents and made unspecific the rest — other editors could easily construe that as trying to "bury" the material, which was my original point. As for Anastrophe's point about Talk page material insuinuating itself into the encyclopedia, that just doesn't happen. In February 2008, the John McCain page was viewed 1,614,941 times, while Talk:John McCain was viewed 5,534 times. That's a three orders of magnitude difference. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't take the time needed to rewrite the heading carefully.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the metric, Wasted - that's actually very informative, and i agree. it's in the noise. Anastrophe (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Jim Whitman"

The following material has been reinserted into this article:


[1] The Writing on the Wall, back cover.

[2] The Writing on the Wall, p. 131.

[3] The Writing on the Wall.

First of all, it says "John McCain clearly served as the model...." but no reliable source is cited saying to whom it is clear. Secondly, this does not summarize anything at the main article, Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain. See WP:Summary Style. Additionally, the political novel at issue is not a bestseller, and has not been reviewed by any notable publication, according to a Google search. See WP:Notable.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This material doesn't belong in any of the McCain articles. The book isn't notable, its publisher is obscure, and the The writing on the wall (novel) article will likely disappear as soon as the deletionists find it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd revert it again, but I don't want to risk a technical 3RR violation.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Details about electoral history

In the electoral history section, I shortened things by only listing the top three vote-getters. I still think that's plenty of info. However, Snowfire has reinserted more detail.

For example, in McCain's 1998 Senate race, I listed only the top three vote-getters, and Snowfire would also like to mention that "Bob Park of the Reform Party received 18,288 votes (2%) and write-ins received 187 votes." This seems like insufficiently notable info for this article. A link is provided to the main article on the 1998 Senate elections, and only the top three vote-getters are listed, i.e. nothing about Bob Park or about the 187 write-ins. If it's not notable enough for the main article about the 1998 Senate elections, then why is it notable enough for this summary of McCain's electoral history?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Although, Snow Fire did make a good point on my talk page, when he says (quote), "One of my worries is that reporting only the 'relevant' results can be misleading in some elections, and generally opens up WP to accusations of bias, so best to completely report results. Some older electoral history tables ignore third party candidates, which can be very bad if the resutls were something like 49% A, 47%B, 4%C. Was C a complete independent? Or did his policies lean strongly toward A and B, and possibly tip the election?" I think that point is very relevant. Now I'm going to suggets something that Snow Fire, User:Darth Kalwejt, and I have all talked about: creating seperate articles for certain political figures (i.e. Electoral history of John McCain). Although Snow Fire recommended only doing that for articles of presidents, I think the recent controversy over this (plus the existance of an Electoral history of Eliot Spitzer article) might just make that idea okay here. I've taken up my concerns with the sections, which are currently used on multiple politican's pages, and have split the Electoral history sections off of two rather large articles: Electoral history of George H. W. Bush and Electoral history of George W. Bush. Although I would prefer a seperate article (with all the candidate information), I will abide by the consensus' decision. Happyme22 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge: First off, thanks to the references-style div, the extra information takes up very little screen real estate. So the cost here is not that great. Second of all, saying which candidates are "relevant" and which ones aren't is inherently a POV game that can also turn into original research. As a simple example, Ralph Nader's candidacy in the 2004 presidential election was reasonably relevant, but he didn't even get half of one percent of the popular vote. Now, undoubtedly some candidates will not be that important, but picking out which ones is hard, and moreover not really necessary for an electoral history table. Why not have the full results? We're an encyclopedia with infinite space. If some result tables are complete and some aren't, then people have to wonder if Wikipedia is missing something. Simply including the full results, including the 210 write-in votes or whatever, clears up the issue completely and removes any possibility of bias.
Now, in the case of the prose sections of the main article, you're absolutely right - no need to mention third party candidates unless they're unusually relevant. But the official results should be, well, the official results. They're not that long.
As for Happyme's suggestion, should McCain win the presidency I'd agree that the tables connected with his Congressional career become less relevant and can be moved off to a subarticle, but until then, I'd be in favor of keeping them here. I'd certainly say that a table showing McCain's strong performance at the polls is more relevant to his article than the list of decorations, for example. SnowFire (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In this 2008 presidential election, there are dozens of third party candidates and independents running.[5] Are we going to have to list them all in the John McCain article? As I said, it should be more than adequate to list the top three vote-getters in this main article. That would have included Nader in the Bush-Gore-Nader race of 2000. If you want to put in all the very minor or fringe candidates, the place to do that would be in an article specifically about the elections, such as the main article on the 1998 Senate elections, and/or in a new article such as Happyme22 suggests on Electoral history of John McCain.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's simple: Presidential elections are a different ball of wax (I wasn't the one who put in the 2000 primary results, by the way, and am less keen on them than the House/Senate results). There are more candidates and articles specifically on them. McCain only faced a small number of opponents in his time running for Senate, so that's not a problem here, and moreover, the elections generally don't have their own articles yet. Congressional elections are often to a degree referendums on the incumbent, and it's not uncommon for challengers to not even have articles or for there to be no article on the election itself (Especially in really cut-and-dry places where the elections are generally landslides).
Moreover, perhaps to put it more strongly than before... it's very bad if house style gets to be "some candidates can be removed." Yes, in the case of McCain, most of his opponents don't seem THAT relevant, but what about the many cases where they are relevant, sometimes down to the fourth or fifth person in the polls? If scholarly use expects to have to look the full list up anyway just to make sure that there wasn't an extra relevant candidate lying around, that makes Wikipedia less useful. Let's just have the full list for Congressional elections outright and clear things up completely, so people can see that yes, there was no phantom extra candidate swinging the election, because no candidates are omitted. And again... it barely takes up any space at all - 3 short lines on my screen at a reduced font size. SnowFire (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia with infinite space. SnowFire, even if that was true, people do not have infinite time. Long articles are frustrating to read, particularly when they are bogged down by minor pieces of information. Unless a third party source makes specific mention of minor candidates and their influence on a given election, their inclusion seems rather bloating. Arzel (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How about if we mention in this article a candidate who finished behind third place ONLY if there's a possibility it made a difference? For instance, if the winner got 41%, and the runner-up got 40% and the person in fourth place got 3% then it would be mentioned here. But if the winner got 55% then I think listing the top three finishers would be plenty for this particular article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed this matter some more, and I endorse the idea of having a separate article titled Electoral history of John McCain, similar to Electoral history of George H. W. Bush and Electoral history of George W. Bush. Then we can summarize in this main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely supportive of that idea. Happyme22 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll get to work on it.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
All done. And I put the corresponding section of the present article into narrative form.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of the narrative form in the Electoral history section. Almost all of that information is already narrated in the article in the chronological sections, e.g. in the "A 'Maverick' senator" section we say, "McCain easily won re-election to a third senate term in November 1998, gaining 69 percent of the vote to 27 percent for his Democratic opponent, environmental lawyer Ed Ranger.[86]" while in the Electoral history section we say, "McCain was again reelected in 1998 with 69 percent, versus 27 percent for Democrat Ed Ranger.[200]" What's the point of having this narrative in twice? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hegerty, Braun, and Starky are only mentioned in this brief electoral history narrative, whereas some other opponents are mentioned twice in the article. So, the narrative is not completely redundant. If the same info were put into a table in the electoral history section, instead of in narrative form, then the redundant info would still be redundant. I think it's useful to have a brief section on electoral history, with a link to the main electoral history article, don't you? Maybe the best solution to the redundancy would be to remove the specific names of opponents from elsewhere in the article (e.g. so "Clair Sargent" is only mentioned by name in the electoral history narrative). Another approach might be to only give point-spreads in the other sections, and only give the percetages for each candidate in the electoral history section.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and attempted to solve this redundancy problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Born with grey hair?

Does anyone have any color photos of John McCain in his early years? (i.e, in his 30's or earlier) I am basically investigating some rumors that John McCain (like CNN's Anderson Cooper) was born with grey hair.

99.238.157.247 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where you get your information, but Anderson Cooper had brown hair until he was 20 and prematurely went gray. [6] EagleFan (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
According to an new article, his hair had turned entirely gray while he was a Prisoner of War during the Vietnam War, e.g. it a was premature gray. There are black and white pictures of him in the 70s having returned from war with very distinct gray hair in case you want to look for them. Zidel333 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on my research through both the book and film "Faith of my Fathers", evidence has it that John McCain was born with brown hair, to answer the question.

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain a southern baptist?

I have recently learned that John McCain recently converted to the Baptist church. Is it true that John McCain is now a member of the Southern Baptist Church?

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what the article says in the infobox. Happyme22 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 article, we say, "Beginning in the early 1990s, McCain began attending the 6,000-member North Phoenix Baptist Church in Arizona, part of the Southern Baptist Convention, later saying "[I found] the message and fundamental nature more fulfilling than I did in the Episcopal church. ... They're great believers in redemption, and so am I."[18] Nevertheless he still identified himself as Episcopalian,[18] and while Cindy and two of their children were baptized into the Baptist church, he was not.[18]" Then in the Cultural and political image of John McCain article, we say, "By September 2007, McCain's denominational migration was complete, and he was identifying himself as a Baptist.[54]"

Conservatism

In the section about conservatism, isn't it relevant to mention the reasons why conservatives are opposed to him? The amnesty bill, Gang of 14, and McCain-Feingold being the top three reasons I can think of. Ryratt (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe ... some of these are indicated in the bio sections above it, and in the two presidential campaign articles. The danger is that it becomes a laundry list of every grievance — closing Gitmo, anti-torture, the one Roe remark, maybe leaving party, anti-smoking, global warming and Climate Stewardship Act, and so on. Then supporters try to rebut these, and the whole section spins out of control again. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of out-of-control, does there seem to be any parts (perhaps especially in the more recent history portions) that could be trimmed (since most sections have subarticles)? --Ali'i 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, if you want to assign material to oblivion. So far in March, the John McCain page has been hit 660,605 times, while the Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present page has been hit 761 times. That's an 868-to-1 ratio. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, I saw the stats above, but I think some of the detail might be a bit overboard. I'll try and see what I can do. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, seems like the section should be deleted or that a brief pro-and-con approach should be taken. I would be more in favor of the latter since his inability to rally the base has been an issue and may continue to be in November. Ryratt (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Image layout issues

Editors keep moving the images around to different places and different sides, trying to fix formatting and layout problems. The thing is, the page looks different on every computer, in every browser, in every browser size. So what one editor fixes may just make it worse for others. The basic problem I think is too many images in the early sections for too little text. The best solution may be to yank a couple of the images; they are all in Early life and military career of John McCain (which everyone should be reading anyway!) The remaining images should just be located in the right chrono section, alternating left and right, and whatever happens with the layout, happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine in my browser. It's possible that some people may be rearranging the photos just for fun. But if one photo should go, I could easily do without the Forrestal photo.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the Forrestal one and/or the A-4E Skyhawk one (neither of which show McCain) could be removed. And maybe the "McCain series" little box could be placed somewhere else on the page to reduce the clutter at the top. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The "McCain series" little box is much more important in the sub-articles which otherwise would not contain those links. However, in this article, the "McCain series" little box merely restates all of the links to main articles. I would prefer getting rid of the "McCain series" little box rather than eliminating photos, but if a photo has to go then I'd favor getting rid of the Forrestal photo (doesn't show McCain and is in black and white). I also never muich cared for the photo in the "Maverick Senator" section, but am not pushing to remove it at this time.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, those are the two best photos to go. But the "McCain series" little box is the way of highlighting the existence of the subarticles ... with it less visible, their readership will sink even further. The Isaac Newton article, which WP:SUMMARY gives as the model for the subarticle navigation box, has it tucked in the right side of the first text subsection, which is effectively where it is here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note - I use the Opera browser and there is lots of white space between the right margin and the infobox. It looks fine in IE and Firefox, however. I've looked and I can't see how to fix that, if there is a way, so I'll leave it to someone who knows this better than I do. Manway (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - don't pull the box, but get rid of the Forrestal photo. Happyme22 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Generally you should keep images to the left when they are anywhere near an infobox but try and avoid images clashing with headings. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note - I use the Opera browser and there is lots of white space between the right margin and the infobox. It looks fine in IE and Firefox, however. I've looked and I can't see how to fix that, if there is a way, so I'll leave it to someone who knows this better than I do. Manway (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"conservative ideologies"

Considering the context, I don't think there could be much chance international readers would be confused about what the article would be referring to if it said "conservative ideologies" (witness: the BBC's profile of him and an International Herald Tribune article). Also, along the same lines, "conservative ideologies" should be clearer than just plain "conservatism": the point of that sentence is more that he believes in those principles than that he follows the movement, equatably to how the article in question defines conservatism as a "constellation of political ideologies."

I don't have a problem with your recent edits, except for the statement that McCain generally adheres to conservative ideologies. The word "ideologies" has connotations, and they're not positive. For example, calling someone an "ideologue" is generally regarded as an insult. You say that McCain "believes in those principles" so why not use the word "principles" instead of "ideologies"? I'll make that change, and see what happens.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of "American conservatism", as terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are heavily subject to misinterpretation without explicit geopolitical context. I also disagree with the introduction of "ideologies" or "principles", as a good case can be made that McCain doesn't subscribe to either. That's why I wrote the original "While generally adhering to American conservatism, ...", as it describes a voting pattern without purporting to represent what he really thinks. But I won't belabor this; it will likely come up down the road with other editors. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of children

the info box list 7 the article states he adopted his first wife's 2 kids and had 1 with her. On Cindy' McCain's article it states she and John had 3 for a total of 6 not 7

Cindy and John also adopted a daughter, for a total of 4 kids of theirs, 7 of his total. Coemgenus 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Doug, Andrew, Sidney, Meghan, Jack, Jim, and Bridget. Seven. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks I found this same info at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/27/mccains_children_avoid_the_limelight/ perhaps someone can add a section to the page with all his children's names and year of birth

I've added this information to the infobox. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are the children from his first marriage - Doug and Andy, from his first wife's former marriage - whom he adopted when they were young, as well as a daughter, Sidney. Then there is the second family: Meghan, Jimmy, Jack, and the McCains' adopted daughter, Bridget, 16, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.121.29 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Major article size reduction needed (really, presidential eligibility again)

As of today the article was 106,584 bytes, about twice as long as is manageable. The section Early life needs to be reduced to a one paragraph summary. All of that content is available in the article Early life and military career of John McCain and does not need to be duplicated here. Just include the location of his birth, the date he graduated from the Naval Academy, the year he went to Vietnam, the date he was shot down, and the fact that he was held as a POW for x number of years. However, why is he even running for president? He isn't a Natural born citizen - he was born in Panama. If you let him run for president, than anyone born in Iraq can run for president of the US, and anyone from Afganistan. And anyone from a dozen other countries that the US has control over. Maybe someone could put this question into a FAQ about McCain. Surely I'm not the only one to notice this and question it. 199.125.109.100 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. For the nth time, Blackstone says explicitly that children born abroad to "the king's embassadors" are natural born citizens, and that this is so obvious that nobody would dream of disputing it. The key distinction is that they're not subject to the law of the land they're in. So yes, children born in Iraq or Afghanistan to USAn servicemen—who are not subject to Iraqi law—would be natural born citizens, and eligible to be president when they turn 35. -- Zsero (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well if it is being answered for the nth time then it is a valid question. I would call them naturalized citizens because they were born in another country. Nothing natural about them being born in the country - they weren't even in the country at the time of their birth. Something should be added to the article that his eligibility is disputed. 199.125.109.100 (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn't disputed. Nobody with any standing, or with actual knowledge about the question, is disputing it. It's just a bunch of people with neither, who keep raising it on WP. It's addressed in the article on his campaign, but since there's no real question it's not worth raising in this article, which as you've pointed out is already too long.
And it doesn't matter what you'd call them, what matters is what they are, and Blackstone considers the answer utterly obvious. It's not a matter of where you're born, it's a matter of to whom you owe natural loyalty. -- Zsero (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If I call it that I'm sure there are plenty of others who also call it that. I'll see if I can find a reference for you. Here's a cute idea - Obama is introducing legislation to define Natural born... How novel a way to win an election is that? Here is a reference that states "the question has never been tested in court". Clearly we will be hearing more of this if McCain wins the nomination. 199.125.109.100 (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you love subarticles so much, you are free to create John McCain presidential eligibility, and put all your fine arguments and "cute ideas" in there. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Zsero hasn't seen any of the reliably sourced articles [7] questioning McCain's eligibility: apparently the matter is already addressed in the sub-article hinterlands, but I agree with 199.125.109.100 that the degree of importance to the question is substantial enough that it should be at least mentioned (the existence of doubt expressed by some reliable sources) in this main BLP. I think an encyclopedia should inform in a broad way (including the less widely reported aspects) rather than parrot the more widely known and agreed upon sound bite information relating to the subject. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the wrong view of an encyclopedia. It shoudl be a succinct synthesis of the standard information about the article's subject. Not original research, not fringe theories, not ground-breaking analysis: just the ordinary facts. Links and citations to innovation should be encouraged, but innovative research or analysis belong more properly in newspapers and journals than in an encyclopedia. Coemgenus 14:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that the cited article does not name a single expert as actually questioning McCain's eligibility. The most that anyone says is that they can't absolutely prove his eligibility (presumably they hadn't read Blackstone), but none of them actually doubt it. -- Zsero (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, to whom would the many Mexican "anchor babies" owe their natural loyalty to? specifically if their parents were illegal workers who were only in the USA for 1 year (during the birth)? Isn't it double think to bestow US citizenship, which carries with it a certain presumption of loyalty, on those babies if the US government takes the position that those babies' "natural loyalty" is towards Mexico? I think a good attorney could make a case that the U.S. anchor baby law works against the fringe theory that children of Americans born outside the USA are natural born americans. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? If someone is born under a sovereign's protection and jurisdiction, then he owes that sovereign loyalty. McCain was not born under the jurisdiction or protection of the Panamanian government. Like "the king's embassadors", his parents were under the sole jurisdiction and protection of the USA, and therefore so was he. The same would apply to a child born to a USA serviceman in Iraq, or more likely in Germany. -- Zsero (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, maybe a separate article about eligibility could be valuable. Also, two high-profile lawyers Ted Olson (a McCain backer) and Laurence Tribe (an Obama backer) looked at the issue (sparked by a legal proceeding filed on the 6th of March) and released a statement saying that based on legal and contitutional history that he is a natural born citizen, and therefore eligible. Read more here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Although I was sarcastic in tone relative to the proposer above, I actually have no objections to a John McCain presidential eligibility article. Currently material on this is spread out among half a dozen articles, and this would coalesce that and relieve undue weight concerns in those articles. And I think that this is what the article title should be, as it doesn't presuppose that it's a controversy or a matter of practical doubt, just a subject that legal scholars have explored. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting this idea that the article is "twice as long as is manageable". Wikipedia articles aren't measured by their number of kb, but rather by readable prose (see WP:SIZE). True, this article's kb count is high, but the readable prose is only 40kb. This number can be found with the prose size calculator script by Dr pda (talk · contribs). Per WP:SIZE, an article with 40 kb readable prose or more "May eventually need to be divided", which this article has been.

As for the natural born citizen issue: to me, it is a dead issue, but I know that it is still prevalent to many. I've reviewed the attempts made by multiple editors to put this issue to rest (or at least to direct the query to another page), and I found something, which I hope will further kill the controversy (at least on Wikipedia). Here's from ["8 U.S.C. 1403"]: (a) any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 4, 1904... whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States." (found on p. 4 of the National Review, dated March 24, 2008.

And I'd like to say something to Mr.grantevans2; Sir, it is evident from your posts that you are not a fan of Mr. McCain. That is perfectly fine, but please leave your own opinions and bias out of the article or these vitally important discussions. Thanks and best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time's last post. The issue is clearly unresolved and important, otherwise Senator Claire McCaskill would not be introducing legislation [8] specifically to address the issue. This MSNBC article has some of the best information on the issue. I think our function here is not to try to judge whether McCain is eligible but rather simply to accept that people more knowledgeable about the matter than we are (like Senator McCaskill) see it as important enough to warrant new legislation. That, in and of itself, means that it should be addressed more fully in the encyclopedia, I think, and Wasted Time's suggestion seems to me to be a reasonable way to go about it although I personally think it warrants being in the main BLP. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you joking? The fact that a senator introduces a bill is evidence that there's a problem that needs fixing? On what planet? Senators introduce bills for one reason - to get publicity. If they happen to solve real problems, that's lagniappe. I also wonder why you think a senator is likely to be more knowledgeable about such a matter than any random WP editor; she's far more likely to be less knowledgeable, since she has less time to look into such things, even if she had the inclination. In any case, there's already an article on the subject: Natural-born citizen; what could possibly be said on the subject that would be more appropriate here than there? -- Zsero (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to see that someone new, who has a good sense of humor as well as an obvious abilty to edit, has stepped up to the plate and followed Wasted Time's suggestion by creating John McCain presidential eligibility. Maybe now all of the psuedo experts (like myself) on American constitutional law can chill out on this purely technical,albeit crucial, legality. Mr.grantevans2 (talk)
Unlikely that this is a new editor, most surely a WP:SOCK of someone with an angle. I have been here awhile and don't know about stuff like adding a mitzy or that it is slang for miszabot or even how it is done. Arzel (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Good grief: I meant new to this discussion, and someone whom I assume to have the best of intentions rather than an "angle" (that, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, still is our policy,last I heard). Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I know what you meant. However, this person created this account (or at least their page) on the 19th of March 2008, and their third edit, about 30 minutes later was to add a bot to a page, and their fourth edit was to create that page. Most likely an anoyn that had been editing for quite some time, but I do find it interesting. Arzel (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Regarding the size of this article, I don't think it's too big overall. However, I am concerned that the Early Life section remains a bit oversized. It has 64 footnotes, six subsections, and 1800 words. Yet, it is supposed to merely be a summary of the main article on his early life. So, I'd like us to think about ways to shorten the Early Life section in this article. How about if we start by getting rid of subsection headers? I'll do that and see if it sticks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC) I just cut about 350 words, and this section now has two subsection. Is that okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Compare to Obama Article

Seems a different approach was taken by the authors and editors of the Obama and Mccain WP articles. The McCain article is carefully controlled while the Obama article is 'pepped up' with many 'clever quotes' by Obama. The Obama article focus on some of his policies and his really neat books. The McCain section about his candidacy really starts in on his age and previous melanoma and really goes no where. Bias, or am I just smokin the good stuff? 24.197.149.26 (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the McCain section about his candidacy places undue weight on age and melanoma, and then gets bogged down in details. I didn't write it, but will rearrange a bit.
By all means, feel free to suggest and make further improvements. I haven't read the Obama article, but if it isn't neutral then it isn't Wikipedia-compliant.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Any tangible suggestions on how to fix it? Yahel Guhan 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
By it do you mean Wikipedia's blatant bias, Obama's article, or this article? 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
From the tone of your post ("really neat books") I'd say that you have some bias issues of your own. Not sure if you are smoking good stuff or not. :) Paisan30 (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential eligibility

The article John McCain presidential eligibility has been nominated for deletion by myself here. -- Naerii 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain's family

I was wondering if I could open a new section called Family, and discuss his family more. It could help people understand more into who he really is other than the usual questions of his age, health, or political stances. Is that ok? — talk § _Arsenic99_ 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The person who wrote most of the article tried to integrate that info throughout the article. For example, one section says: "In 1984 McCain and his wife Cindy had their first child together, daughter Meghan. She was followed two years later by son John Sidney IV (known as "Jack"), and in 1988 by son James.[68] In 1991, Cindy McCain brought an abandoned three-month old girl needing medical treatment to the U.S. from a Bangladeshi orphanage run by Mother Teresa;[69] the McCains decided to adopt her, and named her Bridget."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The material that person wrote is mostly gone from here, moved to the subarticles. The integrated biographical character narrative is also pretty much gone from here. The previous era of the article did in fact have a Personal life section, so you may want to consider restoring that. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that person would favor that restoration? I was thinking about renaming the section titled "Military service" to read "Military service and marriage" but I'm not sure if that last word should be plural (leading to endless disputes about the letter "s").Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That person now wishes the article had never been broken up, having subsequently seen the depressing stats about how rarely subarticles are read, but given that that cookie has crumbled, is agnostic about main article decisions now. (In general that person believes that an integrated chronological approach is always better, because that's how people live their lives and that's how real biographies are written.) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with the parenthetical. So, I have edited the heading in question to be "Military service and marriages." That should help people navigate to the personal life info (the next section heading mentions the "growing family" which should also help with navigation).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
But no where in the article is it discussed about his current marriage and current status of his children. So perhaps we should have a section as such. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are written from a historical perspective. Granted being a dynamic encyclopedia certain aspects tend to be written in a more current tense, but that should not be the norm. Current status of anything quickly results in articles that read as if out of date, and continually need to be updated to stay current. Perhaps you could be a little more specific regarding "current status". Arzel (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You do not understand, if we put his marriage stuff in the section of early life, then we can't talk about his current marriage etc, can we? The article is designed in chronological form, but family is always something current, it's not going to be called "Current family" it's simply called family, and discusses his family, not just marriage. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The current status of his children are covered somewhat in the Cultural and political image of John McCain subarticle, last section. If he gets elected president, we'll likely be creating an article for them, either individually or en masse. (Meghan McCain is almost notable enough now to support an article, due to her McCainBlogette activities.) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See now also this NYT article about James McCain's military service. Sandstein (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Should we merge this with the George W. Bush article, since McCain appears to be running for a third Bush term? -Halo3zune —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo3zune (talk • contribs) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many many differences between Bush and McCain, and this is not the place for you to be spreading political opinions. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please add Ron Paul for the opponent in the presidential race? There are two Republicans running now, McCain AND Paul. Paul did not drop out. Please correct this so people will be better informed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.237.107 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a wikilink in the lead paragraphs to info about competitors.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There's also a template box at the bottom of the article about the candidates, called "United States presidential election, 2008". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think we should merge. The George W. Bush article is large enough as it is. Paisan30 (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

height

According to Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates (with verification from Arizona's largest newspaper), McCain is 5'7". Any ideas on where in the article we might insert that fact? Given that the political handicapping journalists and pundits talk about a candidate's height every single election cycle, I figure it's worth a mention. --M@rēino 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's in one of the sub-articles.[9]Ferrylodge (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C06E1DF113BE631A2575AC2A9619C946597D6CF
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
  3. ^ Interview with Hannes Artens on author's website
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_McCain/Archive_6&oldid=1142765976"