This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Should McCain win in 2008, he would be the oldest person to assume the Presidency in history at initial ascension to office, being 72 years old and surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 years old at his inauguration following the 1980 election."
Now that Ralph Nader is running for president, this sentence needs to be modified. Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934) is older than John McCain (born August 29, 1936) and would technically be the oldest president. -- Burchett ( talk) 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added my closing rationale to the FAC talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I just saw on Fox News that he won the Repub nomination; I'll provide a cite in a minute. Happyme22 ( talk) 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
CNN has given it to him, so it's been added to the article. He just becomes the presumptive nominee, anyway; he doesn't become the official nominee until the convention, so all the category additions, firmly declarative statements, infoboxes, etc. should wait until then. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can see already we're going to have edits back and forth over "presumptive" or other wordings to describe what he is. "Presumptive" is the formulation that I believe most news organizations use from now until the convention, but we can see. In any case, I'm not going to go to reversion city over this one. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is his name wrong in the lead picture? [02:36, 5 March 2008 72.70.81.157]
I've started reading through this article, and I'm finding strange imbalances, misrepresentations of sources, and what looks like cherry picking from some of the sources. I'm still in the first section, but here's one example:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
So, I clicked on these articles, expecting to learn that McCain had been quite a screwup in his school years and while at the Academy. Curiously, both the Newsweek and The Arizona Republic articles give favorable to glowing reports about McCain (read them). It appears that the Wiki article highlights the few unfavorable passages from those articles, and positions them negatively. I hope this isn't occurring throughout (but I've already seen this in most of what I've read). I encourage a review of the sources for balance, cherry picking and due weight. Based on our text, when I clicked on these articles, I expected to find fairly negative reports, and was surprised at how we managed to glean the few unfavorable aspects of those articles for our use, while apparently neglecting the overall tenor of the articles. I don't know much about McCain, but I was surprised at how we don't seem to be representing the sources in a balanced way. Please review the sources and the article with accuracy and WP:UNDUE in mind, and take care not to cherry pick from sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I have a two-part response. Regarding the main article, I wash my hands of it. It's impossible to boil down McCain's character, personality, the different forces driving him in that period, and what at a result happened at the Naval Academy, to a couple of sentences. At least it's impossible for me. So you guys can do whatever you want in the main article on this. It may be best to just "stick to most basic bio facts" (entered this year, graduated that year) and not try to depict his personality, character, attitudes, outlook, etc. in any way, I don't know. If so you should probably leave out his class rank altogether, because that without the context that just makes him look like a dope.
Regarding the subarticle, however, there we have more space, and that's what I am going to focus on. I don't see that the current description in Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval Academy is negative or cherry-picked. It depends upon your cultural outlook, I guess, but I for one largely admire the guy who's portrayed there — tough, non-conformist, willing to speak his mind, etc. — these are some of the traits that define him as an attractive politician too. And for what it's worth, I do know a lot about McCain(*): I've read the Arizona Republic series, both Timberg biographies, the Paul Alexander biography, and countless newspaper and magazine articles about him. But the best place to start is with his own Faith of My Fathers. Sandy, I'd urge you to buy it or take it out from your library and read it. This guy might well be the next president, and all aside from WP it's worth knowing him better. And it's a great book. And one thing about McCain that makes it easier for us, is that when he does something wrong or foolish or ill-advised, he beats himself up more than any critic does. Read the parts in Faith of My Fathers about his regrets about his misspent youth and lack of seriousness of purpose, and how his time as a POW made him vow to do more with his life was he got out. There's a lot more self-criticism in what he writes than we could ever manage here. The "full McCain" — from the heroic to the foolish, from the principled to the sometimes compromising, from the salty to the self-critical — is what I want to try to get across here, and in the subarticles I'll continue to do so. I'll start with adding some more material to the Naval Academy, that gives a fuller picture of those years, given that I have a bit more space. But again, Sandy and anyone else reading, I urge you to give Faith of My Fathers a try. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
And FWIW, the next best things to read about McCain are the two Robert Timberg books. The Nightingale's Song contrasts five different to-be-famous Naval Academy graduates from the same time — McCain, James Webb (possible veep pick this year!), Oliver North, Bud McFarlane, John Poindexter — and how they were all affected by the Vietnam experience and the courses their careers later took. (Timberg himself is also a Naval Academy grad and Vietnam vet.) Highly praised book, really worth the while. The McCain parts were later extracted and expanded to form John McCain: An American Odyssey, which I've used more heavily as a cite here because it's easier to follow the chronlogical flow (Nightingale jumps back and forth between the different subjects). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasted Time R ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(*) That didn't come off too modestly. I've tried to know a lot about McCain ;-) Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The central question for this main article is whether we try to describe McCain's personality, character, attitude, etc. at all. If we don't, we can take a very matter-of-fact approach, and replace this paragraph:
with this:
and leave Early life and military career of John McCain to cover, with its advantage of having enough space to give full context, what McCain's years at Annapolis were like. We can take a similar approach in the rest of the main article; just be matter-of-fact with the standard resumé items and nothing else, and leave the subarticles to give a more three-dimensional view. What think? Wasted Time R ( talk) 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) For now, I'd like to put this into the article, which might allow removal of the tag:
"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy. He was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, stood up for people who were being bullied, and was a feisty lightweight boxer. McCain had run-ins with the leadership, was not inclined to obey every rule, and did not aim to improve his class rank was ambivalent about class rank (his was 894/899). McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him, and his graduation in 1958 gave him an opportunity to show the same mettle as his naval forbears."
Please let me know if there are any objections to this tentative fix. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A reworked and expanded Naval Academy section is now present in Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval Academy. You can use it or not to tweak the main article boil-down. Of particular relevance to the class rank issue is that his "grease grade" (roughly, spit-and-polish, conduct, leadership, and getting along with your CO) was always very poor, and that was included into the class rank calculation. Wasted Time R ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"The leader in terms of establishment Republican Party support and fundraising was Texas Governor and presidential son George W. Bush."
What is this trying to say? To me, it makes no sense at all and "in terms of" doesn't help. Is it trying to say that GWB was leading RP support and fundraising for McCain? probably not but that's how it first read to me.
Was the leader at the time GWB (which by the way is not stated in the reference only inferred as there is no comparison to McCain and no statement that Bush was ahead by either support or finances as stated)?
Shouldn't it say "then Texas Governor" for context and isn't "presidential son" superfluous?
-- Candy ( talk) 06:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of changing the name of the McCain articles' series in its navigation box from The life of John McCain to the John McCain series, a better title since subarticles about McCain's political positions and cultural image have to do with both McCain's life and work. Not all subarticles in a series will sequence chronologically, eg, in the French Revolution series along with chronologically grouped subarticles there are also subarticles concerning causes and historiography, subarticles comprising list of people and an overview of wars, and article providing a timeline and a glossary (and indeed, WP's McCain "Political positions" subarticle, though it correlates to a section within the main McCain bio, had until recently been left out of the series due its ill-fit under its previous strictly chronological "Life of" rubric). -- Justmeherenow ( talk) 07:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Current components of the McCain biographical series are
Any we ought delete? -- Justmeherenow ( talk) 09:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
He has, without any doubt, won the nomination. The article should be adjusted to reflect that. Contralya ( talk) 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The editor "Camptown" has replaced the image at the top of the article with another image that (to my knowledge) has never been at the top of the article. No edit summary was provided, so the motivation for this change is unknown. The picture that was removed is a recent photo that had broad consensus here. [2] Ferrylodge ( talk) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The picture currently at the top of the article is more than nine years old, according to this May 8, 1999 version of McCain's official Senate web site. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It now appears that another editor (8thstar) has again changed the image at the top of the article, without any edit summary or talk page discussion. The image that 8thstar has inserted is at least four years old, judging from this June 12, 2004 biography available from archive.org. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The editor Philip Stevens has expanded the infobox at the top right of the article, to include info about McCain’s status as a presidential candidate. [5] Such info is not included in the info boxes for Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or any of the other presidential candidates that I’m aware of.
I don’t know if there is a Wikipedia guideline or policy about this, but I do know that expanding the infobox like that makes it too big, and material is now slopping into the next section of the article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
John McCain is not the Republican Nominee for President. As fun as it is for those of you editing the article to pretend you know American politics, his position is still contested until the Republican Nominating Convention, at which time the delegates (pledged to anyone) can vote for anyone else. It would be nice if Wikipedia actually stated factually accurate material regarding some well known things. C3H5N3O92010 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe somebody from Arizona would know more... anyway, Ed Ranger and Claire Sargent currently don't have articles. Most Senatorial candidates are notable; does anybody know anything more about these two and is willing to write a stub? Figure that since this article is set to become rather important, there'd be some benefit to reducing redlinks.
Also, McCain's opponents for his House seat in the 80s are also redlinks. It's more likely that these may be non-notable people who ran in one race and then retired from public life, but beats me. Maybe they had interesting careers in Arizona State politics and are notable after all. If anybody knows more on this, either stubs or else simply removing the link if they're non-notable can get rid of those redlinks. SnowFire ( talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that his father is the creator of McCains oven chips? This should be added if so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 ( talk) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Where's the source for this information?? I want proof.
134.121.247.116 ( talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presumptive:
Main Entry: pre·sump·tive
Function: adjective
1 : based on probability or presumption <the presumptive nominee>
2 : giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief
That's the sense we're using it in. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has been vandalized. Can someone investigate? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.110.197 ( talk) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently read of the (official) G.O.P nominee's dad who also happens to go by the name John Sydney McCain. I also read that McCain's dad also had a father who also both went by the name John Sydney McCain and also happened to have a father going by the same name as well. I think someone needs to correct this. Moreover I also have some proof from the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain%2C_Sr.
http://www.wargs.com/political/mccain.html
Spokenwordsegment ( talk) 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that John McCain chose to be named John Sydney McCain the 3rd rather than the 4th?
Spokenwordsegment ( talk) 04:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that may an appropiate term to use for his great grandfather, though I personally believe that an ordinal number would be more appropiate when trying to distinguish the (official) G.O.P candidate from his other ancestors.
Spokenwordsegment ( talk) 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Justmeherenow ( talk) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mac's son, Midshipman Jack is John Sydney McCain IV;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."Johnny" Mac the Nominee is John Sydney McCain...the 3rd;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mac's papa, Admiral Jack is John Sydney McCain, Jr.;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mac's grandpop, Vice Admiral Slew is John Sydney McCain, Sr.; and
Mac's greatgrandfather, John McCain of Mississippi is John McCain...the 1st---"b.f." ("before familial 'ordinalizations'")?
Of course, this all can be settled by finding a source that verifies his complete legal name (say, one that shows his birth certificate, marriage license, automobile license, and so forth). Until such official documentation is presented, either we accept the affirmation of Sen. McCain or indulge in (anti-Wiki policy) original research. 147.70.242.40 ( talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but the lead photo on the top right is not very flattering at all! I realize that John McCain is not the most photogenic person in the world, but there has GOT to be a better pic of him out there somewhere. Is there not an official Senate file photo of him available? Or anything where he doesn't look like he just got through sucking on a lemon?
I read the "new image" comments about halfway up, and I realize it was generous for Mr. Dan Raustadt to offer the use of these photos for Wikipedia, but in all honesty -- great quality side -- both Raustadt photos (scroll up) are not very good. He is making weird facial expressions in both of them. :-\
Added/Comment: And please, before anyone gets all huffy and pissed... please understand I am not trying to knock Mr. Raustadt's photography skills. They are great quality, but the Senator simply does not look flattering in either of them. McCain has a serious problem with making weird or bland facial expressions in photos and on television, as we can see here.
Added/Suggestion: here is one from his campaign website's "Press Room," so is assumably going to be public domain. It is vastly superior to what is there currently. John McCain American Flag There is also a full press gallery ( John McCain Print Quality Photos) at his campaign website, where even the worst photos are better than what is here in this article. For goodness sakes, there are better pics out there! I am 100% in favor of replacing the lead photo. Thoughts? Please? LOL 72.213.129.138 ( talk) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, we'll do a straw poll over the image choices. Please vote for your favorate image (feel free to add images). Yahel Guhan 06:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)How about if we agree on some basic principles first. The photo at the top of this article should not be more than a couple years old. It should be formal, in that a necktie ought to be included like for all the other male candidates that have run this year. Part of his head ought not to be chopped off. It should be accepted at Wikimedia Commons. These principles ought to rule out most of those photos. Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)People, we all agree that 3 is a nice photo. However, it's not available at Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, the photo would have to be cropped, or else his head would be puny in comparison to screen size. Additionally, this photo illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, and thus fair use is not an adequate rationale. Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Generally speaking, why would Wikipedia editors who vocally support other candidates want to play around with the McCain image? Just curious. And I'll vote for image #1.
Ferrylodge (
talk)
06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of our articles on sitting senators use the most recent conventional, face forward, formal or official portrait available on the subject's senate web site. Thus, Chris Dodd uses the photo pointed to by this, Joe Biden uses the one on the right side of this, Hillary Clinton uses the full version of this, Barack Obama uses this. So by this logic, I support the most recent such photo from McCain's senate website, which if you go to "About Senator McCain" then "Biography" is this one on the right, which is #2/#4 above (same photo, different croppings and darkness). Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Please vote for the best 3-4 images for the lead (in order). Choose the numbers from the gallary above. Feel free to add proposals. Following my example. Comment in the discussion section. Yahel Guhan 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding what DCmacnut said, if we should use the photo that was used before he ran for President, then wouldn't that be 5? [7] There are several official photos here, so I'm unclear why 2 would be best. I admit that there are risks in relying on non-official, candid photos but the same logic would dictate that we also rely on his official biography instead of writing our own. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like some responses here:
Is it a problem that image 3 is fair use (and not free). Is that a problem? Yahel Guhan 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the straw poll so far shows 3 votes for #1 ,3 for #2, and 2 for #3 for first choice. And for second choice, 2 for #4, and 2 for #3, 1 for #5 and 1 for #6. Based on the results so far, I'd say image #2 seems to be the best choice at this time. Any thoughts? Yahel Guhan 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Timdlocklear voted for 3 and 2 (below the gallery). Votes:
Picture One 1,1,1,4, ... Picture two 1,1,1,2,3, ... Picture three 1,1,1,2,2,
So, picture #3 would be in the lead, followed by #2, followed by #1.
8thstar
14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I've casted my votes above for either 2, 4, or 9; seeing as image 2 is a very good, cropped, recent and professional looking photo of McCain, I feel that it is probably best served to be the main image (and apparently others feel the same). The fascinating issue to me (and I'm very suprised that this did not come up before) is that image 3 is a fair use image. Like I mentioned above in discussion topic one, technically, it shouldn't even be allowed on any of the Wikimedia projects because it is in blatant violation of contention one of the Wikipedia fair use policy. There are many free equivalents available (including image 2) which should be substituted in its place. Happyme22 ( talk) 02:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This quote says pretty much about a presidential candidate. Why is there not one sentence about this affair in the article? 91.66.201.71 ( talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm not justifying McCain's comments; I'm saying that choosing certain specific aspects of his cultural and political image to place on this page shows POV. Happyme22 ( talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think this hasn't been easy, wait until November. On 5 November or within a few days after, we will know who the next president will be, and we will have hordes of people rushing to change that person's status from "Democratic/Republican candidate" to "President Elect". But that person will not be the president-elect until the Electoral College meets on 15 December; until then, s/he will merely be the presumptive President-Elect. And this will have to be explained, over and over, just as we've experienced here with McCain's current status. -- Zsero ( talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I combined the infoboxes into one infobox, found at Template:McCainInfobox. This, plus the Template:fixHTML tags, should keep the section edit links from bunching up. If you don't like it, of course, feel free to revert. Coemgenus 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just run across what I've always been looking for, a page view counter for Wikipedia pages, at http://stats.grok.se/en/. In particular, I wanted to know if anyone reads subarticles of these biographies. Here are some results:
In March 2008, so far:
Let's check January 2008, before the big split but in the heat of the campaign:
Let's check another candidate with subarticles, Hillary, for February 2008:
Let's check one more, for February 2008:
Preliminary conclusions: The click-through rate of subarticles dealing with the current campaign and political positions isn't too bad for Hillary, and ranges from not too bad to pretty bad for McCain. The click-through rate for subarticles dealing with straight biographical material is dreadful for everyone (from one percent down to a tenth of one percent, roughly). More thoughts later ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's another example, for January 2008:
Again, the current presidential campaign article and political positions article are read about a tenth as much as the main article (when I said "click through" for these above I was mistaken, as they have also been available through the 2008 presidential candidates template much of the time), while the straight biographical subarticles are read about a hundredth as much as the main article, if that. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just for fun, the Obama numbers for February 2008:
Pretty much the same pattern (Obama doesn't have any straight sub articles), but the numbers overall are much higher. Wasted Time R ( talk) 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Should McCain win in 2008, he would be the oldest person to assume the Presidency in history at initial ascension to office, being 72 years old and surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 years old at his inauguration following the 1980 election."
Now that Ralph Nader is running for president, this sentence needs to be modified. Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934) is older than John McCain (born August 29, 1936) and would technically be the oldest president. -- Burchett ( talk) 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added my closing rationale to the FAC talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I just saw on Fox News that he won the Repub nomination; I'll provide a cite in a minute. Happyme22 ( talk) 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
CNN has given it to him, so it's been added to the article. He just becomes the presumptive nominee, anyway; he doesn't become the official nominee until the convention, so all the category additions, firmly declarative statements, infoboxes, etc. should wait until then. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can see already we're going to have edits back and forth over "presumptive" or other wordings to describe what he is. "Presumptive" is the formulation that I believe most news organizations use from now until the convention, but we can see. In any case, I'm not going to go to reversion city over this one. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is his name wrong in the lead picture? [02:36, 5 March 2008 72.70.81.157]
I've started reading through this article, and I'm finding strange imbalances, misrepresentations of sources, and what looks like cherry picking from some of the sources. I'm still in the first section, but here's one example:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
So, I clicked on these articles, expecting to learn that McCain had been quite a screwup in his school years and while at the Academy. Curiously, both the Newsweek and The Arizona Republic articles give favorable to glowing reports about McCain (read them). It appears that the Wiki article highlights the few unfavorable passages from those articles, and positions them negatively. I hope this isn't occurring throughout (but I've already seen this in most of what I've read). I encourage a review of the sources for balance, cherry picking and due weight. Based on our text, when I clicked on these articles, I expected to find fairly negative reports, and was surprised at how we managed to glean the few unfavorable aspects of those articles for our use, while apparently neglecting the overall tenor of the articles. I don't know much about McCain, but I was surprised at how we don't seem to be representing the sources in a balanced way. Please review the sources and the article with accuracy and WP:UNDUE in mind, and take care not to cherry pick from sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I have a two-part response. Regarding the main article, I wash my hands of it. It's impossible to boil down McCain's character, personality, the different forces driving him in that period, and what at a result happened at the Naval Academy, to a couple of sentences. At least it's impossible for me. So you guys can do whatever you want in the main article on this. It may be best to just "stick to most basic bio facts" (entered this year, graduated that year) and not try to depict his personality, character, attitudes, outlook, etc. in any way, I don't know. If so you should probably leave out his class rank altogether, because that without the context that just makes him look like a dope.
Regarding the subarticle, however, there we have more space, and that's what I am going to focus on. I don't see that the current description in Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval Academy is negative or cherry-picked. It depends upon your cultural outlook, I guess, but I for one largely admire the guy who's portrayed there — tough, non-conformist, willing to speak his mind, etc. — these are some of the traits that define him as an attractive politician too. And for what it's worth, I do know a lot about McCain(*): I've read the Arizona Republic series, both Timberg biographies, the Paul Alexander biography, and countless newspaper and magazine articles about him. But the best place to start is with his own Faith of My Fathers. Sandy, I'd urge you to buy it or take it out from your library and read it. This guy might well be the next president, and all aside from WP it's worth knowing him better. And it's a great book. And one thing about McCain that makes it easier for us, is that when he does something wrong or foolish or ill-advised, he beats himself up more than any critic does. Read the parts in Faith of My Fathers about his regrets about his misspent youth and lack of seriousness of purpose, and how his time as a POW made him vow to do more with his life was he got out. There's a lot more self-criticism in what he writes than we could ever manage here. The "full McCain" — from the heroic to the foolish, from the principled to the sometimes compromising, from the salty to the self-critical — is what I want to try to get across here, and in the subarticles I'll continue to do so. I'll start with adding some more material to the Naval Academy, that gives a fuller picture of those years, given that I have a bit more space. But again, Sandy and anyone else reading, I urge you to give Faith of My Fathers a try. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
And FWIW, the next best things to read about McCain are the two Robert Timberg books. The Nightingale's Song contrasts five different to-be-famous Naval Academy graduates from the same time — McCain, James Webb (possible veep pick this year!), Oliver North, Bud McFarlane, John Poindexter — and how they were all affected by the Vietnam experience and the courses their careers later took. (Timberg himself is also a Naval Academy grad and Vietnam vet.) Highly praised book, really worth the while. The McCain parts were later extracted and expanded to form John McCain: An American Odyssey, which I've used more heavily as a cite here because it's easier to follow the chronlogical flow (Nightingale jumps back and forth between the different subjects). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasted Time R ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(*) That didn't come off too modestly. I've tried to know a lot about McCain ;-) Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The central question for this main article is whether we try to describe McCain's personality, character, attitude, etc. at all. If we don't, we can take a very matter-of-fact approach, and replace this paragraph:
with this:
and leave Early life and military career of John McCain to cover, with its advantage of having enough space to give full context, what McCain's years at Annapolis were like. We can take a similar approach in the rest of the main article; just be matter-of-fact with the standard resumé items and nothing else, and leave the subarticles to give a more three-dimensional view. What think? Wasted Time R ( talk) 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) For now, I'd like to put this into the article, which might allow removal of the tag:
"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy. He was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, stood up for people who were being bullied, and was a feisty lightweight boxer. McCain had run-ins with the leadership, was not inclined to obey every rule, and did not aim to improve his class rank was ambivalent about class rank (his was 894/899). McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him, and his graduation in 1958 gave him an opportunity to show the same mettle as his naval forbears."
Please let me know if there are any objections to this tentative fix. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A reworked and expanded Naval Academy section is now present in Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval Academy. You can use it or not to tweak the main article boil-down. Of particular relevance to the class rank issue is that his "grease grade" (roughly, spit-and-polish, conduct, leadership, and getting along with your CO) was always very poor, and that was included into the class rank calculation. Wasted Time R ( talk) 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"The leader in terms of establishment Republican Party support and fundraising was Texas Governor and presidential son George W. Bush."
What is this trying to say? To me, it makes no sense at all and "in terms of" doesn't help. Is it trying to say that GWB was leading RP support and fundraising for McCain? probably not but that's how it first read to me.
Was the leader at the time GWB (which by the way is not stated in the reference only inferred as there is no comparison to McCain and no statement that Bush was ahead by either support or finances as stated)?
Shouldn't it say "then Texas Governor" for context and isn't "presidential son" superfluous?
-- Candy ( talk) 06:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of changing the name of the McCain articles' series in its navigation box from The life of John McCain to the John McCain series, a better title since subarticles about McCain's political positions and cultural image have to do with both McCain's life and work. Not all subarticles in a series will sequence chronologically, eg, in the French Revolution series along with chronologically grouped subarticles there are also subarticles concerning causes and historiography, subarticles comprising list of people and an overview of wars, and article providing a timeline and a glossary (and indeed, WP's McCain "Political positions" subarticle, though it correlates to a section within the main McCain bio, had until recently been left out of the series due its ill-fit under its previous strictly chronological "Life of" rubric). -- Justmeherenow ( talk) 07:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Current components of the McCain biographical series are
Any we ought delete? -- Justmeherenow ( talk) 09:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
He has, without any doubt, won the nomination. The article should be adjusted to reflect that. Contralya ( talk) 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The editor "Camptown" has replaced the image at the top of the article with another image that (to my knowledge) has never been at the top of the article. No edit summary was provided, so the motivation for this change is unknown. The picture that was removed is a recent photo that had broad consensus here. [2] Ferrylodge ( talk) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The picture currently at the top of the article is more than nine years old, according to this May 8, 1999 version of McCain's official Senate web site. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It now appears that another editor (8thstar) has again changed the image at the top of the article, without any edit summary or talk page discussion. The image that 8thstar has inserted is at least four years old, judging from this June 12, 2004 biography available from archive.org. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The editor Philip Stevens has expanded the infobox at the top right of the article, to include info about McCain’s status as a presidential candidate. [5] Such info is not included in the info boxes for Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or any of the other presidential candidates that I’m aware of.
I don’t know if there is a Wikipedia guideline or policy about this, but I do know that expanding the infobox like that makes it too big, and material is now slopping into the next section of the article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
John McCain is not the Republican Nominee for President. As fun as it is for those of you editing the article to pretend you know American politics, his position is still contested until the Republican Nominating Convention, at which time the delegates (pledged to anyone) can vote for anyone else. It would be nice if Wikipedia actually stated factually accurate material regarding some well known things. C3H5N3O92010 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe somebody from Arizona would know more... anyway, Ed Ranger and Claire Sargent currently don't have articles. Most Senatorial candidates are notable; does anybody know anything more about these two and is willing to write a stub? Figure that since this article is set to become rather important, there'd be some benefit to reducing redlinks.
Also, McCain's opponents for his House seat in the 80s are also redlinks. It's more likely that these may be non-notable people who ran in one race and then retired from public life, but beats me. Maybe they had interesting careers in Arizona State politics and are notable after all. If anybody knows more on this, either stubs or else simply removing the link if they're non-notable can get rid of those redlinks. SnowFire ( talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that his father is the creator of McCains oven chips? This should be added if so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 ( talk) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Where's the source for this information?? I want proof.
134.121.247.116 ( talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presumptive:
Main Entry: pre·sump·tive
Function: adjective
1 : based on probability or presumption <the presumptive nominee>
2 : giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief
That's the sense we're using it in. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has been vandalized. Can someone investigate? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.110.197 ( talk) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently read of the (official) G.O.P nominee's dad who also happens to go by the name John Sydney McCain. I also read that McCain's dad also had a father who also both went by the name John Sydney McCain and also happened to have a father going by the same name as well. I think someone needs to correct this. Moreover I also have some proof from the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain%2C_Sr.
http://www.wargs.com/political/mccain.html
Spokenwordsegment ( talk) 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that John McCain chose to be named John Sydney McCain the 3rd rather than the 4th?
Spokenwordsegment ( talk) 04:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that may an appropiate term to use for his great grandfather, though I personally believe that an ordinal number would be more appropiate when trying to distinguish the (official) G.O.P candidate from his other ancestors.
Spokenwordsegment ( talk) 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Justmeherenow ( talk) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mac's son, Midshipman Jack is John Sydney McCain IV;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."Johnny" Mac the Nominee is John Sydney McCain...the 3rd;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mac's papa, Admiral Jack is John Sydney McCain, Jr.;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mac's grandpop, Vice Admiral Slew is John Sydney McCain, Sr.; and
Mac's greatgrandfather, John McCain of Mississippi is John McCain...the 1st---"b.f." ("before familial 'ordinalizations'")?
Of course, this all can be settled by finding a source that verifies his complete legal name (say, one that shows his birth certificate, marriage license, automobile license, and so forth). Until such official documentation is presented, either we accept the affirmation of Sen. McCain or indulge in (anti-Wiki policy) original research. 147.70.242.40 ( talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but the lead photo on the top right is not very flattering at all! I realize that John McCain is not the most photogenic person in the world, but there has GOT to be a better pic of him out there somewhere. Is there not an official Senate file photo of him available? Or anything where he doesn't look like he just got through sucking on a lemon?
I read the "new image" comments about halfway up, and I realize it was generous for Mr. Dan Raustadt to offer the use of these photos for Wikipedia, but in all honesty -- great quality side -- both Raustadt photos (scroll up) are not very good. He is making weird facial expressions in both of them. :-\
Added/Comment: And please, before anyone gets all huffy and pissed... please understand I am not trying to knock Mr. Raustadt's photography skills. They are great quality, but the Senator simply does not look flattering in either of them. McCain has a serious problem with making weird or bland facial expressions in photos and on television, as we can see here.
Added/Suggestion: here is one from his campaign website's "Press Room," so is assumably going to be public domain. It is vastly superior to what is there currently. John McCain American Flag There is also a full press gallery ( John McCain Print Quality Photos) at his campaign website, where even the worst photos are better than what is here in this article. For goodness sakes, there are better pics out there! I am 100% in favor of replacing the lead photo. Thoughts? Please? LOL 72.213.129.138 ( talk) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, we'll do a straw poll over the image choices. Please vote for your favorate image (feel free to add images). Yahel Guhan 06:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)How about if we agree on some basic principles first. The photo at the top of this article should not be more than a couple years old. It should be formal, in that a necktie ought to be included like for all the other male candidates that have run this year. Part of his head ought not to be chopped off. It should be accepted at Wikimedia Commons. These principles ought to rule out most of those photos. Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)People, we all agree that 3 is a nice photo. However, it's not available at Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, the photo would have to be cropped, or else his head would be puny in comparison to screen size. Additionally, this photo illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, and thus fair use is not an adequate rationale. Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Generally speaking, why would Wikipedia editors who vocally support other candidates want to play around with the McCain image? Just curious. And I'll vote for image #1.
Ferrylodge (
talk)
06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of our articles on sitting senators use the most recent conventional, face forward, formal or official portrait available on the subject's senate web site. Thus, Chris Dodd uses the photo pointed to by this, Joe Biden uses the one on the right side of this, Hillary Clinton uses the full version of this, Barack Obama uses this. So by this logic, I support the most recent such photo from McCain's senate website, which if you go to "About Senator McCain" then "Biography" is this one on the right, which is #2/#4 above (same photo, different croppings and darkness). Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Please vote for the best 3-4 images for the lead (in order). Choose the numbers from the gallary above. Feel free to add proposals. Following my example. Comment in the discussion section. Yahel Guhan 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding what DCmacnut said, if we should use the photo that was used before he ran for President, then wouldn't that be 5? [7] There are several official photos here, so I'm unclear why 2 would be best. I admit that there are risks in relying on non-official, candid photos but the same logic would dictate that we also rely on his official biography instead of writing our own. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like some responses here:
Is it a problem that image 3 is fair use (and not free). Is that a problem? Yahel Guhan 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the straw poll so far shows 3 votes for #1 ,3 for #2, and 2 for #3 for first choice. And for second choice, 2 for #4, and 2 for #3, 1 for #5 and 1 for #6. Based on the results so far, I'd say image #2 seems to be the best choice at this time. Any thoughts? Yahel Guhan 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Timdlocklear voted for 3 and 2 (below the gallery). Votes:
Picture One 1,1,1,4, ... Picture two 1,1,1,2,3, ... Picture three 1,1,1,2,2,
So, picture #3 would be in the lead, followed by #2, followed by #1.
8thstar
14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I've casted my votes above for either 2, 4, or 9; seeing as image 2 is a very good, cropped, recent and professional looking photo of McCain, I feel that it is probably best served to be the main image (and apparently others feel the same). The fascinating issue to me (and I'm very suprised that this did not come up before) is that image 3 is a fair use image. Like I mentioned above in discussion topic one, technically, it shouldn't even be allowed on any of the Wikimedia projects because it is in blatant violation of contention one of the Wikipedia fair use policy. There are many free equivalents available (including image 2) which should be substituted in its place. Happyme22 ( talk) 02:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This quote says pretty much about a presidential candidate. Why is there not one sentence about this affair in the article? 91.66.201.71 ( talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm not justifying McCain's comments; I'm saying that choosing certain specific aspects of his cultural and political image to place on this page shows POV. Happyme22 ( talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If you think this hasn't been easy, wait until November. On 5 November or within a few days after, we will know who the next president will be, and we will have hordes of people rushing to change that person's status from "Democratic/Republican candidate" to "President Elect". But that person will not be the president-elect until the Electoral College meets on 15 December; until then, s/he will merely be the presumptive President-Elect. And this will have to be explained, over and over, just as we've experienced here with McCain's current status. -- Zsero ( talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I combined the infoboxes into one infobox, found at Template:McCainInfobox. This, plus the Template:fixHTML tags, should keep the section edit links from bunching up. If you don't like it, of course, feel free to revert. Coemgenus 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just run across what I've always been looking for, a page view counter for Wikipedia pages, at http://stats.grok.se/en/. In particular, I wanted to know if anyone reads subarticles of these biographies. Here are some results:
In March 2008, so far:
Let's check January 2008, before the big split but in the heat of the campaign:
Let's check another candidate with subarticles, Hillary, for February 2008:
Let's check one more, for February 2008:
Preliminary conclusions: The click-through rate of subarticles dealing with the current campaign and political positions isn't too bad for Hillary, and ranges from not too bad to pretty bad for McCain. The click-through rate for subarticles dealing with straight biographical material is dreadful for everyone (from one percent down to a tenth of one percent, roughly). More thoughts later ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's another example, for January 2008:
Again, the current presidential campaign article and political positions article are read about a tenth as much as the main article (when I said "click through" for these above I was mistaken, as they have also been available through the 2008 presidential candidates template much of the time), while the straight biographical subarticles are read about a hundredth as much as the main article, if that. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just for fun, the Obama numbers for February 2008:
Pretty much the same pattern (Obama doesn't have any straight sub articles), but the numbers overall are much higher. Wasted Time R ( talk) 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)