![]() | 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. |
NOTE: I'm moving this up here since this *is* the source. Please respect the sourcing and do not archive this if the time comes where this talk page is archived. -- badlydrawnjeff 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Based on this, and pending confirmation from third-party published sources, I have added "just before McCain's arrival" to the info on the Oriskany accident. -- Satori Son 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks, Nick [ 19:35, 19 July 2007 Zanimum ]
IT'S UNACCEPTABLE THAT IT SAYS "ELECTION DATE" UNDERNEATH MCCAIN'S BIO PICTURE. HE HAS NOT BEEN ELECTED AND, WHEN BROWSING THE PAGE OF OBAMA, THE SAME LANGUAGE IS NOT USED. "ELECTION DATE" APPEARS TO BE A BIASED STATEMENT, PERHAPS WISHFUL THINKING ON SOMEONE'S PART. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 ( talk) 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Strong words from someone unwilling to sign their post. Ratherthanlater ( talk) 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Election date" assumes a future outcome that is in doubt and undetermined. Wikipedia is about facts, let's keep it to facts and not fortune-telling. -allister979 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allister979 ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor seems determined to insert a statement into the infobox that McCain was a lobbyist. This is wrong. McCain did many different things while he was in the Navy, and one of them was to serve as Navy liaison to the Senate. Another was serving as a trainee before combat duty, and then serving as a trainer after combat duty, and also serving as a POW during combat duty. There is no reason to list one but not other of those naval activities in the info box. Moreover, the liaison position required McCain to perform many functions having nothing to do with lobbying, such as providing constituent services and facilitating communication between legislators and DoD. [1] So, I'll revert the recent addition of "lobbyist" to the infobox. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has a lot of (what seem to me) short paragraphs. Is this intentional, or an accidental by-product of the winnowing-down process? Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes there’s nothing wrong with short paragraphs as long as they aren’t one sentence paragraphs. -- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 05:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything about who McCain has selected for VP. I thought I had heard it was Condoleezza Rice. That would make an interesting ticket, although no one thinks that Obama will pick Hillary (she said she would pick him) it would mean a black man and a white woman on one side and a white man and a black woman on the other. Oakwillow ( talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think on his info box there should be a spot for his nickname (I'm pretty sure other people have those spots), and the nickname I've heard him called the most is the Straight Talker.
Dunnsworth ( talk) 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I meant a nickname in the same sense as Abraham Lincoln being called the Great Emancipator Dunnsworth ( talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Songbird was his nickname amongst his fellow POWs in Vietnem. 74.73.11.102 ( talk) 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Manual of Style says: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." So, I'll move pics accordingly. Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Not enough has been mentioned about Senator McCain's temper, even though many Republicans have spoken up about this issue. There is a new book coming out, and here is some information from that book:
[nasty word story elided]
See http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html.
The book is "The Real McCain" by Cliff Schecter. [elided] Cindy McCain has funded John McCain's lifestyle, as it is HER money. His comments were unforgivable. Mungemach ( talk) 22:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-not sure where to place the following, McCain faces many challenges in the upcoming 2008 election. Aside from embracing the unpopular War in Iraq, McCain carres the weight of carrying the torch on an incumbent party, that is presiding over a sliding economy. Further complicating matters is McCains appointing of Mr. Harris, as his chief economic advisor. Harris who authored a 200 page addendum to an exisiting 1000 page bill, is responsible for introducing legislation that led to the deregulation that has led to the current mortgage crisis. While the motivation of the bill is unclear. An economic plan steered by someone whose policy has affected the middle class, may be viewed as either favoring wealth over middle class citizens, or a major error in policy. Both of which, will look bad in face of the nations current economic downturn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.66.47 ( talk) 03:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the intention of wiki article to be timeless, is it appropriate to mention future challenges of a McCain candidacy? Maybe it is more appropriate to mention after the election that he won or loss because of a particular issue (if in fact his win or loss was viewed by noteworthy sources as having such an impact on the election results). It is me i think ( talk) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is virtually no citations for the introduction of this article. The rest of the article has substantial citations. Given the potential for disagreements and in the spirit of wikipedia through the creation of outstanding article, should more citations be added. Wanted to get input before I start adding citations. Please advise It is me i think ( talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this revert by WTR. The removed material is as follows:
“ | Keating also asked McCain to block the investigation; McCain refused and threw Keating out of his office.[1] | ” |
[1]Jaffe, Harry. " John McCain, Senator Hothead", Washingtonian, ( 1997-02-01).
WTR's edit summary says: "source suspect, disagrees with bios, request less stark and no throwing out." So, I gather there is no disagreement that the cited source says what I said it says. Here are some further supporting references:
[2] "Testimony Shows Rift Of Senators", St. Louis Post Dispatch ( 1990-11-21): "In testimony Tuesday, McCain administrative assistant Chris Koch said his enraged boss threw Keating out of his office at a meeting on March 24, 1987."
[3] Anglen, Robert. "McCain: Message inspires new voters", Cincinnati Enquirer ( 2000-03-03): "I want to point out that I threw Keating out of my office."
[4] Gibbs, Nancy; Dickerson, John. "The Power and The Story", Time ( 1999-12-13): "When Keating asked for a favor and McCain resisted, Keating told another Senator that McCain was a wimp. The next time Keating appeared in McCain's office, the Senator took him apart. 'I did not serve 5 1/2 years in a POW camp to have my integrity questioned,' Koch recalls him saying.”
Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I'll be interested to see what you come up with. McCain, his administartive assistant Chris Koch, and the anti-McCain Harry Jaffe all say explicitly that McCain "threw out" keating. That doesn't necessarily mean that McCain physically touched Keating, but rather suggests that Keating was told emphatically to leave. Here are two more supporting references:
[5] Rasky, Susan. “Washington Talk; To Senator McCain, the Savings and Loan Affair Is Now a Personal Demon”, New York Times ( 1989-12-22): “When Mr. Keating asked Senator McCain to help him make a deal with savings and loan regulators to ease up on Lincoln, the request led to a thunderous argument between the two men outside the Senator's office on March 24, 1987, a week before the first of two meetings with the regulators.”
[6] “Excerpts From Counsel's Statement at Senate Ethics Hearing", New York Times ( 1990-11-16): “Following are excerpts from the opening statement by Robert S. Bennett, special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee…’Senator McCain's refusal to go along with Mr. Keating's agenda regarding the regulators caused Mr. Keating to call Senator McCain a wimp. Word of this remark reached Senator McCain through Senator DeConcini's office. As a result, when Senator McCain and Mr. Keating met on March 24, 1987 to discuss the upcoming meeting with Chairman Gray, they had a heated argument. . . . Mr. Keating left in an angry state. This argument ended Senator McCain's personal relationship with Charles Keating.’”
Anyway, I'll wait to see what you come up with. I only cited Jaffe's article because someone else had already inserted it into this Wikipedia article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain, 25 pages into his 46-page chapter on his role in the Keating Five:
I have risked deluging the reader with numbing details and regulatory arcana involved in the Lincoln story, which many may not understand any better than I do.
He ain't kiddin', this is definitely at the dull end of the scandal scale ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I tweaked this article's treatment of K5 slightly, but I'm not going to include the March 24 meeting. The basic sequence seems to be (Alexander pp 108-111): Keating wants McCain to argue his case before the regulators. McCain refuses. Keating calls McCain a wimp. They meet on March 24, get into heated argument, ends badly. McCain then changes his mind and meets twice with regulators. Why? That's the big question. Alexander says it's some combination of McCain and Keating having been good friends for a number of years, McCain thinking were legitimate concerns about the length of the inquiry into Lincoln (borne out by a letter from Arthur Young to this effect), and McCain thinking that if he was very careful about what he said at the meetings with the regulators, he'd be okay (wrong!). In the very short treatment that this article is giving K5, we can't say all this, and so I don't think the March 24 meeting warrants inclusion; regardless of what may have happened in it, McCain did go to meet with the regulators. I will include it in the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 subarticle, however, although I'm not going to try to rewrite the whole K5 section there (too much work that I wouldn't enjoy), just adjust it in places. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The requirements for a Good Article are as follows:
In conclusion, with the article as it now stands, I will put it on hold for 1 week until the above issues are addressed. Thank you. -- Eustress ( talk) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Info about McCain's opposition to the 1983 King holiday was recently inserted into this article. I may support inclusion of this info, but not the way it's been presented.
The user Ronjohn seems to be in a habit of making edits without edit summaries. "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field…as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page." [2] Additionally, this article uses footnotes rather than external jumps as Ronjohn used.
Regarding this particular edit, the article now says: "In 1983 McCain opposed creating a federal holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. The House vote was 338-90 and President Reagan signed the bill into law later that year." This seems to be the only one of McCain's House votes that is now mentioned by this article. Was this his most significant vote? Also, this article now mentions nothing about his subsequent change of position, such as his later support for an MLK holiday in Arizona. Thus, we have an undue weight problem. I will revert the edit for the time being, until this is resolved. Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this is already covered in House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999. Wasted Time R ( talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain's statements about this matter during his presidential campaigns don't reflect very well upon him — they are at variance with what he said at the time in the 1980s and early 1990s, and indicate a baffling past ignorance of MLK's importance (regardless of the holiday issue per se). As I tried to show in the House and Senate article, this was a bigger issue in Arizona than anywhere else, and his "conversion" in 1989 was more forced and grudging than he now might acknowledge. What I need however is a better source for his position during 1992, when it was both a ballot initiative and he was running against ex-Gov Mecham, the leader of the anti-MLK-holiday movement. I don't know how enthusiastically or on what grounds he supported the initiative. Oh for the Arizona Republic archives to be fully accessible ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Ronjohn has reinserted the MLK material exactly as he did before, without addressing any of the concerns expressed in this section, and evidently without even reading this section. The first time around, my edit summary said: "Please see talk page. We may include info about MLK Day in this article, but I hope not this way." Would others please suggest what might be the best way to proceed here? Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I SAID BEFORE THIS IS FACTUAL INFORMATION!!! I didn't make it up. You could've just moved it instead of deleting it. I HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT USE WIKI. You have your on agenda and idealogy that you want everyone to believe. FACTS ARE FACTS!!! Wikis is for facts not one way thinking!! I'll repost it but I'll move it to positions!! DO NOT DELETE If you delete I will report as vandalism. [07:25, 19 April 2008 Ronjohn]
Let's strikethrough and/or comment upon these items here, as they are addressed:
Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I took off the word "Protestant" from the info box. In the USA the Episcopal Church is often considered catholic, although not a part of the Roman Catholic Church of course. Senator Clinton's United Methodist Church, which split off from the Episcopal Church long after the time of Luther, is also sometimes considered a catholic church. ("catholic" = "universal", as you probably know) The articles on the three candidates now match each other on this point, and I hope offend no one. Steve Dufour ( talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has the bio tag Category:Intelligent design advocates, but there's nothing in the article supporting that. Can someone give me a link to back this up? "Intelligent Design" is a specific argument, and not everyone who believes, say, that "God created the universe" or that "there are problems with Darwinism" is a proponent of ID. Not saying McCain isn't an ID proponent, just that I hadn't heard it. Can someone give me a link to an article? -- Narsil ( talk) 08:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? McCain redirects HERE? Is this article really the best representation of the English speaking worlds usage of the word/name "McCain"? JayKeaton ( talk) 20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Jay, what is the formal encyclopedia guideline to which you are referring? And why are you worked up about McCain and not Obama or Reagan?
Please note that this article is getting more than a hundred times more people looking for it than any other McCain-related article. You cited several examples, such as Madonna. For some reason there are separate articles for Mary (mother of Jesus) and Blessed Virgin Mary; combined they got about 10% of the hits that Madonna (entertainer) got this month. Likewise, Laura Bush got about 10% of the hits that George W. Bush got this month. Hillary Clinton got about half the hits that Bill Clinton did this month. Homer Simpson got about 20% of the hits that The Simpsons got this month. And, Ronald McDonald got more than 20% of the hits that McDonald's got this month. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
"I interviewed Col. Bui Tin in Hanoi, who was presented to me as their authority on POW/MIA issues. In the course of the interview Tin told me that during the war he was involved in the imprisonment of American POWs. When I questioned him further he said that John McCain was a `special prisoner.' Tin later told other POWs that McCain never was tortured. So when McCain embraced Tin during the hearings it seemed to some Vietnam vets to confirm the reports they had heard, and it really angered a lot of people. It was no secret that McCain had admitted to giving information to the enemy."
McCain made not one but 32, Thirty Two, Propaganda films for North Vietnam. Why is there no mention of this. Is he in the IMDB? Should he get a link... 32 Films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.174.12 ( talk) 03:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So McCain's claims of "Torture" should be noted to be "Claims of Torture" as opposed to being presented as facts. The North Vietnamese say they "Did not torture him". It is biased to put McCain's claims down as facts, they are disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.11.102 ( talk) 07:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are a Couple:
74.73.11.102 ( talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, these are the usual things you see on the web. They aren't WP:RS as to what happened in Vietnam. They are a factor in McCain's career, and the article does note them, in the "First two terms in U.S. Senate" section:
The subarticle House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 has a better description of the last part:
I would argue for including that language in the main article, because as it stands it's not clear how or why McCain is being vilified. Wasted Time R ( talk) 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
THe POW/MIA myth was a Reagan Era re-invention of Vietnam. The facts are that John McCain may not have ever been tortured, and there is clear evidence, Radio Broadcasts, and Propaganda Films, made by the Vietnamese that show at the least his collaboration with the enemy. 74.73.11.102 ( talk) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Re "U.S. Congressman and a growing family," I added a cite noting that McCain's son, James (Jimmy), recently completed service in Iraq. Although McCain says this isn't a talking point, I think Jimmy's service is important and noteworthy. I welcome your comments, thoughts, suggestions, etc., on the subject. My revisions: [5] -- Robapalooza ( talk) 15:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the link for a USA Today article linked to citation 17: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-998821539_x.htm
The claim it supposedly substantiates is: "McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him..."
Nowhere in the article is any mention of subjects that McCain took or did well in while at the Naval Academy, nor is there any mention of which subjects he was interested in.
I suggest that the part of the sentence that reads "McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him" be removed as it is unsubstantiated by the citation. I'm a wikipedia novice, so I suggest someone else remove it. [15:18, April 27, 2008 150.212.40.38]
Ok, someone should change citation 17 to: http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter2.html
That article says, "McCain's grades were good in the subjects he enjoyed, such as literature and history. Gamboa said McCain would rather read a history book than do his math homework. He did just enough to pass the classes he didn't find stimulating."
- OP
McCain has admitted to having committed adultery, as is supported by reputable sources, such as this one. Is there a reason this information has been excised from the article? I didn't see anything in the talk page about it, but I haven't read every word. JamesMLane t c 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Early life and military career of John McCain makes it clear:
and
Read the real deal! (Shameless promotion of under-read subarticle ...) Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
WTR wrote the section in this article about McCain's cultural and political image, [6] and I think we all agree it's too short. Here's a draft:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) p. xvii.{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)Please comment. Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Bold italicized text has been subsequently inserted in response to comments. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It's imbalanced in McCain's favor. The four long paragraphs of the "Temperament and controversial remarks" section in the separate article are not adequately represented here. The word "temper" is never mentioned here, when it's been the subject of many mainstream articles about McCain. "He can be prickly" just doesn't cover it! Some specific references to his anger blowing up in the Senate need to be included. His controversial remarks also need a couple of specific examples; I would mention "a joke about Chelsea Clinton so offensive that many newspapers would not print it" (without giving the joke itself here), and the "Barbara Ann"/"Bomb Iran" bit, as I think those are his two most well-known of these. (I know people want the "gook" bit included at this level, but I disagree; you get tortured by a government, you get a pass on slurs against that government's people.) Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) So, are we good to go now? Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I've added an entire additional paragraph about temper. I thnk it gives too much weight to the matter, but I hope it will be an acceptable compromise. How about it, WTR? Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've included the best and most famous part of the Cochran quote, which somehow you omitted. I've also included the rest of the qualifiers and "yes buts" on Cochran from the subarticle, for balance against the ones you included. But that ends up with:
which is really too much for how this summary section is written. I propose we reduce this to just:
The parenthetical matches how we qualify Lieberman. Leave all the other mitigators for the subarticle. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) Rockefeller was being a complete idiot and retracted his remarks with the day. Ignore. I do not consider the first part of Cochran's quote to be an insult. He was saying, in effect, "I do not believe X's temperament is suitable for the office of the presidency", just in more vivid language. In Cold War days, people would frame it, "I don't want X's finger on the button." Cochrane's remark is along those lines. Such remarks are not insults, but very pertinent statements of belief (whether one agrees with them or not) that X is not right for this particular job. Senators can go haywire and it never matters. When presidents go haywire, it's not good. Again, I don't agree with Cochran, but his viewpoint as to McCain's suitability for the highest office in the land — a view in which he is not alone — deserves representation here. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I also don't know why the Leahy cite is back in. Having a footnote that refutes itself is a red flag at FAC. Whatever it is that you're trying to support, there's got to be other sources that will do it. If you do keep it in, you have to be explicit about what parts of the story you think are true and what parts you think are rubbish. But you're just buying into trouble on this one. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to call into question this part: "Early polls in March 2008 showed McCain ahead of both Clinton and Obama in hypothetical general election matchups. Both leads were above the margin of error in the polls by Zogby International and Rasmussen Reports.[184][185][186]"
First, they were not above the margin of error. If a candidate is leading by 6 percentage points and the margin of error is 3.2% then the lead is not statistically significant. Subtract 3.2% from the leader and add it to the person in second and suddenly the person in second is winning to race! This is from the wikipedia page on margin of error: "...the margin of error as generally calculated is applicable to an individual percentage and not the difference between percentages, so the difference between two percentage estimates may not be statistically significant even when they differ by more than the reported margin of error." Yes, a 6 percentage point lead is more than the 3% margin of error but it applies to *each* percentage, not the difference between them. The articles cited make claims that McCain is beating Clinton and Obama but the evidence simply is not supported by their own results.
Furthermore, it seems a bit odd to only include results from a couple polls at one point in time that may benefit McCain. Prior to these polls the situation was quite the reverse. In fact, the sources even make a point of mentioning how McCain has 'pulled ahead' due to concerns about the economy. Subsequent polls, in March, showed all three in a dead heat: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/candidate.poll/. The daily tracking by Rasmussen, which is cited as evidence, now has McCain & Obama in a dead heat with Clinton trailing McCain only slightly. And Clinton's numbers are within the margin of error. If these things aren't going to be updated continually it seems best to simply leave them out. As the sentence now reads, it suggests McCain is favored over Clinton & Obama, which strikes me as misleading, if not biased. Anyway, here's more recent polls:
McCain & Obama tied, McCain beating Clinton: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
In sum, I think this should simply be removed. It's clear that these things are shifting constantly and should be clear that both leads were not statistically significant. Arpayton ( talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"With the Democratic candidates still involved in a fierce primary race, McCain faced the challenge of staying in the news. However, the period after clinching the nomination allowed the campaign and the candidate to begin implementing their general election strategy."
This is ridiculous too. We don't know their general election strategy! Arpayton ( talk) 14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I recently put an audiovideo into this article, here. The video is fine, but the audio track only seems to work when I run VLC(Activex), and not when I run Cortado(Java) or QuickTime(ActiveX). Anyone know what the problem is, or how it can be fixed? Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's a new image, over to the right. It's from the website of the U.S. Senate (Senate Republican Conference). I'd like to put this at the top of the article. It's formal, and forward-facing. The suit doesn't completely blend into the background which is good. Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've reverted it. Seriously, this is the kind of thing that can land us in the general press for all the wrong reasons: "Another blow to Wikipedia credibility: McCain supporter alters web site photo for use in Wikipedia, saying he wanted McCain to look less funereal." Not. A. Good. Idea. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) We already had a long discussion and poll regarding which picture to use, and the consensus was to use the cropped official photo. [10] If a new picture comes along, then that can be discussed, but I think the consensus right now is to stick with the cropped official photo.
Frankly, I don't see any problem with cropping the official photo, and no one has suggested that doing so is against any Wikipedia policy. Likewise, what policy frowns on changing the background color? A black suit on a black background looks horrible, so I don't see the problem with changing the background to blue as long as nothing else is modified. I have started discussions about this at Graphic Lab and also at Featured Picture Peer Review. Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)There's an excellent photo of McCain here. The photographer indicated he might be willing to donate it to Wikimedia. I don't want to bother him any more about it, unless there's a likelihood we'll use it. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Andrew c kindly made the image over to the right. This image comes from the Wikipedia Graphic Lab, which frequently improves Wikipedia images, including images for biographies of living persons. This is a forward-facing official portrait of McCain, and the image of his face has not been modified or touched up by Wikipedia at all. I support using this at the top of the article until we have consensus for a better pic. The current image at the top of the article is of poor quality, in that the suit and the background are virtually indistinguishable. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Here's what I'd like to suggest, at least until we get more images. For this article's lead photo, see the cropped image with colorized background that's been produced by the Wikipedia Graphics Lab. This is a more traditional photo, and I'm unaware that any lead photos in Wikipedia use a black-on-black composition. The background is exactly as in the Obama lead photo.
The other image to the right is the original untouched official photo, and I suggest that we also use it in the article, for the section on "Political and Cultural Image," with a caption saying "Another official Senate photo, from which this article's lead photo was taken". Even if we decide not to use the original photo in the "Political and Cultural Image" section, I would still urge going with the lighter background for our lead photo. The primary advantages of also including the black-on-black photo in the image section are: (1) the "Political and Cultural Image" section could use a photo; (2) this original uncropped photo would convey the image that McCain's office/photographer have sought to convey; and (3) the full-length original photo with caption would clarify that we're not trying to hide the fact that the lead photo has been cropped and colorized. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
He should have the POW ribbon/medal. How come he doesn't anyone know atleast it's not showing in wiki? Ron John ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ask someone on the campaign trail that keeps "fixing" wiki to add it Ron John ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:American autobiographers was recently added, when the article already has Category:American memoirists. I don't know exactly why there are separate cats to begin with, but Faith of My Fathers is cover-billed as "A Family Memoir" and Worth the Fighting For is cover-billed as "A Memoir". So what's the rationale for the addition of the autobio cat? Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If that's true, then the proper fix is to change Category:American memoirists to have Category:American autobiographers as a parent cat. We don't include other parent cats for this article, such as Category:United States Senators or Category:United States Navy personnel, because they are implied by Category:United States Senators from Arizona and Category:United States Navy officers. And in fact the higher-up Category:Memoirists does have Category:Autobiographers as a parent. But looking through Category:Autobiographers, none of the national categories maintain the same relationship. Ugh. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Mccain sure does seem highly respectable in the biographical sense..almost wouldn't know how controversial the man now is. Rodrigue ( talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
A request has been made for Peer Review of this article. [14] Ferrylodge ( talk) 07:24, 9 May 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. |
NOTE: I'm moving this up here since this *is* the source. Please respect the sourcing and do not archive this if the time comes where this talk page is archived. -- badlydrawnjeff 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Based on this, and pending confirmation from third-party published sources, I have added "just before McCain's arrival" to the info on the Oriskany accident. -- Satori Son 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks, Nick [ 19:35, 19 July 2007 Zanimum ]
IT'S UNACCEPTABLE THAT IT SAYS "ELECTION DATE" UNDERNEATH MCCAIN'S BIO PICTURE. HE HAS NOT BEEN ELECTED AND, WHEN BROWSING THE PAGE OF OBAMA, THE SAME LANGUAGE IS NOT USED. "ELECTION DATE" APPEARS TO BE A BIASED STATEMENT, PERHAPS WISHFUL THINKING ON SOMEONE'S PART. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 ( talk) 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Strong words from someone unwilling to sign their post. Ratherthanlater ( talk) 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Election date" assumes a future outcome that is in doubt and undetermined. Wikipedia is about facts, let's keep it to facts and not fortune-telling. -allister979 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allister979 ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor seems determined to insert a statement into the infobox that McCain was a lobbyist. This is wrong. McCain did many different things while he was in the Navy, and one of them was to serve as Navy liaison to the Senate. Another was serving as a trainee before combat duty, and then serving as a trainer after combat duty, and also serving as a POW during combat duty. There is no reason to list one but not other of those naval activities in the info box. Moreover, the liaison position required McCain to perform many functions having nothing to do with lobbying, such as providing constituent services and facilitating communication between legislators and DoD. [1] So, I'll revert the recent addition of "lobbyist" to the infobox. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has a lot of (what seem to me) short paragraphs. Is this intentional, or an accidental by-product of the winnowing-down process? Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes there’s nothing wrong with short paragraphs as long as they aren’t one sentence paragraphs. -- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 05:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything about who McCain has selected for VP. I thought I had heard it was Condoleezza Rice. That would make an interesting ticket, although no one thinks that Obama will pick Hillary (she said she would pick him) it would mean a black man and a white woman on one side and a white man and a black woman on the other. Oakwillow ( talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think on his info box there should be a spot for his nickname (I'm pretty sure other people have those spots), and the nickname I've heard him called the most is the Straight Talker.
Dunnsworth ( talk) 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I meant a nickname in the same sense as Abraham Lincoln being called the Great Emancipator Dunnsworth ( talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Songbird was his nickname amongst his fellow POWs in Vietnem. 74.73.11.102 ( talk) 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Manual of Style says: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." So, I'll move pics accordingly. Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Not enough has been mentioned about Senator McCain's temper, even though many Republicans have spoken up about this issue. There is a new book coming out, and here is some information from that book:
[nasty word story elided]
See http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html.
The book is "The Real McCain" by Cliff Schecter. [elided] Cindy McCain has funded John McCain's lifestyle, as it is HER money. His comments were unforgivable. Mungemach ( talk) 22:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-not sure where to place the following, McCain faces many challenges in the upcoming 2008 election. Aside from embracing the unpopular War in Iraq, McCain carres the weight of carrying the torch on an incumbent party, that is presiding over a sliding economy. Further complicating matters is McCains appointing of Mr. Harris, as his chief economic advisor. Harris who authored a 200 page addendum to an exisiting 1000 page bill, is responsible for introducing legislation that led to the deregulation that has led to the current mortgage crisis. While the motivation of the bill is unclear. An economic plan steered by someone whose policy has affected the middle class, may be viewed as either favoring wealth over middle class citizens, or a major error in policy. Both of which, will look bad in face of the nations current economic downturn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.66.47 ( talk) 03:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the intention of wiki article to be timeless, is it appropriate to mention future challenges of a McCain candidacy? Maybe it is more appropriate to mention after the election that he won or loss because of a particular issue (if in fact his win or loss was viewed by noteworthy sources as having such an impact on the election results). It is me i think ( talk) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is virtually no citations for the introduction of this article. The rest of the article has substantial citations. Given the potential for disagreements and in the spirit of wikipedia through the creation of outstanding article, should more citations be added. Wanted to get input before I start adding citations. Please advise It is me i think ( talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this revert by WTR. The removed material is as follows:
“ | Keating also asked McCain to block the investigation; McCain refused and threw Keating out of his office.[1] | ” |
[1]Jaffe, Harry. " John McCain, Senator Hothead", Washingtonian, ( 1997-02-01).
WTR's edit summary says: "source suspect, disagrees with bios, request less stark and no throwing out." So, I gather there is no disagreement that the cited source says what I said it says. Here are some further supporting references:
[2] "Testimony Shows Rift Of Senators", St. Louis Post Dispatch ( 1990-11-21): "In testimony Tuesday, McCain administrative assistant Chris Koch said his enraged boss threw Keating out of his office at a meeting on March 24, 1987."
[3] Anglen, Robert. "McCain: Message inspires new voters", Cincinnati Enquirer ( 2000-03-03): "I want to point out that I threw Keating out of my office."
[4] Gibbs, Nancy; Dickerson, John. "The Power and The Story", Time ( 1999-12-13): "When Keating asked for a favor and McCain resisted, Keating told another Senator that McCain was a wimp. The next time Keating appeared in McCain's office, the Senator took him apart. 'I did not serve 5 1/2 years in a POW camp to have my integrity questioned,' Koch recalls him saying.”
Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I'll be interested to see what you come up with. McCain, his administartive assistant Chris Koch, and the anti-McCain Harry Jaffe all say explicitly that McCain "threw out" keating. That doesn't necessarily mean that McCain physically touched Keating, but rather suggests that Keating was told emphatically to leave. Here are two more supporting references:
[5] Rasky, Susan. “Washington Talk; To Senator McCain, the Savings and Loan Affair Is Now a Personal Demon”, New York Times ( 1989-12-22): “When Mr. Keating asked Senator McCain to help him make a deal with savings and loan regulators to ease up on Lincoln, the request led to a thunderous argument between the two men outside the Senator's office on March 24, 1987, a week before the first of two meetings with the regulators.”
[6] “Excerpts From Counsel's Statement at Senate Ethics Hearing", New York Times ( 1990-11-16): “Following are excerpts from the opening statement by Robert S. Bennett, special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee…’Senator McCain's refusal to go along with Mr. Keating's agenda regarding the regulators caused Mr. Keating to call Senator McCain a wimp. Word of this remark reached Senator McCain through Senator DeConcini's office. As a result, when Senator McCain and Mr. Keating met on March 24, 1987 to discuss the upcoming meeting with Chairman Gray, they had a heated argument. . . . Mr. Keating left in an angry state. This argument ended Senator McCain's personal relationship with Charles Keating.’”
Anyway, I'll wait to see what you come up with. I only cited Jaffe's article because someone else had already inserted it into this Wikipedia article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain, 25 pages into his 46-page chapter on his role in the Keating Five:
I have risked deluging the reader with numbing details and regulatory arcana involved in the Lincoln story, which many may not understand any better than I do.
He ain't kiddin', this is definitely at the dull end of the scandal scale ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I tweaked this article's treatment of K5 slightly, but I'm not going to include the March 24 meeting. The basic sequence seems to be (Alexander pp 108-111): Keating wants McCain to argue his case before the regulators. McCain refuses. Keating calls McCain a wimp. They meet on March 24, get into heated argument, ends badly. McCain then changes his mind and meets twice with regulators. Why? That's the big question. Alexander says it's some combination of McCain and Keating having been good friends for a number of years, McCain thinking were legitimate concerns about the length of the inquiry into Lincoln (borne out by a letter from Arthur Young to this effect), and McCain thinking that if he was very careful about what he said at the meetings with the regulators, he'd be okay (wrong!). In the very short treatment that this article is giving K5, we can't say all this, and so I don't think the March 24 meeting warrants inclusion; regardless of what may have happened in it, McCain did go to meet with the regulators. I will include it in the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 subarticle, however, although I'm not going to try to rewrite the whole K5 section there (too much work that I wouldn't enjoy), just adjust it in places. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The requirements for a Good Article are as follows:
In conclusion, with the article as it now stands, I will put it on hold for 1 week until the above issues are addressed. Thank you. -- Eustress ( talk) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Info about McCain's opposition to the 1983 King holiday was recently inserted into this article. I may support inclusion of this info, but not the way it's been presented.
The user Ronjohn seems to be in a habit of making edits without edit summaries. "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field…as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page." [2] Additionally, this article uses footnotes rather than external jumps as Ronjohn used.
Regarding this particular edit, the article now says: "In 1983 McCain opposed creating a federal holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. The House vote was 338-90 and President Reagan signed the bill into law later that year." This seems to be the only one of McCain's House votes that is now mentioned by this article. Was this his most significant vote? Also, this article now mentions nothing about his subsequent change of position, such as his later support for an MLK holiday in Arizona. Thus, we have an undue weight problem. I will revert the edit for the time being, until this is resolved. Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this is already covered in House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999. Wasted Time R ( talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain's statements about this matter during his presidential campaigns don't reflect very well upon him — they are at variance with what he said at the time in the 1980s and early 1990s, and indicate a baffling past ignorance of MLK's importance (regardless of the holiday issue per se). As I tried to show in the House and Senate article, this was a bigger issue in Arizona than anywhere else, and his "conversion" in 1989 was more forced and grudging than he now might acknowledge. What I need however is a better source for his position during 1992, when it was both a ballot initiative and he was running against ex-Gov Mecham, the leader of the anti-MLK-holiday movement. I don't know how enthusiastically or on what grounds he supported the initiative. Oh for the Arizona Republic archives to be fully accessible ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Ronjohn has reinserted the MLK material exactly as he did before, without addressing any of the concerns expressed in this section, and evidently without even reading this section. The first time around, my edit summary said: "Please see talk page. We may include info about MLK Day in this article, but I hope not this way." Would others please suggest what might be the best way to proceed here? Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I SAID BEFORE THIS IS FACTUAL INFORMATION!!! I didn't make it up. You could've just moved it instead of deleting it. I HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT USE WIKI. You have your on agenda and idealogy that you want everyone to believe. FACTS ARE FACTS!!! Wikis is for facts not one way thinking!! I'll repost it but I'll move it to positions!! DO NOT DELETE If you delete I will report as vandalism. [07:25, 19 April 2008 Ronjohn]
Let's strikethrough and/or comment upon these items here, as they are addressed:
Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I took off the word "Protestant" from the info box. In the USA the Episcopal Church is often considered catholic, although not a part of the Roman Catholic Church of course. Senator Clinton's United Methodist Church, which split off from the Episcopal Church long after the time of Luther, is also sometimes considered a catholic church. ("catholic" = "universal", as you probably know) The articles on the three candidates now match each other on this point, and I hope offend no one. Steve Dufour ( talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has the bio tag Category:Intelligent design advocates, but there's nothing in the article supporting that. Can someone give me a link to back this up? "Intelligent Design" is a specific argument, and not everyone who believes, say, that "God created the universe" or that "there are problems with Darwinism" is a proponent of ID. Not saying McCain isn't an ID proponent, just that I hadn't heard it. Can someone give me a link to an article? -- Narsil ( talk) 08:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? McCain redirects HERE? Is this article really the best representation of the English speaking worlds usage of the word/name "McCain"? JayKeaton ( talk) 20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Jay, what is the formal encyclopedia guideline to which you are referring? And why are you worked up about McCain and not Obama or Reagan?
Please note that this article is getting more than a hundred times more people looking for it than any other McCain-related article. You cited several examples, such as Madonna. For some reason there are separate articles for Mary (mother of Jesus) and Blessed Virgin Mary; combined they got about 10% of the hits that Madonna (entertainer) got this month. Likewise, Laura Bush got about 10% of the hits that George W. Bush got this month. Hillary Clinton got about half the hits that Bill Clinton did this month. Homer Simpson got about 20% of the hits that The Simpsons got this month. And, Ronald McDonald got more than 20% of the hits that McDonald's got this month. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
"I interviewed Col. Bui Tin in Hanoi, who was presented to me as their authority on POW/MIA issues. In the course of the interview Tin told me that during the war he was involved in the imprisonment of American POWs. When I questioned him further he said that John McCain was a `special prisoner.' Tin later told other POWs that McCain never was tortured. So when McCain embraced Tin during the hearings it seemed to some Vietnam vets to confirm the reports they had heard, and it really angered a lot of people. It was no secret that McCain had admitted to giving information to the enemy."
McCain made not one but 32, Thirty Two, Propaganda films for North Vietnam. Why is there no mention of this. Is he in the IMDB? Should he get a link... 32 Films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.174.12 ( talk) 03:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So McCain's claims of "Torture" should be noted to be "Claims of Torture" as opposed to being presented as facts. The North Vietnamese say they "Did not torture him". It is biased to put McCain's claims down as facts, they are disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.11.102 ( talk) 07:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are a Couple:
74.73.11.102 ( talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, these are the usual things you see on the web. They aren't WP:RS as to what happened in Vietnam. They are a factor in McCain's career, and the article does note them, in the "First two terms in U.S. Senate" section:
The subarticle House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 has a better description of the last part:
I would argue for including that language in the main article, because as it stands it's not clear how or why McCain is being vilified. Wasted Time R ( talk) 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
THe POW/MIA myth was a Reagan Era re-invention of Vietnam. The facts are that John McCain may not have ever been tortured, and there is clear evidence, Radio Broadcasts, and Propaganda Films, made by the Vietnamese that show at the least his collaboration with the enemy. 74.73.11.102 ( talk) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Re "U.S. Congressman and a growing family," I added a cite noting that McCain's son, James (Jimmy), recently completed service in Iraq. Although McCain says this isn't a talking point, I think Jimmy's service is important and noteworthy. I welcome your comments, thoughts, suggestions, etc., on the subject. My revisions: [5] -- Robapalooza ( talk) 15:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the link for a USA Today article linked to citation 17: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-998821539_x.htm
The claim it supposedly substantiates is: "McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him..."
Nowhere in the article is any mention of subjects that McCain took or did well in while at the Naval Academy, nor is there any mention of which subjects he was interested in.
I suggest that the part of the sentence that reads "McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him" be removed as it is unsubstantiated by the citation. I'm a wikipedia novice, so I suggest someone else remove it. [15:18, April 27, 2008 150.212.40.38]
Ok, someone should change citation 17 to: http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter2.html
That article says, "McCain's grades were good in the subjects he enjoyed, such as literature and history. Gamboa said McCain would rather read a history book than do his math homework. He did just enough to pass the classes he didn't find stimulating."
- OP
McCain has admitted to having committed adultery, as is supported by reputable sources, such as this one. Is there a reason this information has been excised from the article? I didn't see anything in the talk page about it, but I haven't read every word. JamesMLane t c 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Early life and military career of John McCain makes it clear:
and
Read the real deal! (Shameless promotion of under-read subarticle ...) Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
WTR wrote the section in this article about McCain's cultural and political image, [6] and I think we all agree it's too short. Here's a draft:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) p. xvii.{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)Please comment. Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Bold italicized text has been subsequently inserted in response to comments. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It's imbalanced in McCain's favor. The four long paragraphs of the "Temperament and controversial remarks" section in the separate article are not adequately represented here. The word "temper" is never mentioned here, when it's been the subject of many mainstream articles about McCain. "He can be prickly" just doesn't cover it! Some specific references to his anger blowing up in the Senate need to be included. His controversial remarks also need a couple of specific examples; I would mention "a joke about Chelsea Clinton so offensive that many newspapers would not print it" (without giving the joke itself here), and the "Barbara Ann"/"Bomb Iran" bit, as I think those are his two most well-known of these. (I know people want the "gook" bit included at this level, but I disagree; you get tortured by a government, you get a pass on slurs against that government's people.) Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) So, are we good to go now? Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I've added an entire additional paragraph about temper. I thnk it gives too much weight to the matter, but I hope it will be an acceptable compromise. How about it, WTR? Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've included the best and most famous part of the Cochran quote, which somehow you omitted. I've also included the rest of the qualifiers and "yes buts" on Cochran from the subarticle, for balance against the ones you included. But that ends up with:
which is really too much for how this summary section is written. I propose we reduce this to just:
The parenthetical matches how we qualify Lieberman. Leave all the other mitigators for the subarticle. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) Rockefeller was being a complete idiot and retracted his remarks with the day. Ignore. I do not consider the first part of Cochran's quote to be an insult. He was saying, in effect, "I do not believe X's temperament is suitable for the office of the presidency", just in more vivid language. In Cold War days, people would frame it, "I don't want X's finger on the button." Cochrane's remark is along those lines. Such remarks are not insults, but very pertinent statements of belief (whether one agrees with them or not) that X is not right for this particular job. Senators can go haywire and it never matters. When presidents go haywire, it's not good. Again, I don't agree with Cochran, but his viewpoint as to McCain's suitability for the highest office in the land — a view in which he is not alone — deserves representation here. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I also don't know why the Leahy cite is back in. Having a footnote that refutes itself is a red flag at FAC. Whatever it is that you're trying to support, there's got to be other sources that will do it. If you do keep it in, you have to be explicit about what parts of the story you think are true and what parts you think are rubbish. But you're just buying into trouble on this one. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to call into question this part: "Early polls in March 2008 showed McCain ahead of both Clinton and Obama in hypothetical general election matchups. Both leads were above the margin of error in the polls by Zogby International and Rasmussen Reports.[184][185][186]"
First, they were not above the margin of error. If a candidate is leading by 6 percentage points and the margin of error is 3.2% then the lead is not statistically significant. Subtract 3.2% from the leader and add it to the person in second and suddenly the person in second is winning to race! This is from the wikipedia page on margin of error: "...the margin of error as generally calculated is applicable to an individual percentage and not the difference between percentages, so the difference between two percentage estimates may not be statistically significant even when they differ by more than the reported margin of error." Yes, a 6 percentage point lead is more than the 3% margin of error but it applies to *each* percentage, not the difference between them. The articles cited make claims that McCain is beating Clinton and Obama but the evidence simply is not supported by their own results.
Furthermore, it seems a bit odd to only include results from a couple polls at one point in time that may benefit McCain. Prior to these polls the situation was quite the reverse. In fact, the sources even make a point of mentioning how McCain has 'pulled ahead' due to concerns about the economy. Subsequent polls, in March, showed all three in a dead heat: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/candidate.poll/. The daily tracking by Rasmussen, which is cited as evidence, now has McCain & Obama in a dead heat with Clinton trailing McCain only slightly. And Clinton's numbers are within the margin of error. If these things aren't going to be updated continually it seems best to simply leave them out. As the sentence now reads, it suggests McCain is favored over Clinton & Obama, which strikes me as misleading, if not biased. Anyway, here's more recent polls:
McCain & Obama tied, McCain beating Clinton: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
In sum, I think this should simply be removed. It's clear that these things are shifting constantly and should be clear that both leads were not statistically significant. Arpayton ( talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"With the Democratic candidates still involved in a fierce primary race, McCain faced the challenge of staying in the news. However, the period after clinching the nomination allowed the campaign and the candidate to begin implementing their general election strategy."
This is ridiculous too. We don't know their general election strategy! Arpayton ( talk) 14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I recently put an audiovideo into this article, here. The video is fine, but the audio track only seems to work when I run VLC(Activex), and not when I run Cortado(Java) or QuickTime(ActiveX). Anyone know what the problem is, or how it can be fixed? Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's a new image, over to the right. It's from the website of the U.S. Senate (Senate Republican Conference). I'd like to put this at the top of the article. It's formal, and forward-facing. The suit doesn't completely blend into the background which is good. Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've reverted it. Seriously, this is the kind of thing that can land us in the general press for all the wrong reasons: "Another blow to Wikipedia credibility: McCain supporter alters web site photo for use in Wikipedia, saying he wanted McCain to look less funereal." Not. A. Good. Idea. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) We already had a long discussion and poll regarding which picture to use, and the consensus was to use the cropped official photo. [10] If a new picture comes along, then that can be discussed, but I think the consensus right now is to stick with the cropped official photo.
Frankly, I don't see any problem with cropping the official photo, and no one has suggested that doing so is against any Wikipedia policy. Likewise, what policy frowns on changing the background color? A black suit on a black background looks horrible, so I don't see the problem with changing the background to blue as long as nothing else is modified. I have started discussions about this at Graphic Lab and also at Featured Picture Peer Review. Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)There's an excellent photo of McCain here. The photographer indicated he might be willing to donate it to Wikimedia. I don't want to bother him any more about it, unless there's a likelihood we'll use it. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Andrew c kindly made the image over to the right. This image comes from the Wikipedia Graphic Lab, which frequently improves Wikipedia images, including images for biographies of living persons. This is a forward-facing official portrait of McCain, and the image of his face has not been modified or touched up by Wikipedia at all. I support using this at the top of the article until we have consensus for a better pic. The current image at the top of the article is of poor quality, in that the suit and the background are virtually indistinguishable. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Here's what I'd like to suggest, at least until we get more images. For this article's lead photo, see the cropped image with colorized background that's been produced by the Wikipedia Graphics Lab. This is a more traditional photo, and I'm unaware that any lead photos in Wikipedia use a black-on-black composition. The background is exactly as in the Obama lead photo.
The other image to the right is the original untouched official photo, and I suggest that we also use it in the article, for the section on "Political and Cultural Image," with a caption saying "Another official Senate photo, from which this article's lead photo was taken". Even if we decide not to use the original photo in the "Political and Cultural Image" section, I would still urge going with the lighter background for our lead photo. The primary advantages of also including the black-on-black photo in the image section are: (1) the "Political and Cultural Image" section could use a photo; (2) this original uncropped photo would convey the image that McCain's office/photographer have sought to convey; and (3) the full-length original photo with caption would clarify that we're not trying to hide the fact that the lead photo has been cropped and colorized. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
He should have the POW ribbon/medal. How come he doesn't anyone know atleast it's not showing in wiki? Ron John ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ask someone on the campaign trail that keeps "fixing" wiki to add it Ron John ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:American autobiographers was recently added, when the article already has Category:American memoirists. I don't know exactly why there are separate cats to begin with, but Faith of My Fathers is cover-billed as "A Family Memoir" and Worth the Fighting For is cover-billed as "A Memoir". So what's the rationale for the addition of the autobio cat? Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If that's true, then the proper fix is to change Category:American memoirists to have Category:American autobiographers as a parent cat. We don't include other parent cats for this article, such as Category:United States Senators or Category:United States Navy personnel, because they are implied by Category:United States Senators from Arizona and Category:United States Navy officers. And in fact the higher-up Category:Memoirists does have Category:Autobiographers as a parent. But looking through Category:Autobiographers, none of the national categories maintain the same relationship. Ugh. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Mccain sure does seem highly respectable in the biographical sense..almost wouldn't know how controversial the man now is. Rodrigue ( talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
A request has been made for Peer Review of this article. [14] Ferrylodge ( talk) 07:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)