Talk:John McCain/Archive 8

Military service stuff in infobox

I would like to suggest deleting the "military service" stuff from the infobox. There's already a whole section of the article devoted to awards, so the list of awards in the infobox is kind of redundant. Also, the infobox is currently huge. And McCain is primarily notable as a politician rather than as a Navy Captain. We could break off the military stuff from the infobox, and make another template to insert later in the article, but really all of the material in the infobox is well-covered in the text, and doesn't require repetition, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I realise that some of the information in the infobox is repeated elsewhere, but this is the case for most pages with an infobox, just look at the George W. Bush or Tony Blair pages. The infobox is not there to give unique information that can not be found anywhere else on the page, it is there to instantly tell the reader the office/s the person occupied and when the person occupied it along with other important information relating to the individual. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The infobox for George W. Bush is much shorter than the present McCain infobox, so I don't think it would be a good idea to expand the McCain infobox further by providing details about his military career. Also, note that the problem of infobox bloat was raised at peer review for this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I do not agree. One of the major factors of who he was is his service. The difference between Bush and him is clear. Bush never served in a war. Bush never was a POW. You can't make the argument that Bush has less about military that McCain should also. Military defines McCain much more than Bush. However, I do believe that brevity is important but removing it entirely is taking it a bit too far. Yialanliu (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I AGREE. The section "Military Service" is undue weight in this article, especially as 90% of the material duplicates what's already in the longer article Early life and military career. McCain uses his military service and prisoner confinement as a political cudgel and the political purposes of highlighting that part of his life to the exclusion of the last 27 years of his life as a politician is completely inappropriate and unbalanced in a NPOV encylopedic article. The undue weight is especially egregious as the article gives shockingly short shrift to the political career McCain has had the last 27 years. If the "military service" section of historical details fifty years old remains it clearly needs to balanced with the more pertinent details of McCain's political service the last 27 years. Except for a McCain lobbyist writing a POV public relation fluff piece the "Military Service" section could only be seriously balanced by noting McCain extreme militarism has led him to be called a warmonger: "one who urges or attempts to stir up war." Argue as you will but John McCain's history is the the living, breathing embodiment of the warmonger definition. McCain's comment that "there will be other wars" and his naive militaristic belief that the Iraqi's will let us sit on their land for the next 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 years are clear indications of his militaristic world view. There are many honorable men and women serving in the armed forces that rightfully consider themselves "Peacemakers." McCain, however, has a history of seeking and glorifing war and the Wikipedia article has given undue weight to that aspect of McCain's political marketing of himself. Either the "Military McCain" section should be moved to where it is appropriate: the extensive page devoted specfically to that, or the page needs to be considerably balanced out with the details of the more pertinent 27 previous years with some of the material that has been inappropriately clipped and moved to other sub pages.71.111.139.167

This article is a biography of McCain's whole life. He grew up in a military family with a strong naval heritage, and he spent 23 years in the Navy, as well as 4 at the Naval Academy. So he was in the military about as long as he's been a politician. His military career included involvement in the pivotal war of our time, Vietnam, that has shaped much of what has followed, and included the intense personal experience of being a POW for a number of years. The character attributes that he displayed during his military education and career have, for better or worse, also been the same attributes that have shaped his political career. For this article to downplay the military part of his life would be silly. Finally, your rants about McCain's "extreme militarism" are irrelevant to the weighting issue. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberal rating?

The political positions section isn't very useful. Instead up providing McCain's actual position on issues, it focuses on conservative and liberal ratings generated by sites of questionable validity. McCain's liberal or conservative ranking, I find, is quite useless... the few sentences about his actual stances at the end of the article should be expanded. The whole ranking thing is pointless.

Regarding the political positions section, I agree it could use some work, but I generally like the approach, which is to give the big picture rather than getting into the dozens and dozens of specific issue positions. It's better to leave that to the sub-article, IMHO.

This reader may not even have seen Political positions of John McCain. There's something about the Main article: ... subline that just doesn't seem to get visually recognized. Maybe it should be in a different color! In any case, it's difficult to summarize political positions fairly and accurately. For example, how would you summarize McCain's position on tax cuts? It's been quite varied, as a function of time, budgetary context, and (possibly) political convenience. To try to do it quickly in this article is bound to get into trouble; better to leave it to the specialty Political positions of John McCain, where it can be expanded upon in sufficient length. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But, the section could be improved by establishing why "The Almanac of American Politics" is a reliable source (or better yet, the gold standard) for measuring where on the politcial spectrum a politician is. Ditto for the ADA and ACU. Just saying the names "Michael Barone" and "Richard Cohen" doesn't do it for me.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding ADA and ACU, here's a political science prof in WaPo: "For more than 30 years, the standard method for gauging ideology has been to use the annual ratings of lawmakers' votes by various interest groups, notably the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the American Conservative Union (ACU)." And here's a Google Scholar list of hits for papers using ADA and ACU ratings; there are hundreds. Of course they aren't perfect; no such metric is. But they are widely used in both the general and academic worlds. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good quote from WaPo. Can we incorporate that into the article (at least in a footnote)?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Barone and the Almanac, the publisher says it's the gold standard ;-) It does have a good rep (see [1] and [2] for a couple of example testimonials) and it has the great virtue of using a three-axis spectrum. I like to use as many of these as possible, but two others (National Journal and a pol sci one) got moved out to the Pol pos article at some point. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And as for intimate details of McCain's torture and witholding of information from his captors: Doesn't it seem a little... overdone? The details concerning the rest of his life are scarce, but the article provides a romanticized and glorified account of his torture ordeal. This seems biased, especially concerning Ross Perot's recent remarks to the contrary. True he may be heroic, but this section should definately be condensed; if not it could be reworded. Maybe another article concerning only his torture ordeal may be applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.175.106 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the POW material, there is a separate article, Early life and military career of John McCain. Regarding Perot, are you referring to this Newsweek story from January? Perot doesn't challenge any of McCain's POW experiences in it, just McCain's post-war behavior regarding his first wife and the POW/MIA live prisoners issue. Regarding other notions of bias in the POW account, I'm going to be re-citing this section soon with more neutral sources. Maybe I'll make it shorter in the process, we'll see. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Another source of ideological rating information

The Votemaster (the proprietor of the http://www.electoral-vote.com website) has produced ratings for liberalism and conservatism by averaging the ratings of seven groups in each category. The ADA and the ACU are included but other voices from the same end of the political spectrum are also heard. Here are the averages based on votes in 2007 for liberal groups and conservative groups.

The liberal groups' average puts McCain near the bottom of the pack, at 9%, making him less liberal than 95 other Senators. On the conservatives' ratings, he's nearer to the middle of the pack, though still conservative; his average with the conservatives is 73%, making him less conservative than 36 of his colleagues. JamesMLane t c 03:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, although 2007 is a tricky year (since McCain missed so many votes, the sample size is even smaller than usual). One advantage I forgot to mention above about ADA and ACU is that they've both been doing this for a long time, so they have scores back to when McCain first entered Congress in 1983, and you can plot the trendlines since then. Most of these other ratings systems and metrics are only a few years old. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Natural born citizen

This issue crops up now and then, and has again today. See this diff. The editor SWozniak would like for the article to mention that "the issue of McCain's eligibility may arise yet again." SWozniak cites a State Department document (7 FAM 1100) from 1995 that does not mention McCain.

There are several reasons why I'll revert here. The cited document does not mention McCain and is thus very tangential to this article. This kind of document can more appropriately be discussed at the wikilinked article on natural-born citizen rather than here. Additionally, it's not clear how that document would apply to McCain; the document discusses something called "automatic naturalization", and it's not clear whether someone who is automatically naturalized qualifies as a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This was just deleted:

Bipartisan research indicates that he is nevertheless a natural-born citizen of the United States, a constitutional requirement to become president.[1]

[1]Sidoti, Liz. "Bipartisan team says McCain natural born", Associated Press (2008-03-27). Retrieved 2008-04-18): "Senator McCain's birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution."

The edit summary says, "Deleted statement not supported by cited reference." No further explanation was given, and the cited reference was completely deleted from this Wikipedia article. I'm going to restore it, for two reasons: first, no one has explained why the cited reference doesn't support the statement; and, second, even if the cited reference is not characterized properly (and I think it is), there should be a way to characterize it properly without comlpetely removing it from the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think two different things got poorly mixed here. There was this legal review by Laurence Tribe and Ted Olson, which indicated that the legal establishment was ok with McCain's qualification, and then the unanimous Senate resolution cited above (which we had the wrong title for), which indicated the political establishment was ok on it too. I've changed the article according and used both cites. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It was worse than just "poorly mixed": the statement concerned a bipartisan legal review, whereas the reference cited a Senate vote!. I am pleased that the correct citation is now being used. I might still quibble with the idea that a parliamentary resolution (unanimous or not) can really support the idea that he is "nevertheless a natural-born citizen of the United States". Surely this is a legal question which will (almost certainly) be decided by the Supreme Court. However, I am an Australian with no deep knowledge of how the US system works, and am happy to leave it to others with more knowledge. AussieBoy (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear how the courts would get involved, and it's quite possible they would punt on the issue. The ultimate arbiter of presidential elections is Congress (the final chapter in the 2000 fiasco occurred when Al Gore, VP and thus President of the Senate, presided over ratification of his own defeat), and thus the resolution cited here, though non-binding in itself, has real significance. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WTR, thanks for fixing that. I find that, once in a long while, a news article at a particular URL will be replaced with another news article having the same URL. Maybe that's what happened here (or maybe I just goofed).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 torture vote

The page needs to include McCain's vote in February 2008 against the ban on waterboarding, which passed both chambers and was vetoed by Bush. 128.195.105.18 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present and in Political positions of John McCain. This main article is just an "executive summary" and doesn't include everything. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Too early for candidate template in infobox.

It is premature to use this template as there is not yet a candidate (on either side). Technically, John McCain is not yet the Republican candidate, he is the "presumptive nominee" which means he is still a candidate for the Republican nomination, not the Republican candidate for President. Yes, he's obviously going to be the nominee, but we don't use this template on primary candidates so it would be incorrect to use it now. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see the logic on both sides of this argument, although I am inclined to agree with Loonymonkey. It's all about the technical, nitty-gritty stuff :) Happyme22 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care — one of my Wikipedia Strategies for Sanity^TM is to let infobox battles slide by — but I'd also tend to side with Loonymonkey. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I reverted him a couple days ago but yes, Loonymonkey is right -- it should wait until the actual nomination. Coemgenus 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It definitely seems correct that we should currently only use the infobox for candidate for Republican nomination, not candidate for President. Yeah, we all know what is overwhelmingly likely to happen at the Rep convention, but it hasn't happened yet. So it's still in the realm of WP:NOT crystal ball technically. LotLE×talk 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New Official Portrait of John McCain

Going to change it to this photo located on wikipedia. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/47/20070125033411!John_McCain_official_photo_portrait.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman419 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That photo is already in the article, lower down. There's already been a lot of discussion about the photos. See here, for example.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the new background helps him to stand out a bit more. I tried at one point to change the background to a lighter color, but wasn't successful (didn't try too hard, of course ;) ). --Tom (talk - email) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew c did a very good job.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Awards

There was a suggestion at the Peer Review to get rid of the section on Awards, honors, and decorations. I kind of agree. The first item, on military awards, can easily be added onto the sentence about his retirement from the Navy. The second item, about Profiles in Courage, is already in the text. The remaining miscellaneous awards from 2004-2007 can easily be transferred to the sub-article on Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present. Sound okay?

Also, how about if we fold "Writings of McCain" into "References and further reading" which is arranged alphabetically by author (so it will be very easy to identify the writings by McCain)?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, any awards that can be turned from lists into prose would be great. I think I would rather leave a short section about McCain being an author, rather than just roll them into the further reading section. --Ali'i 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you compare the section on Obama's books to that of McCain's, you find Obama's is much more in depth...probably too much so. But the awards is a no-brainer. Mrathel (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

McCain Controversies Missing

The McCain partisans that have been scrubbing McCain's article need to recognize that all of the information below is factual, verified material, much of it is now an essential part of any legitimate encyclopedic article on McCain now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee for President.

Amongst the factual material scrubbed from John McCain's page are McCain's controversial favors for real estate investors Don Diamond, Steven Betts, and Fred Ruskin, as well as McCain's favors for media corporations like Paxson and Cablevision.

The article also scrubs John McCain's extensive lobbyist connections, the fact that his campaign is run by lobbyists like Rick Davis and Charlie Black, the fact that some of the lobbyists that were working with McCain were also working for the repressive authoritarian regime of Mynamar, that Davis has worked for a reputed Russian mobster, that Charlie Black has formerly worked, according to Hapers.org journalist Ken Silverstein, for disreputable figures like "Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, one of the most kleptocratic rulers of all time, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, also known for stealing a few billion dollars, and the murderous Angolan rebels known as UNITA." The lobbyist Rick Davis also ran McCain's "Reform Institute."

Also scrubbed has been McCain's lobbyist run campaign associations with EADS, the Airbus/Boeing controversy where McCain's lobbyist aids helped take the military aircraft manufacturing jobs away from Boeing and put it in the hands of the EU's EADS corporation. McCain's complaints about Boeing lead to the reevaluation of the Boeing contract that ultimately was granted in favor of EADS.

Omitted as well are McCain's controversial association with extreme right-wing religious figures like John Hagee and Rod Parsley, including those he had previously denounced as :agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell.

Of note as well is McCain's rejection of the GI Bill, McCain's failure to know the difference between Shia and Sunni five years into a war in Iraq where the two competing religious groups are central to a military understanding of the conflict. McCain's assertions in 2002 that, "We're not going to get into house to house fighting in Iraq," McCain's assertion in March 2003 that "we will be welcomed as liberators" in Iraq, McCain's assertion in April 2003 that, "We're not going to get into house to house fighting in Iraq," McCain's assertion in May 2003 that Iraq was a "Mission accomplished," comments all particularly pertinent now that McCain sees Iraq lasting until at least January 2013.

Also not mentioned is McCain's failure to release his medical records, something he has repeatedly promised then failed to do.

Also not mentioned is McCain's endorsement of torture.

Also not mentioned is McCain's campaign finance problems, first taking public money, then rejecting the public money he promised to take, then claiming he wasn't required to follow the law regarding the public campaign finances he'd legally obligated himself to in a contractual agreement with a bank loan for more campaign money.

McCain hid Abramoff e-mails that protected Republican colleagues.

McCain's designation of religion is dubious, his claim of being a "Baptist" while never having actually been Baptized is a serious matter amongst those that take baptism serious.

The John McCain page also omits McCain's womanizing, adultery, and subsequent desertion of his first wife for the much younger multi-millionaire "rodeo queen," Cindy McCain. The page also omits that Cindy McCain was stealing narcotics from her charity.

Noteworthy too is that the tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy that McCain claimed offended him, he now supports, a tax cut that his wife will inordinately profit from even while she hides her tax returns.

The controversy over millionaire heiress Cindy McCain's tax returns have grown more heated after it was revealed that she had at least $2 Million invested in genocide ridden Sudan through various companies including the Chinese government's quasi-corporation Petrochina. Also scrubbed is the fact that Cindy McCain was invested with Charles Keating of the Keating Five scandal. Also not mentioned is McCain's use of Cindy McCain's private jet for campaign purposes, often for free.

Sources: John McCain News -HavenWorks.com News Reference John McCain Blog -HavenWorks.com Weblog Reference Aide Helped Controversial Russian Meet McCain -Washington Post -By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and John Solomon Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain -NYTimes.com -By David D. Kirkpatrick and Jim Rutenberg McCain: A Question of Temperament -Washington Post -By Michael Leahy McCain Allies Want Reform (and Money) -NYTimes -By Carl Hulse and Anne E. Kornblut McCain Withheld Controversial Abramoff Email -Huffington Post -By Sam Stein McCain’s “Courtly Southerner” -Harpers.org -By Ken Silverstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.139.167 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked in the sub-articles? Each section of this article links at the top to a sub-article that has more details.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Like he said. Early life and military career of John McCain, Cindy McCain, House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008, and others all have a lot of what you are looking for. This main article is just a summary that focusses on the most important biographical points. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully Wasted Time, most, if not all of the details above are factual and relevant within the main encyclopedia entry. Because you (Wasted Time) are a professional Wiki-reader/writer you've lost perspective on what the majority of wiki-readers perceive when they look at an article like the McCain article.

Average readers aren't going to see the fine print directing to broken out articles and so will get a trimmed view of what the article(s) offer. Even after being told to look for those sub articles I had to scan the main article page very carefully before realizing that there's a small box low on the right and waaaay down on the bottom that linked to the articles you mention.

Perhaps all of the McCain controversies should be referenced on one page?

A John_McCain_controversies page? <- from which significant controversies would then have their own sub page as the Vicki Iseman lobbyist controversy has. Perhaps a another specific page for John_McCain_lobbyists for the long list of lobbyists on the McCain campaign?

A McCain "controversies" section would need to also include such things as McCain's physical "scuffles" he's had late in life with colleagues; including physical "scuffles" with elderly Strom Thurmond, Rick Renzi, and Chuck Grassley (all Republicans, none of whom have reputed the reports, with independent witnesses having confirmed each of the "scuffles" to credible news outlets).

McCain's work as a Senator has again been tied to another financial boon by a private corporation, SunCor and Pinnacle West, in a public property real estate deal where American tax dollars benefited a corporation who had contributed significantly, $224,000, to McCain's electoral campaigns.

McCain's campaign energy policy advisor has been let go because he, Eric Burgeson, was an energy lobbyist with clients including Southern Company, a nuclear and electric utilities corporation.

Again the controversies above are all well sourced and don't include more poorly sourced stories. However, claims such as McCain's vulgar use of language towards his wife, calling her the C word and calling her the antiquated insult, "trollop," referenced in the Cliff Schecter book are significant considering he's applying for the leader of the Super Power. Diplomatic skills can avert stupid wars and McCain's media base have largely omitted or excused a lifetime of intemperance.

Both the language and physical "scuffles" are significant and important considering McCain is running to be in charge of the Big Red Button and he himself has held himself forward as an open book with nothing to hide. Concealing such facts do him as well as the public a disservice. Particularly the latter as both the language and the physical "scuffles" reflect on his temperament, something he himself has publicly acknowledged having a problem with, and something acutely pertinent to both the American voters considering him for office as well as everyone else on the planet reading Wikipedia.

A separate "controversies" section would also give more respectability to those "trimming" the article of verifiable facts such as McCain's stern dismissal of talking with Hamas in the middle of May of 2008 just before a video from 2006 turns up showing he was firmly for talking with Hamas. The fact that McCain was for talking with enemies before he was against it also reflects on McCain's character, a basic biographical feature.

Such a dramatic shift in two short years shows that what people thought they knew of McCain even a few years ago may have no resemblance to who he is today.

Much of the current McCain article reads a bit like a puff piece put out by McCain's public relations lobbyists. Indeed, the main McCain page references "Maverick" NINE separate times. Considering McCain's reputed a vast majority of the things that earned him that moniker, those repudiations are more factually and temporally accurate and deserve mention in the main article.

Temporally factual in the sense that while McCain was once against torture, he now supports it; where McCain was once against tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy like his wife, he's now for them; where McCain was once for talking to Hamas, he's now against it; where McCain was once for transparency, he's now against it (Cindy McCain's reputed $100,000,000.00 in wealth is now a secret); where McCain was once against lobbyists in Washington, he's now got lobbyists working throughout his campaign; where once McCain was against "pork", he's now for it (with the real kicker that the monetary benefits are going to people who in turn are contributing to McCain's electoral campaigns).

Ultimately, the public relations puff piece that is McCain's wiki page is a disservice to Wikipedia, it's contributors, and it's readership.

Sources:

Price of power: McCain action helped Arizona land developer -USATODAY.com -By Matt Kelley McCain axes energy advisor -MiamiHerald.com -Beth Reinhard John McCain News HavenWorks.com News Reference McCain on Hamas in 2006: Going to Have to Deal With Them -Youtube.com video of McCain interview McCain: A Question of Temperament -WashingtonPost.com -By Michael Leahy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.139.167 (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm "a professional" — that must mean I'm getting paid for all this, right!?

I would love for the different subarticles to be more visible and get more readership, since I put a lot of effort into them. It bothers me greatly that readers miss them. I wish I had a solution.

No, there will not be a "John McCain controversies" article or section. Doing so is considered a violation of several WP guidelines, such as WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. The editors working on the 2008 president candidates made a joint, special effort to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see this status page here. So no candidate has them, not McCain, not Obama, not Hillary, not Edwards, not Giuliani, not Gravel, etc. Such material is integrated into the biographical sequences of the main or other articles, in the context to which it belongs. If a controversy becomes really big or significant, then it can get its own article, such as Jeremiah Wright controversy or John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 or Mitt Romney's Mormonism, with a summary of the controversy again included in the appropriate context. Yes, not having "Political figure X controversies" articles frustrates readers who would like WP to provide "one stop shopping" for everything negative that has been said about a political candidate. But that's not WP's purpose. Fortunately, there are/will be many other web sites that will satisfy that desire. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So where to go from here? See if you can do a little editing yourself. For example, the Political positions of John McCain article — which does have good readership, by the way — has a section "Arab-Israeli conflict" which is very short. Surely there is a lot more that McCain has said on the matter, including the contradiction you see on his position regarding talks with Hamas. See if you can flesh that out with research, NPOV writing, learning how to cite reliable sources, etc. And go on from there. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat duplicated McCain nav boxes

The McCain biographical series includes two somewhat replicated navigation templates, one that is specifically for the series the Life of McCain towards the upper right and another one that is more inclusive in its constituent links as a banner along the bottom. So, looking for guidance from WP:SUMMARY, we see it lists as an example World War II, where there is at the upper right a navigational template linking to its constituent subarticles, but there also happens to be a template along this article's bottom (which happens to contain links to WP articles about the many World War II military campaigns). However, as an example of a navigation box to subarticles, WP:SUMMARY points us to the one for the Isaac Newton bio series, whose only template is a sidebar towards the upper right.

Yet, numerous main articles thoughout WP actually have side nav boxes inclusive of links to articles that are not specifically "subs" of the mainarticle; so, if we're to be guided by both WP informal practice and its formal guidelines...

1. should we choose to include more links in the series navigational template, rendering the bottom template completely redundant?
2. Or should we follow the World War II example and, while keeping the series templates at the upper right, limited to actual subarticles, reserve the banner along the bottom as an omnibus able to include articles that are more peripherally related? — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer #2. Since Barack Obama is already a featured article, it seems best to go by that example. There's a banner along the bottom[3], but not in the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[Ferrylodge said, "...but not in the main article."]

Actually, both main articles and "subs"[4] within the Barack Obama series include a banner along their page bottoms ALONG WITH the series' nav box towards the upperright. (On some articles, these series nav boxes are located directly under the initial infobox. Nonetheless, the Barack Obama series' retention of both is still in line with option #2 and analogous with that in the World War II series given as the prime example in WP:SUMMARY. — Justmeherenow (   ) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There seems to be some miscommunication here. The banner at the bottom has a pic of Obama in it, right?[5] I don't see such a banner at the bottom of Barack Obama. Oh never mind, I see. The banner is at the bottom of both John McCain as well as Barack Obama but is hidden. That way is fine with me.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, #2 is the way to go for this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Timberg

The article says he was stationed “in the Caribbean Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea.[20] He survived two airplane crashes and a collision with power lines.[20]” The cite is to “Timberg, American Odyssey, 66–68.” But I don’t see anything on those pages about that subject.

The article says, “McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[30]” The cite is to “Timberg, American Odyssey, 72–74.” But I don’t see anything on those pages about that subject.

The article says, “As Forrestal headed for repairs, McCain volunteered for the USS Oriskany.[33]” The cite is to “Timberg, An American Odyssey, 75.” But I don’t see anything on those pages about that subject.

Anyone know what’s going on here? As far as I know, page numbering does not normally change from one edition to another. The edition I have was printed in September 2007.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The page numbers I've used (in at least 10 different articles, so I'm not changing them ;-) are from the original Simon & Schuster Touchstone edition (which was paperback, this was never in hardcover), 1999. This is the edition that libraries carry, that book reviews were written about, that is referenced in footnotes of later books, etc. I've double-checked the above three examples as well as the one in the military subarticle, and they're all correct. The book was reissued with a few foreword last year, see the Amazon listing. Unfortunately the old book numbered page 1 from the title page, so that the Author's note is on p. 9, the prologue on p. 11, and Chapter 1 on p. 17, Chapter 2 on p. 35, etc. If they stayed with this scheme and added a new foreword, it would have pushed all the page numbers further out. Hopefully it's just a constant adjustment that you can make throughout the book. Find where all the above passages are in the 2007 copy, and see if the difference is constant. (If they had just used i, ii, iii etc. for the prefacatory material, this could have been avoided.) Wasted Time R (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, page 1 of my edition is the first page of the 2007 forward. Timberg and Free Press should have known better than to mess up the numbering like this. I guess we'll leave it as-is in the articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, bad job by them. If you need to cite something new, put "... p. 123 (2007 edition)" in the cite, which will distinguish it. Hopefully I or others can then locate that and rewrite it as a 1999 original page. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

I don't think the voteview.com material is particularly helpful, and doesn't add much to the ACU/ADA/Almanac of American Politics ratings, especially since voteview has merely taken two snapshots that don't establish any trend. Additionally, I don't think that voteview.com has the kind of reliable reputation that ACU/ADA/Almanac of American Politics have. So, I'll remove the voteview.com stuff, and see if anyone objects.

No particular objection from me. I added the Voteview.com analysis into the Political positions article, which for some reason didn't have it. The National Journal rankings of senators are more well-known, but are considered suspect in some circles. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In place of it, I'd like to elaborate McCain's positions on the economy and Iraq, while also pointing out that these have long been the two issues of primary concern to voters. For example, see these poll results about which issues people are most concerned about.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that what you wrote is too topical and focused on McCain's currently-stated positions in the current campaign, rather than reflecting his whole career vis a vis this biographical article. Better might be an overall analysis of his economic thinking — that encapsulates his early 2000s votes against tax cuts, his background in Reaganomics, etc. — showing what the common threads are. Similarly, better might be an analysis of his foreign policy ideas, that reflect his thinking across his whole career about when and where U.S. intervention is appropriate or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. By "Political positions", do we mean his current positions or his positions throughout his career? I would argue for both, for several reasons. The section already gives some historical info (see chart), and so it would not hurt to balance it out with some current info, at least about the main two issues of the day (i.e. the economy and Iraq, which is all I added). To the extent that this article presents further details about the evolution of his political thinking, that can conveniently go in the chronological sections of this article. Also, I suspect that people who visit this article looking for his current issue positions will look to this section, and we preferably should not completely disappoint those people. If we can present info from the Almanac of American Politics for only 2003 and 2005, I don't see a problem with providing his issue positions on Iraq and the economy for only 2008; further chronological details are available not only in the chrnological sections of this article, but also in the sub-article on political positions. Additionally, one of the commenters at peer review mentioned that he wanted to see "proposals" on major issues, so can we provide that at least for the two main issues? I have no intention of adding anything else into the "Political positions" section, beyond the brief summary of his current positions on Iraq and the economy.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm aware of the problem of recentism, and I agree that "A political candidate's biography article may become bloated with specific details related to a particular election season despite that politician having a career outside that election." But is a mere one paragraph (that only covers the two main issues of the day) too much? I hope not.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally, this NYT Mag piece by Matt Bai from today is exactly the sort of treatment I was proposing. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the general point, I suspect most other editors and readers will side with you not me. However, they may not agree with the way you've written it. The economic part will get flak for ignoring McCain's change of position on tax cuts and for ignoring deficit projections, while the Iraq part will get flak because what McCain said re 2013 isn't really a position or a strategy but more a prediction and a hope. Anyway, defending that text should keep you busy :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Bai's article is quite lengthy, and doesn't discuss economic matters. It's an interesting article, and I have nothing against citing it here at Wikipedia. Maybe the analysis you're suggesting would be best at the sub-article on political positions, or a sub-article of that sub-article.

There are well over a dozen Wikipedia articles on McCain. At least one of them ought to have a concise paragraph describing his current stances on the two main political positions of the day, don't you think? The way I've written it maybe could be improved, but I don't think that could be done by using a chronological approach as you suggest. For example, there are already several sentences in the present article about McCain's stance on tax cuts, including his change of position in May 2006. So nothing is being "ignored" here. The paragraph I added is simply meant to be about his current stated position on Iraq and the economy. I didn't notice any statement from him that he proposes to ignore deficit projections, and I don't think we need to include here the Democratic rebuttal to McCain's positions, do we? And regarding Iraq, his position is that he'll withdraw most of the troops by 2013 if, as he anticipates, the war will have been won. Obviously, he opposes immediate withdrawal.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've removed the last paragraph.[6] It's a laundry list of miscellaneous issue positions, without any rationale for not listing other issue positions.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The original rationale for it was to list some areas where McCain subscribes to orthodox Republican/conservative positions, to counterweight all the places in the article where he's described as a maverick, opposing Reagan, opposing Bush, etc. Yes, the ACU/ADA and similar metrics try to say this too, but it was thought giving some specific and important examples would make the counterweight more tangible. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that his opposition to immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and his support of making the tax cuts permanent while reducing corporate taxes, ought to accomplish the same goal of showing that he's not always a maverick. And there's a good rationale for mentioning those two things: they pertain to the two issues that voters are most concerned about (ecomomy and Iraq). WTR, do you think the list I removed was too topical and focused on McCain's currently-stated positions?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the list "... pro-life[199] and free trade issues.[200] He favors private Social Security accounts,[201] and opposes an expanded government role in health care.[202] McCain also supports school vouchers,[203] capital punishment,[204] mandatory sentencing,[205] and welfare reform.[206]" Abortion, free trade, capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, and welfare reform have been around since the 1980s or before. Indeed welfare reform hasn't been an issue since the 1990s. School vouchers and health care have been big issues since the 1990s. Social security was a hot issue earlier in the decade, not so much now. So no, I don't think these were too topical; they reflect some of the issues McCain has dealt with throughout his time in Congress. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We could preface the paragraph by limiting ourselves to longstanding issues, but still there would be lots of issues that could be added, like don't-ask-don't-tell, global warming, nuclear power, Palestinian statehood, et cetera, et cetera. But I don't feel strongly about removing the paragraph, and Evil Spartan has reverted the removal anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started a new Wikipedia article for OnTheIssues. And, I've reworded the last paragraph of the "political positions" section of this McCain article, so that it only references OnTheIssues. If people want to add more stuff to the last paragraph, I think we can reasonably limit it to stuff that's covered by OnTheIssues.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the sentence "Regarding several other specific issues, the organization On the Issues provides detailed information about McCain's positions.[199]" may be problematic. An equivalent sentence about Project Vote Smart was gonged at the HRC article. It was considered superfluous; it should be listed in "External links", but only mentioned in cites in the main text. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the info. Do you have the link to the gonging? And what do you think? I wanted to emphasize that we're only summarizing the limited number of McCain issue pages that are presented by OnTheIssues, rather than opening the door to an infinitely long list of issues.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I now see the stuff from the HRC FAC: "'Ratings of Clinton's votes from a number of other interest groups are tracked by Project Vote Smart.(300)' --- Okay, that's nice to see. But that's what Project Vote Smart does. How is it's mention related to Clinton? To me, this infomration looks superfluous. Nominator, why is it not?" It seems like the difference here in the McCain article is that we're actually using the info from OnTheIssues, whereas the HRC article merely seems to have been mentioning its existence.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)It seems (from the peer review) that there are still concerns about whether OnTheIssues is a reliable source, and whether we're leaning too heavily on them. So, in place of the last paragraph of the "political positions" section, how about something like this:

McCain is a former board member of Project Vote Smart (PVS) which was set up by Richard Kimball, his 1986 Senate opponent.[1] PVS provides neutral and non-partisan information to voters online about the political positions of McCain,[2] and of other candidates for political office. Additionally, McCain uses his Senate web site,[3] and his 2008 campaign web site,[4] to describe his political positions.

[1] Kimball, Richard. "Program History", Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-05-20. Also see Nintzel, Jim. "Test Study: Why are politicians like John McCain suddenly so afraid of Project Vote Smart?", Tucson Weekly (2008-04-17). Retrieved 2008-05-21.

[2]"Senator John Sidney McCain III (AZ)", Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-05-20. Non-partisan information about McCain's issue positions is also provided online by On the Issues. See "John McCain on the Issues", OnTheIssues. Retrieved 2008-05-18.

[3]"Issues", McCain's official Senate web site. Retrieved 2008-05-21.

[4]"Issues", johnmccain.com. Retrieved 2008-05-20.

Ferrylodge (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's out of place. If being on the board of PVS was significant, it should be in the bio section at the right chrono place. And listing useful websites is the job of the External links section, which already includes PVS, On the Issues, and both the McCain Senate and McCain campaign sites. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

He was a board member of PVS for many years, so it doesn't fit neatly into the chronological sections. As for McCain's issue pages at his Senate and campaign web sites, I don't object if you want to put those direct links into the external links section (they're not there now), but still I don't see a problem keeping them at the end of the "Political positions" section. "All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the 'References' or 'Notes' section, and are usually not included in 'Further reading' or 'External links'. However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic."[7]Ferrylodge (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

On another part of this section, I've backed out a change that reduced to one year the Almanac scores. On these kinds of ratings, more data points are always better! Any given year can be an outlier. Ideally, we should present an average over a number of editions, or chart their progression over time. Sounds like a project.... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit summary was: "moving 2005 Almanac ratings into footnote. It seems enough to give the 2006 ratings in the text." Those ratings for both 2005 and 2006 make for very dense reading. If you want to compute an average, then that would accomplish the same thing as I was trying to accomplish. Another chart would not be a good idea, in my opinion. I'll go ahead and insert the 2005-2006 average, for now, and please feel free to extend it over more years.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tranquility

I think we're just about through making edits to the McCain article in response to the previous FAC, in response to the good article review, and in response to the peer review. So, I expect a period of tranquility to begin about now at the McCain article (though I wouldn't bet money on it).Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I take this back.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neo-conservative

There should also be mention about John McCain turning into a neoconservative. Amongst his advisers are William Kristol and Robert Kagan, the co-founders of the "Project for New American Century". Obviously enough, McCain has also allied himself with Bush who brought into his administration a vast supply of neo-cons and PNAC members. McCain also expresses many imperialistic intentions, as well as dramatically switching his view since being associated with these neo-cons (some call it flip flopping). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.200.141 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What you say is exaggerated and oversimplistic. See this New York Times Magazine piece by Matt Bai from a couple of days ago for a more nuanced and comprehensive treatment of McCain's foreign policy thinking. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, while a discussion of his policy changes and relationship with Bush seems like an important topic, any discussion of them in light of his entire political carreer would weigh too heavily toward recentism. The article duly notes McCain's position as a mavrick and how he has both embrased and broken from his party's positions, so I don't find a play-by-play commentary of his relations with Bush to be necessary or NPOV. Mrathel (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Temper

This article has a section on "Cultural and political image." So, this section of the article seems like an appropriate place to cite Julia Keller who is the cultural critic for the Chicago Tribune. However, the following italicized words were recently deleted (without any edit summary or talk page discussion):

"Regarding his temper, or what might be viewed as passionate conviction,[1] McCain acknowledges it while also saying that the stories have been exaggerated."

[1]Keller, Julia. "Me? A bad temper? Why, I oughta ...", Chicago Tribune (2008-05-01): "we ... want people in public life to be passionate and engaged. We want them to be fiery and feisty. We like them to care enough to blow their stacks every once in a while. Otherwise, we question the sincerity of their convictions." Retrieved 2008-05-10.

I don't see why this wouldn't be appropriate material for this Wikipedia article. We quote people who say McCain's temper is a bad thing, so why not mention that some people think it might be a good thing?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can live with it, but to others I suspect it looks like an apologia. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberty Incident

An editor recently inserted the following, which has since been reverted:

A. J. Cristol, a Jewish bankruptcy judge from Florida, wrote a book called THE LIBERTY INCIDENT, in which he says Israel is exonerated for the attack on the USS LIBERTY because it was a case of mistaken identity. According to the survivors "the book is full of lies, falsehoods and continues the cover-up for Israel’s blatant murder of American sons on the high seas". John Mcain endorses this book ""After years of research for this book, Judge A. Jay Cristol has reached a similar conclusion to one my father reached in his June 18, 1967, endorsement of the findings of the court of inquiry. I commend Judge Cristol for his thoroughness and fairness, and I commend this work." - SEN. JOHN MCAIN [1][2]

[1] http://www.thelibertyincident.com/book.html

[2] http://ussliberty.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/three-peas-in-a-pod/

I agree with the revert. I'm not quite sure that I see why Cristol's religion is more relevant than that he's a retired U.S. Navy captain and fighter pilot, as well as a law school professor.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28813] He spent 18 years as a naval aviator and 20 years in the Navy's Judge-Advocate General Corps, but that he's Jewish is most relevant? His 2002 book was followed in 2003 by the NSA's release of transcripts of the Israeli communications at the time, which confirm the attack on Liberty was a tragic mistake.[8] In any event, why bring it up here in this Wikipedia article about McCain? The incident occurred June 8, 1967. At that time McCain was stationed on the USS Oriskany off the coast of Vietnam.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

McCain endorses the book. How can they have missed the american flag? The ship looked totally different from the egyption ship. Maybe you need to read up on it and tell me what you think. Once you reada the wiki article on the incident read the very biased book Cristol wrote. The actual surviors who were on the boat say this book is a disgrace, but good ole McCain agrees with the book. "". I guess it was a honest mistake?????? WTFRon John (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted again. This is coatracking and POV-pushing, and has very little to do with McCain. If it's appropriate at all, it would be in the article about USS Liberty. Coemgenus 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. So McCain praised a book? So what? This isn't remotely encyclopedic. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. McCain has said that he likes a lot of things (books, movies, ice cream flavors, et cetera), but we can't mention every one of them here in this article. It's not as though McCain says John Wilkes Booth was innocent, or that the CIA arranged the WTC attacks in 2001. McCain's agreement with Cristol is a common view, even if mistaken (which I don't think it is).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack McCain's work on the Liberty incident investigation belongs in the John S. McCain, Jr. article (where it is already mentioned briefly), not here. John McCain's book blurb is not notable. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

serious article bias

I was interested in McCain's education and was appalled by the information present in that section. specifically, this paragraph.

"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. There, he was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, and stood up for people who were being bullied. He also became a lightweight boxer.[5][11] McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894/899) that he did not aim to improve.[12][13][14][15] McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him,[5] and he graduated in 1958.[13]"

wow - he stood up for people being bullied? how is that relevant? also, if he was a leader please link me to a club/activity in which he held a leadership position. you can't just say someone was a leader because he is now running for president. also, saying that he did well in the academic subjects that interested him is clearly trying to mask his position in the bottom 1% of his class - in fact, it maybe even puts a positive spin on it. further, i checked the source cited and the information was from a former roommate who said it very casually, shortly after discussing mccain's party spirit - it's hardly reputable. this page will obviously be heavily viewed as the election draws near and needs to be as accurate, informative, and nonbiased as possible! what do you guys think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFitch (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can read more in-depth coverage at Early life and military career of John McCain. This article is just a high-level biography that summarizes the important facts and includes links to daughter articles brimming with more deatiled descriptions and reports. I think we would all agree that this should be balanced and neutral. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's good that you checked "the source cited", but it looks like there were six sources cited for this material. Did you check the other five? Also, it seems unreasonable to say we're trying to "mask his position in the bottom 1% of his class." It says right in the material you quoted that his rank was "894/899".Ferrylodge (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As Ali'i said, Early life and military career of John McCain is the real deal on this matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

McCain's use of the term "gooks"

I think McCain's description of his Vietnamese captors as "gooks" should be in the article. McCain said of his North Vietnamese captors, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." McCain Criticized for Slur He is documented as having used this description multiple times. And he refused to apologize for using the term "gooks" repeatedly in February 2000, stating that he did not believe it to be a racial slur. This is not a misquote and was verified by McCain, who said "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends." This should be included, as well as his defense of his statement. Ramblinmindblues (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So you added the first quote and didn't add his defense of the quote? Not very neutral I must say. I believe this information is already included within a different article. Arzel (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is covered in both John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 and Cultural and political image of John McCain, including his decision to stop using the term later in the 2000 campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

AlrightI'm adding both his quote and the defense, plus his more recent apology. That is more neutral. Removing it entirely from the main article is not... Ramblinmindblues (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Check the archives, the general concensus was to leave it in the sub-article. If you want to discuss, discuss, but don't use edits to discuss. Arzel (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The main article leaves out lots of stuff about McCain. By design, it's sort of an "executive summary" of his life, with the sequence of biographical subarticles providing the real deal. As such, this remark does not merit inclusion in the main article. It's not even one of McCain's more controversial remarks, given the history and context and rationale in which he used it. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about controversy. This is a quote from McCain describing a biographical part of his life. This is his impression of the perpetrators. It’s how McCain referred to his captors for over 30 years and should be left in the article. Removing it shows blatant bias because you think the term “gook” makes him look bad. Ramblinmindblues (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be covered in the sub-articles rather than in this main article, and it has nothing to do with trying to make McCain look good. Ramblinmindblues, did you look at the FAQ at the top of this discussion page?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

By filtering out all controversial biographical info into sub articles, you’ve (perhaps) inadvertently made McCain’s page into romanticized campaign storybook Ramblinmindblues (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the WP:SUMMARY approach forces us to filter out useful and important stuff, and that the filtering involves judgement calls that will always be a subject of possible debate and dispute. If it was up to me, we wouldn't even have a main article, we'd just tell readers to look at the subarticles in order (that's how real published biographies work!). Alas, no one agrees with me. That said, "gook" doesn't even make my Top 15 list of things missing or glossed over in the main article. A general principle of human history has been that people who fight wars against others of a different racial/religious/ethnic makeup tend to view the enemy in very derogatory terms, with vulgar epithets abounding; that goes double and triple for those captured and badly mistreated by said enemy. The remarkable thing about McCain is not his use of this word, but that he put a lot of effort and political reputation and personal cost (in terms of losing some POW friends) into normalizing relations with Vietnam in the 1990s. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what WTR said, I'd like to point out that this article does already have plenty of controversial and negative material about McCain. He was ranked 894/899 in college, is incapable of raising his arms above his head, has accepted blame for his failed first marriage, began a relationaship with Cindy McCain while still married to his first wife, and opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Also, in the 1980s, he received trips on Keating's jets that he failed to repay until two years later, and he admits to wrongly conveying the impression of undue and improper influence in the Keating matter, for which he was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled his greatest legislative victory to date (the line-item veto) was unconstitutional. In the 1990s he was criticized for accepting funds from corporations and businesses under the Commerce Committee's purview. In 2000, McCain ran ads comparing Bush to Bill Clinton, and Bush said that was about as low as you can go in a Republican primary; that campaign left McCain in a "very dark place". If inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency. He has been treated for a type of skin cancer called melanoma, and an operation in 2000 for that condition left a noticeable mark on the left side of his face. He has an admitted problem of occasional ill-considered remarks. He says, "I am older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein." He acknowledges being impatient. He made a joke in 1998 about the Clintons that was not fit to print in newspapers. He is known for sometimes being prickly and hot-tempered with Senate colleagues, and he has employed both profanity and shouting on occasion. Senator Thad Cochran, who has known McCain for decades has said: "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." McCain's father was an alchoholic, and his current wife was addicted to painkillers. This article is not 100% negative, but it's got plenty of negative stuff in it. And have you looked at the FAQ at the top of this discussion page, regarding "gooks"?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, the article mentions a joke he made about "the Clintons" but doesn't mention the actual joke? Why? Because it "was not fit to print in newspapers"? Where's the profanity? Biggest load of BS I've ever heard. The joke was "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." Why isn't this in the article? Profanity? You spend a setence mentioning the joke that "was not fit to print in newspapers" but you don't mention the one-sentence joke. So the McCain camp makes a bunch of ID's and now we've got some whitewashed fairy tale. Rustdiamonds (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in Cultural and political image of John McCain. FWIW, this one would be on my list of things glossed over here. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WTR, do you really want to re-open this can of worms? You previously said, "I would mention 'a joke about Chelsea Clinton so offensive that many newspapers would not print it' (without giving the joke itself here)." All a reader has to do is go to the footnote in this article, and click on the link to the Salon article, to get all the details they want. There are many good reasons to keep it that way. Do we need to go into it again?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "glossed over". It's intentionally stuffed away by mentioning it and then refusing to state the ONE SENTENCE joke. How could a statement be mentioned but not stated on wikipedia. WTF? Rustdiamonds (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons. We give a footnote, so anyone who wants details can easily find them. A wikipedia biography is not the place to list the dumbest things the subject ever said. If we were to quote the joke explicitly here, it would be completelty out of context, unless we also provided details about the apology, and about the allegedly private setting where the joke was made. This is a summary article, not a hit job.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that's plain ridiculous...Ramblinmindblues (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's one take-away message about McCain on Wikipedia, it's read the subarticles. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on, really? You’ve got to know that’s complete BS. So if you state the joke, you’d have to write a whole 2 more sentences to this article? Would it still be a hit job? Honestly, this can’t be for real.Rustdiamonds (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The section is written in general language. It also refers to profanities, so are you going to insist that we list those verbatim too? Come on. This section is completely honest, and we give everyone a link if they want to learn more. If you want to pursue this, please go back to the discussion archives and read about what other editors have said about it. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The "gooks" issue, again? We already discussed this, didn't we? It's detailed extensively in the subarticle. And the bias accusation is ridiculous; Ferrylodge and Wasted Time R are two of the fairest editors I've yet come across on wiki, as evidenced by the fact that they get accused of bias from leftists and rightists all the time. Let's leave it in the subarticle and out of the main article, as we already discussed. Coemgenus 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that I suggested the current Chelsea formulation here, and Ferrylodge is right that this summary section should stick to generalities. That said, I now see that the formulation is asking for trouble — to many readers it will seem a whitewash or a coy tease. I can't press it, but if I had my druthers I'd probably redo it somehow. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think using generalitites is best for an encyclopedia. The actual joke (as well as many other specifics) become secondary to the main issue that McCain will say things without thinking from time to time, and isn't that what is really important? Arzel (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel. Some people will be asking for more negative material in this article until it's 100% negative. Sure, a few people might sincerely view the current language about the Clinton joke as coy. On the other hand, some people might view an explicit re-telling of the ten-year-old joke as overkill.

To avoid any trace of coyness, we could delete any mention of the joke in this article. I would prefer to keep it in, the way it is. The fact that we provide a link eliminates 99% of the coyness, IMHO. Another approach would be to say that he told an unflattering joke about Chelsea Clinton's appearance. That's more explicit and provides more details, and so is less coy, but I still would prefer the current formulation which leaves poor Chelsea out of this main article. In 1998, the Clinton White House was very clear that they did NOT want to give further exposure to this joke, and that's a major reason why newspapers described it without repeating it; the press secretary said, "To make a further issue of the matter would lend further exposure to an offensive joke." I don't think we would do anyone any favors by giving the joke further exposure here in this article. If we do, then I'll insist (as best I can) on including details about McCain's apology, and the Clintons' response to that apology, even though that would end up giving the whole matter undue weight in this article.

The current formulation has been in the article now for several weeks, and I think only two editors have raised any objection. Seems premature to change things around.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's premature to change things now, especially when it comes to the Chelsea quote. As for the bias accusations, those are what are 'BS'. Happyme22 (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Trilateral Commission

Should it be mentioned in this article that John McCain is member of the Trilateral Commission? - Jack's Revenge (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's particularly notable. It doesn't seem to be in the sub-article. See WP:SS. Do you think it's notable, and if so why? Do you have a reliable source that verifies it?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. Most articles on reputed members of the Trilateral Commission don't mention their membership either. Thanks for your opinion. - Jack's Revenge (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not. Plans for the New World Order are supposed to be kept secret. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Authorship

Over at the Barack Obama article, there was some discussion of whether his book authorship merited lead position. I argued (and consensus seems agreed on this), that very brief mention of those best-sellers should be in the lead, particularly since the books have their own article section.

In McCain's case, he is co-author on several books (none seem as prominent in sales-ranking and the like), and there is not a separate section that discusses them (just a bibliography). However, I still wonder whether there's any sentiment that authorship should still get a clause in the lead. LotLE×talk 19:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to put it into the lead at this point, but maybe it would be helpful to give some indication, in the list of his writings, as to which of them were bestsellers and which were not. Some of the McCain sub-articles specifically mention some of his writings, but they weren't considered sufficiently notable to discuss in this main McCain article, beyond listing them.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Faith of My Fathers was a big best-seller, had a movie made of it, and had a big impact on McCain's political career. It was mentioned in the bio text a couple of times in the old article, but didn't survive the WP:SUMMARY purge. Mention of the long first-person POW account for U.S. News & World Report that McCain wrote upon return at the end of the war also got taken out. That's the way it goes. But neither should be in the lead; McCain never wrote a memoir as an unknown, which is why Obama is in a different class. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think it would be appropriate to include a brief mention in the text of this article that Faith of My Fathers was the most successful of McCain's writings. It went to number two on the New York Times Best Seller list, and had a movie made out of it. This seems very notable, though not notable enough for the lede. Perhaps a sentence at the end of John_McCain#First_two_terms_in_U.S._Senate?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's okay. It was also notable in conjunction with McCain's 2000 prez campaign — it came out in August 1999, right before McCain formally announced, and he sort of interwove campaign stops and book tour appearances. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this works best immediately before the section on his 2000 presidential campaign. The book was published before he announced for president. So, that's why I inserted a mention of the book into the sub-article on House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000‎.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The publication of the book was always intended as a campaign adjunct. The John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 article "takes over" the chronology in April 1999, because that's when his campaign was originally supposed to start until it was postponed. (The period after April 1999 until September was sort of an unannounced candidacy.) The idea of the subarticles is that you can read them in sequence without any redundancy (except for the lead sections). So the Faith book belongs in the campaign article. The subarticles also don't jump the chrono, so the Faith movie goes into the Senate 2001- article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to have the sentence about the book where it is now in this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The 2000 campaign section in this article is constantly under pressure to be reduced, so the Faith bit is better protected where it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems weird to mention something in this section of the main article if it's not mentioned in the sub-article that it's supposed to summarize.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You're taking WP:SUMMARY too literally. In general, the best summary of any kind of material doesn't necessarily follow the exact same order and composition of the best detailed explication of the same material. In the summary you will likely need to jump around, combine, find parallels, etc. that aren't necessary or appropriate in the full treatment. That's my view at least. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the book is now discussed in the text, I figure it's okay to include the book cover image.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Senate Term

In the article, under the heading Fourth Senate Term the third paragraph discusses the McCain Detainee Amendment in 2005 and McCain being against torture. I think this section should have information about the fact that Senator McCain recently voted against the ban on torture. See the following articles: McCain: Against Torture But Maverick Fails the Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban, Shame, Senator McCain and John McCain Sells His Soul to the Right: Backs Off on Torture Ban If you leave the article as is it makes it appear that Senator McCain is still against torture and his vote shows that he obviously isn't. --donncook (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any links to straight news reporting about this, instead of blogs and op-eds? For example, here's a NY Times article. Is that the issue you're referring to?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of John McCain#Detention and torture of extrajudicial prisoners gets into this in more detail, and McCain Detainee Amendment does in even more detail. It's hard to cover multiple perspectives on complex legislative issues like this in our summary-form bio article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King birthday

The current text reads:

• "Later that year, he opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but eventually changed this view, calling King "a transcendent figure in American history" who "deserved to be honored."

This makes it seem as if it was a little bit of time between his original decision to oppose it and his subsequent reversal. When, as I understand it, he did not reverse his position until many years later. I feel that the text should be revised to reflect his original position and his stated reasons for that position at the time as well as mentioning his subsequent change in position and why he changed. Also might be worth mentioning him speaking at the site of the MLK assassination on the anniversary of the assassination. Remember (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. This article is written accoirding to WP:Summary Style. Thus, you will find a lot more details about his MLK stance in the sub-article House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000. For example, he ended up supporting an MLK holiday in Arizona, in 1988.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe the summary to be inaccurate. I'm not saying that this article has to go in-depth about this issue, but the way it currently presents it does not seem to accurately reflect the long opposition he had to the holiday along with his abrupt turn-around. I will try to add a version that I think best summarizes the issue and we can go from there. Remember (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, he was a pivotal figure in 1988 as far as getting an MLK Day in Arizona. So, the "long opposition" that you refer to was not really so clear. He called King a "transcendent figure" in 2008, but that doesn't mean he only started supporting a King holiday in 2008. Ferrylodge (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean to say he was long opposed to getting a FEDERAL holiday, while he did support a STATE holiday in 1989. According to this reference McCain stated, as quoted by the May 1989 Phoenix Gazette, “I’m still opposed to another federal holiday … but I support the Arizona Martin Luther King holiday because of the enormous proportions this issue has taken on as far as the image of our state and our treatment towards not only blacks but all minorities.” Anyways, take a look at my revised text and let me know what you think. Remember (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you have removed my suggested revision. Here it is below. Please let me know how you think it can be improved. Remember (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

McCain was elected the president of the 1983 Republican freshman class of representatives. Later that year, he opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a position he would reiterate when supporting the rescinding of the Arizona state holiday for King in 1987. By 1989, McCain changed his position slightly by supporting a state holiday while still opposing a federal holiday for King, and in 2008, McCain stated that his opposition to the federal holiday had been a mistake.

(undent)Yes, I did revert the edit subsequent to my most recent comment. I will look into this some more today, and suggest how your edit might be improved. Let's work this out on the talk page first.

It seems very slanted to say that McCain's support for an MLK holiday in Arizona was a "slight" change on his part. Also, I think we should try to find out when McCain decided to support a federal MLK holiday. Additionally, I'm concerned about undue weight here. Only a few specific Americans are honored with a federal holiday, so McCain's past opposition to a federal MLK Day does not seem like it needs so many sentences here in this article. Personally, I think Albert Einstein should get a federal holiday, but it's not hugely notable that lots of prominent politicians disagree that there should be an Einstein holiday, and it certainly doesn't mean they're anti-semitic or the like.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember (consistent with Ferrylodge) that brevity is the soul of WP:SUMMARY. The longer form seems adequately balanced, but it also seems much too long for a summary article. All the nuance and subtlety can go in some child article; only brief mention is merited in the main bio. That said, I think the addition of no more than five words clarifying the dates of his different positions would be OK. LotLE×talk 17:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am fine to remove the word slight. I also agree that we should find out when he first supported a federal MLK holiday. I also agree that this issue should probably just be mentioned and then redirected to another page where it can be discussed further. Perhaps the best solution would be the following revision. Remember (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Later that year, he opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but eventually McCain changed this view, calling King "a transcendent figure in American history" who "deserved to be honored" and stating that his previous decision was a mistake (see Political position on MLK Holiday for further information).

This article currently says, "Later that year, he opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but eventually changed this view, calling King 'a transcendent figure in American history' who 'deserved to be honored.'[71][72]" I think it's already implicit here that he viewed the original vote as a mistake, so I tend to think it's okay the way it is. The other change you're suggesting is to link directly to the sub-article Political positions of John McCain. I don't think that's really a good way to do this, because there's a totally separate section in this main McCain article about his political positions; this section is not the political positions section. Instead, if there's some particular source that you think is not being cited here, how about adding more footnotes at the end of this sentence of the present article?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Many politicians come out with contrary views but they often don't acknowledge previous decisions as mistakes (even though it would logically flow that it was a mistake). Also by directly linking to the article on this position you let the reader find all of the applicable information about McCain's position on this issue instead of forcing them to dig around for it themselves (or thinking that there is no page that discusses this issue). I don't think that adding another footnote reference will solve these issues. Any other suggestions? Anyone? Remember (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there some particular info about this at Political positions of John McCain that you want readers to have access to, that is not already in the sub-article House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think the information is laid out together better in the political positions page whereas in the career page you have to jump from section to section to get all the information. If someone just wanted to know how McCain's position on the MLK holiday has changed, I think it is put together better in the positions page. Plus the speech McCain gives in 2008 on the issue isn't even mentioned here so the page doesn't give the full evolution of his position. Remember (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "eventually" seems a bit editorial, BTW (it suggests what might be the "proper" duration for changing). I would rather be purely factual: In <year> he changed this view...". Readers can judge for themselves what the dates he held different opinions mean. LotLE×talk 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this and would support a revised version of the text that said as much. Remember (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has just been edited to say: "That year, and in 1989, he opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but eschewed this view." First, I don't understand why we can't work this out at the talk page before changing thelongstanding language in the article. Second, I do not understand from this new language what view he purportedly "eschewed." Third, he was instrumental in getting a King Holiday approved in Arizona in 1989, whereas this new language makes it seem like he was totally opposed to the concept until 2008.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to try to work out the wording on the talk page first. With that in mind, Ferrylodge, do you have any suggestions for how to clarify the current section? Remember (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll suggest something in a few minutes. Note that the footnote 71 in the article is now all red.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that I'm still looking into this. It's difficult, because the events are from long ago before the internet, so a lot of the info is not available online. The NY Times reported on August 8, 1990: "Last week, Mr. Reagan, who signed a bill creating a King holiday for Federal workers in 1983, issued a statement of support for the holiday through the office of Senator John McCain of Arizona." So far, I have not been able to track down a copy of this statement released by McCain's office. Plus, I'm supposed to be working at my day job.  :-) I can say for sure that I am extremely opposed to the current language, which chooses to discuss McCain's opposition in 1989, without any mention of his instrumental role in getting a state holiday in Arizona for King.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Okay, I'd suggest this: "In 1983, McCain was elected to lead the incoming group of Republican representatives. Also that year, he opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but in 2008 said: 'I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support for a state holiday in Arizona.'"

That packs a lot of info into a few words. Of course, footnotes would also be included. Sound okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I think it could still use a little tweaking, but it works for me nonetheless. Remember (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I revised it. I'd be glad to work on it some more if you and/or LotLE would like.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the latest language is good. It's even more concise than I tried, contains the notion of eschewal (under a less fancy word :-)), and avoids the weasel word "eventually". I wouldn't mind a date added to the change-of-mind though (as on this talk page, in Remember's wording). LotLE×talk 22:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The date of McCain's change-of-mind is kind of difficult to determine. What date do you think it was? Personally, I think it was by 1990 at the latest. In that year, he persuaded Ronald Reagan to support an Arizona holiday for King; Reagan issued his statement of support through McCain’s office, asking Arizonans to "join me in supporting a holiday to commemorate these ideals to which Dr. King dedicated his life." But others may argue that McCain merely wanted Arizona to commemorate those ideals, and did not in 1990 want the federal government to commemroate those ideals. McCain now says in 2008 that the 1990 episode marked a change-of-mind on the federal holiday, but it's very difficult to verify. Hence, a little bit of vagueness may be appropriate here.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Using Remember's phrase for the date of the quoted realization would seem easy here. Unless we have a quote from earlier that also says he "realized he was wrong", we can indicate the fact that he made that speech in 2008. Who knows (unless there's another citation) whether he realized it in 1990, 2000, or 2008... but Remember's version doesn't commit on that either way. LotLE×talk 22:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two reasons why I feel uncomfortable giving the 2008 date in the text. First, this section of the article is on 1982-2000, so it seems best to not go too far astray (people can get the 2008 date by looking at the footnote). The second reason why I feel uncomfortable giving the 2008 date in the text is because we would be deciding to not give the date when he gave "full support for a state holiday in Arizona." It seems like we should either give both dates or neither. If you feel strongly that we should include the 2008 date, then I think we ought to also include the 1990 date, like this: "In 1983, McCain was elected to lead the incoming group of Republican representatives.[59] Also that year, he opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but admitted in 2008: "I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support for a state holiday in Arizona" in 1990.[71][72]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ferrylodge's slight modification looks like an improvement to me. I think it reads slightly better, however, with the date as an editorial mark inside the direct quote: Also that year, he opposed creation of a Federal Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but admitted in 2008: "I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support [in 1990] for a state holiday in Arizona." I do think the contrast between state- and federal-holiday is worth making clear, but that should only take two words (one of them 'a'). LotLE×talk 00:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, all done. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

McCain vs. Amtrak

Didn't McCain consider Amtrak to be pork-barrel spending back when he was on that transportation committee? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

People have not forgotten John McCain's positions on Amtrak. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Try Political positions of John McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, Political positions of John McCain#Transportation, which already mentions his opposition to Amtrak briefly. You may want to expand upon that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

improve intro

McCain lost the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and gained enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee on March 4, 2008.

The last sentence doesn't sound very encyclopedia. Sounds more like a diary. Ruwq2 (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? What wording would sound better? LotLE×talk 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

March 4, 2008 is not necessary unless we also include many other details so that it is a McCain book and not a Wikipedia article.

McCain lost the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

A lot of readers want to know that he's now presumptive nominee (most probably know it, but it's still worthwhile to state). How about: McCain lost the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He is currently running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, for which he is the presumptive nominee.LotLE×talk 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

After the convention, then... McCain lost the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for and became the Republican Party candidate for President in 2008. Ruwq2 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... will definitely need to change the wording this summer. And again in November. LotLE×talk 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the became-presumptive date to just March 2008, looks less overly specific. As LotLE points out, this isn't worth worrying about too much, as the lead will evolve in obvious ways over the course of the year. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Political image

This is just POV. The section has no place here.

Who's political image should Wikipedia cover? How about what Hugo Chavez thinks about McCain? "showing a more confrontational stance with Venezuela than the current U.S. administration, and relations may worsen should McCain win" according to Chavez. So Chavez thinks McCain has a confrontational image compared to Obama and Hillary. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=asr76ngcNhFM&refer=latin_america

Then why not add the image that the Canadians, Japanese, Vietnamese, Egyptians, French, and Dutch have about McCain? Better yet, just trim it. Why does the other encyclopedias not have this? Because they are really encyclopedias. Ruwq2 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This section focuses on describing his relationship to and from the U.S. public, as he is not really an international figure yet. Should he become president, that would change. The section is necessary because without it, the reader would have very limited knowledge of McCain's personality and political character, which are key to understanding him. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The section is clearly biased in favor of McCain, I don't think it has any place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GruePaisley (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the section is biased, the solution is to make it unbiased, not remove it. Give specific examples of where you think the skewing is. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, User:Quartermaster put a 2005 photo of GWB giving McCain a birthday cake in this section, with the edit comment "replaced duplicate picture (already in info box) with more appropriate one for this section)". The semi-duplicate picture business I won't get into, but I don't see how the new one was appropriate for this section. The other sections above it deal with the GWB-McCain relationship, not this one, and indeed I've added this photo to the Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present article. Not to mention that Quartermaster's caption identified the person as Bush 41, not Bush 43! Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

POV?

2000 Presidential campaign It says

The battle between Bush and McCain for South Carolina has entered American political lore as one of the dirtiest and most brutal ever.[106][115][116] A variety of interest groups that McCain had challenged in the past now pounded him with negative ads.[106] Bush tried to co-opt McCain's message of reform.[117

This is just opinionated commentary. If this is allowed, who is the judge of what commentary is allowed? Dirtiest and most brutal? That's one person's opinion. It has a reference but that only says that it has been published.

There are dozens of issues like this. Should we consider them or ignore them and allow POV? Your choice, I will give suggestions if you want NPOV. Will also subject Obama's article to the same NPOV scrutiny if done here (and count so that for each improvement in this article, one improvement is done for the Obama article). Ruwq2 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Improvements don't have "quotas". Yes, this article should be improved (I agree the part you quote is to a bit POV). And, yes, Obama's should be improved too (I think it's currently in somewhat better shape than this one). And so should the article on Andrew Johnson, if it has POV issues. But it's not a tit-for-tat thing: fix whatever can be improved in whichever articles you are inclined to help with. LotLE×talk 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We can add further cites about South Carolina 2000 being dirty and brutal. How many do you need before you believe it? And the effect of that is key to understanding what happened afterward, why in the early 2000s McCain was the most maverick he ever was, why he may have considered leaving the Republican party, etc. It's an important point. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow the general statement about South Carolina 2000 got replaced by a quote from McCain saying it was "the ugly underside of politics." Well, candidates almost always complain about races getting ugly; that's not too notable. If we have to use in-text attributed quotes here, much better to use ones from serious, mainstream newspapers. Thus, I've replaced the McCain quote with: "The Arizona Republic would write that the McCain-Bush primary contest in South Carolina "has entered national political lore as a low-water mark in presidential campaigns", while The New York Times called it "a painful symbol of the brutality of American politics". Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think either way is fine. McCain singling out SC campaign as "ugly underside" seem relevant (as long as he didn't say the same thing of every other primary). But NYT gives a good description too. I just didn't like the WP:OR phrase "has entered political lore" without any specific attribution. It looks like an appeal to "common knowledge", and that doesn't meet WP:RS. LotLE×talk 22:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

pastor?

i was wondering, since republicans are denying that hagee and parsley are/were mccains pastor(s) who is, i know that origional research is not allowed but their must have been some interview in which he reffered to somebody as his pastor, ive tried googling but all of the recent pages are devoted to hagee and parsley

sincerely [Gavrielyosef (Talk | contribs)] 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They weren't his pastors. This is a biographical article about McCain, not about various people who may have endorsed him and may also have said stupid/offensive/revolting things. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

i dont believe for a second that they were (whether or not they should still be included is a second unrelated issue) what im wondering is who his actual pastor was, their must be some point in 1 interview over the course of his life where he named someone as his pastor, sorry for any misunderstanding g.j.g (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He goes to North Phoenix Baptist Church, per this AP story from last year. This is their website. One Dan Yeary has been the pastor there for the last 13 years. He likes chocolate chip cookies and sports, but maybe he's said something really stupid once. Have fun. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there have already been lots of stories about Yeary, such as this ABC News one.