![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I would like to suggest deleting the "military service" stuff from the infobox. There's already a whole section of the article devoted to awards, so the list of awards in the infobox is kind of redundant. Also, the infobox is currently huge. And McCain is primarily notable as a politician rather than as a Navy Captain. We could break off the military stuff from the infobox, and make another template to insert later in the article, but really all of the material in the infobox is well-covered in the text, and doesn't require repetition, IMHO. Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The political positions section isn't very useful. Instead up providing McCain's actual position on issues, it focuses on conservative and liberal ratings generated by sites of questionable validity. McCain's liberal or conservative ranking, I find, is quite useless... the few sentences about his actual stances at the end of the article should be expanded. The whole ranking thing is pointless.
And as for intimate details of McCain's torture and witholding of information from his captors: Doesn't it seem a little... overdone? The details concerning the rest of his life are scarce, but the article provides a romanticized and glorified account of his torture ordeal. This seems biased, especially concerning Ross Perot's recent remarks to the contrary. True he may be heroic, but this section should definately be condensed; if not it could be reworded. Maybe another article concerning only his torture ordeal may be applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.175.106 ( talk) 17:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The Votemaster (the proprietor of the http://www.electoral-vote.com website) has produced ratings for liberalism and conservatism by averaging the ratings of seven groups in each category. The ADA and the ACU are included but other voices from the same end of the political spectrum are also heard. Here are the averages based on votes in 2007 for liberal groups and conservative groups.
The liberal groups' average puts McCain near the bottom of the pack, at 9%, making him less liberal than 95 other Senators. On the conservatives' ratings, he's nearer to the middle of the pack, though still conservative; his average with the conservatives is 73%, making him less conservative than 36 of his colleagues. JamesMLane t c 03:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This issue crops up now and then, and has again today. See this diff. The editor SWozniak would like for the article to mention that "the issue of McCain's eligibility may arise yet again." SWozniak cites a State Department document (7 FAM 1100) from 1995 that does not mention McCain.
There are several reasons why I'll revert here. The cited document does not mention McCain and is thus very tangential to this article. This kind of document can more appropriately be discussed at the wikilinked article on natural-born citizen rather than here. Additionally, it's not clear how that document would apply to McCain; the document discusses something called "automatic naturalization", and it's not clear whether someone who is automatically naturalized qualifies as a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)This was just deleted:
Bipartisan research indicates that he is nevertheless a natural-born citizen of the United States, a constitutional requirement to become president.[1]
[1]Sidoti, Liz. "Bipartisan team says McCain natural born", Associated Press ( 2008-03-27). Retrieved 2008-04-18): "Senator McCain's birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution."
The edit summary says, "Deleted statement not supported by cited reference." No further explanation was given, and the cited reference was completely deleted from this Wikipedia article. I'm going to restore it, for two reasons: first, no one has explained why the cited reference doesn't support the statement; and, second, even if the cited reference is not characterized properly (and I think it is), there should be a way to characterize it properly without comlpetely removing it from the article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The page needs to include McCain's vote in February 2008 against the ban on waterboarding, which passed both chambers and was vetoed by Bush. 128.195.105.18 ( talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It is premature to use this template as there is not yet a candidate (on either side). Technically, John McCain is not yet the Republican candidate, he is the "presumptive nominee" which means he is still a candidate for the Republican nomination, not the Republican candidate for President. Yes, he's obviously going to be the nominee, but we don't use this template on primary candidates so it would be incorrect to use it now. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Going to change it to this photo located on wikipedia. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/47/20070125033411!John_McCain_official_photo_portrait.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman419 ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a suggestion at the Peer Review to get rid of the section on Awards, honors, and decorations. I kind of agree. The first item, on military awards, can easily be added onto the sentence about his retirement from the Navy. The second item, about Profiles in Courage, is already in the text. The remaining miscellaneous awards from 2004-2007 can easily be transferred to the sub-article on Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present. Sound okay?
Also, how about if we fold "Writings of McCain" into "References and further reading" which is arranged alphabetically by author (so it will be very easy to identify the writings by McCain)? Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If you compare the section on Obama's books to that of McCain's, you find Obama's is much more in depth...probably too much so. But the awards is a no-brainer. Mrathel ( talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The McCain partisans that have been scrubbing McCain's article need to recognize that all of the information below is factual, verified material, much of it is now an essential part of any legitimate encyclopedic article on McCain now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee for President.
Amongst the factual material scrubbed from John McCain's page are McCain's controversial favors for real estate investors Don Diamond, Steven Betts, and Fred Ruskin, as well as McCain's favors for media corporations like Paxson and Cablevision.
The article also scrubs John McCain's extensive lobbyist connections, the fact that his campaign is run by lobbyists like Rick Davis and Charlie Black, the fact that some of the lobbyists that were working with McCain were also working for the repressive authoritarian regime of Mynamar, that Davis has worked for a reputed Russian mobster, that Charlie Black has formerly worked, according to Hapers.org journalist Ken Silverstein, for disreputable figures like "Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, one of the most kleptocratic rulers of all time, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, also known for stealing a few billion dollars, and the murderous Angolan rebels known as UNITA." The lobbyist Rick Davis also ran McCain's "Reform Institute."
Also scrubbed has been McCain's lobbyist run campaign associations with EADS, the Airbus/Boeing controversy where McCain's lobbyist aids helped take the military aircraft manufacturing jobs away from Boeing and put it in the hands of the EU's EADS corporation. McCain's complaints about Boeing lead to the reevaluation of the Boeing contract that ultimately was granted in favor of EADS.
Omitted as well are McCain's controversial association with extreme right-wing religious figures like John Hagee and Rod Parsley, including those he had previously denounced as :agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell.
Of note as well is McCain's rejection of the GI Bill, McCain's failure to know the difference between Shia and Sunni five years into a war in Iraq where the two competing religious groups are central to a military understanding of the conflict. McCain's assertions in 2002 that, "We're not going to get into house to house fighting in Iraq," McCain's assertion in March 2003 that "we will be welcomed as liberators" in Iraq, McCain's assertion in April 2003 that, "We're not going to get into house to house fighting in Iraq," McCain's assertion in May 2003 that Iraq was a "Mission accomplished," comments all particularly pertinent now that McCain sees Iraq lasting until at least January 2013.
Also not mentioned is McCain's failure to release his medical records, something he has repeatedly promised then failed to do.
Also not mentioned is McCain's endorsement of torture.
Also not mentioned is McCain's campaign finance problems, first taking public money, then rejecting the public money he promised to take, then claiming he wasn't required to follow the law regarding the public campaign finances he'd legally obligated himself to in a contractual agreement with a bank loan for more campaign money.
McCain hid Abramoff e-mails that protected Republican colleagues.
McCain's designation of religion is dubious, his claim of being a "Baptist" while never having actually been Baptized is a serious matter amongst those that take baptism serious.
The John McCain page also omits McCain's womanizing, adultery, and subsequent desertion of his first wife for the much younger multi-millionaire "rodeo queen," Cindy McCain. The page also omits that Cindy McCain was stealing narcotics from her charity.
Noteworthy too is that the tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy that McCain claimed offended him, he now supports, a tax cut that his wife will inordinately profit from even while she hides her tax returns.
The controversy over millionaire heiress Cindy McCain's tax returns have grown more heated after it was revealed that she had at least $2 Million invested in genocide ridden Sudan through various companies including the Chinese government's quasi-corporation Petrochina. Also scrubbed is the fact that Cindy McCain was invested with Charles Keating of the Keating Five scandal. Also not mentioned is McCain's use of Cindy McCain's private jet for campaign purposes, often for free.
Sources: John McCain News -HavenWorks.com News Reference John McCain Blog -HavenWorks.com Weblog Reference Aide Helped Controversial Russian Meet McCain -Washington Post -By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and John Solomon Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain -NYTimes.com -By David D. Kirkpatrick and Jim Rutenberg McCain: A Question of Temperament -Washington Post -By Michael Leahy McCain Allies Want Reform (and Money) -NYTimes -By Carl Hulse and Anne E. Kornblut McCain Withheld Controversial Abramoff Email -Huffington Post -By Sam Stein McCain’s “Courtly Southerner” -Harpers.org -By Ken Silverstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.139.167 ( talk) 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully Wasted Time, most, if not all of the details above are factual and relevant within the main encyclopedia entry. Because you (Wasted Time) are a professional Wiki-reader/writer you've lost perspective on what the majority of wiki-readers perceive when they look at an article like the McCain article.
Average readers aren't going to see the fine print directing to broken out articles and so will get a trimmed view of what the article(s) offer. Even after being told to look for those sub articles I had to scan the main article page very carefully before realizing that there's a small box low on the right and waaaay down on the bottom that linked to the articles you mention.
Perhaps all of the McCain controversies should be referenced on one page?
A John_McCain_controversies page? <- from which significant controversies would then have their own sub page as the Vicki Iseman lobbyist controversy has. Perhaps a another specific page for John_McCain_lobbyists for the long list of lobbyists on the McCain campaign?
A McCain "controversies" section would need to also include such things as McCain's physical "scuffles" he's had late in life with colleagues; including physical "scuffles" with elderly Strom Thurmond, Rick Renzi, and Chuck Grassley (all Republicans, none of whom have reputed the reports, with independent witnesses having confirmed each of the "scuffles" to credible news outlets).
McCain's work as a Senator has again been tied to another financial boon by a private corporation, SunCor and Pinnacle West, in a public property real estate deal where American tax dollars benefited a corporation who had contributed significantly, $224,000, to McCain's electoral campaigns.
McCain's campaign energy policy advisor has been let go because he, Eric Burgeson, was an energy lobbyist with clients including Southern Company, a nuclear and electric utilities corporation.
Again the controversies above are all well sourced and don't include more poorly sourced stories. However, claims such as McCain's vulgar use of language towards his wife, calling her the C word and calling her the antiquated insult, "trollop," referenced in the Cliff Schecter book are significant considering he's applying for the leader of the Super Power. Diplomatic skills can avert stupid wars and McCain's media base have largely omitted or excused a lifetime of intemperance.
Both the language and physical "scuffles" are significant and important considering McCain is running to be in charge of the Big Red Button and he himself has held himself forward as an open book with nothing to hide. Concealing such facts do him as well as the public a disservice. Particularly the latter as both the language and the physical "scuffles" reflect on his temperament, something he himself has publicly acknowledged having a problem with, and something acutely pertinent to both the American voters considering him for office as well as everyone else on the planet reading Wikipedia.
A separate "controversies" section would also give more respectability to those "trimming" the article of verifiable facts such as McCain's stern dismissal of talking with Hamas in the middle of May of 2008 just before a video from 2006 turns up showing he was firmly for talking with Hamas. The fact that McCain was for talking with enemies before he was against it also reflects on McCain's character, a basic biographical feature.
Such a dramatic shift in two short years shows that what people thought they knew of McCain even a few years ago may have no resemblance to who he is today.
Much of the current McCain article reads a bit like a puff piece put out by McCain's public relations lobbyists. Indeed, the main McCain page references "Maverick" NINE separate times. Considering McCain's reputed a vast majority of the things that earned him that moniker, those repudiations are more factually and temporally accurate and deserve mention in the main article.
Temporally factual in the sense that while McCain was once against torture, he now supports it; where McCain was once against tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy like his wife, he's now for them; where McCain was once for talking to Hamas, he's now against it; where McCain was once for transparency, he's now against it (Cindy McCain's reputed $100,000,000.00 in wealth is now a secret); where McCain was once against lobbyists in Washington, he's now got lobbyists working throughout his campaign; where once McCain was against "pork", he's now for it (with the real kicker that the monetary benefits are going to people who in turn are contributing to McCain's electoral campaigns).
Ultimately, the public relations puff piece that is McCain's wiki page is a disservice to Wikipedia, it's contributors, and it's readership.
Sources:
Price of power: McCain action helped Arizona land developer -USATODAY.com -By Matt Kelley McCain axes energy advisor -MiamiHerald.com -Beth Reinhard John McCain News HavenWorks.com News Reference McCain on Hamas in 2006: Going to Have to Deal With Them -Youtube.com video of McCain interview McCain: A Question of Temperament -WashingtonPost.com -By Michael Leahy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.139.167 ( talk) 10:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The McCain biographical series includes two somewhat replicated navigation templates, one that is specifically for the series the Life of McCain towards the upper right and another one that is more inclusive in its constituent links as a banner along the bottom. So, looking for guidance from WP:SUMMARY, we see it lists as an example World War II, where there is at the upper right a navigational template linking to its constituent subarticles, but there also happens to be a template along this article's bottom (which happens to contain links to WP articles about the many World War II military campaigns). However, as an example of a navigation box to subarticles, WP:SUMMARY points us to the one for the Isaac Newton bio series, whose only template is a sidebar towards the upper right.
Yet, numerous main articles thoughout WP actually have side nav boxes inclusive of links to articles that are not specifically "subs" of the mainarticle; so, if we're to be guided by both WP informal practice and its formal guidelines...
(undent) There seems to be some miscommunication here. The banner at the bottom has a pic of Obama in it, right?
[5] I don't see such a banner at the bottom of
Barack Obama. Oh never mind, I see. The banner is at the bottom of both
John McCain as well as
Barack Obama but is hidden. That way is fine with me.
Ferrylodge (
talk)
16:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says he was stationed “in the Caribbean Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea.[20] He survived two airplane crashes and a collision with power lines.[20]” The cite is to “Timberg, American Odyssey, 66–68.” But I don’t see anything on those pages about that subject.
The article says, “McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[30]” The cite is to “Timberg, American Odyssey, 72–74.” But I don’t see anything on those pages about that subject.
The article says, “As Forrestal headed for repairs, McCain volunteered for the USS Oriskany.[33]” The cite is to “Timberg, An American Odyssey, 75.” But I don’t see anything on those pages about that subject.
Anyone know what’s going on here? As far as I know, page numbering does not normally change from one edition to another. The edition I have was printed in September 2007. Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the voteview.com material is particularly helpful, and doesn't add much to the ACU/ADA/Almanac of American Politics ratings, especially since voteview has merely taken two snapshots that don't establish any trend. Additionally, I don't think that voteview.com has the kind of reliable reputation that ACU/ADA/Almanac of American Politics have. So, I'll remove the voteview.com stuff, and see if anyone objects.
In place of it, I'd like to elaborate McCain's positions on the economy and Iraq, while also pointing out that these have long been the two issues of primary concern to voters. For example, see these poll results about which issues people are most concerned about. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I've removed the last paragraph. [6] It's a laundry list of miscellaneous issue positions, without any rationale for not listing other issue positions. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)It seems ( from the peer review) that there are still concerns about whether OnTheIssues is a reliable source, and whether we're leaning too heavily on them. So, in place of the last paragraph of the "political positions" section, how about something like this:
McCain is a former board member of Project Vote Smart (PVS) which was set up by Richard Kimball, his 1986 Senate opponent.[1] PVS provides neutral and non-partisan information to voters online about the political positions of McCain,[2] and of other candidates for political office. Additionally, McCain uses his Senate web site,[3] and his 2008 campaign web site,[4] to describe his political positions.
[1] Kimball, Richard. "Program History", Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-05-20. Also see Nintzel, Jim. "Test Study: Why are politicians like John McCain suddenly so afraid of Project Vote Smart?", Tucson Weekly ( 2008-04-17). Retrieved 2008-05-21.
[2] "Senator John Sidney McCain III (AZ)", Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-05-20. Non-partisan information about McCain's issue positions is also provided online by On the Issues. See "John McCain on the Issues", OnTheIssues. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
[3] "Issues", McCain's official Senate web site. Retrieved 2008-05-21.
[4] "Issues", johnmccain.com. Retrieved 2008-05-20.
Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
On another part of this section, I've backed out a change that reduced to one year the Almanac scores. On these kinds of ratings, more data points are always better! Any given year can be an outlier. Ideally, we should present an average over a number of editions, or chart their progression over time. Sounds like a project.... Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we're just about through making edits to the McCain article in response to the previous FAC, in response to the good article review, and in response to the peer review. So, I expect a period of tranquility to begin about now at the McCain article (though I wouldn't bet money on it). Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There should also be mention about John McCain turning into a neoconservative. Amongst his advisers are William Kristol and Robert Kagan, the co-founders of the "Project for New American Century". Obviously enough, McCain has also allied himself with Bush who brought into his administration a vast supply of neo-cons and PNAC members. McCain also expresses many imperialistic intentions, as well as dramatically switching his view since being associated with these neo-cons (some call it flip flopping). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.200.141 ( talk) 10:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, while a discussion of his policy changes and relationship with Bush seems like an important topic, any discussion of them in light of his entire political carreer would weigh too heavily toward recentism. The article duly notes McCain's position as a mavrick and how he has both embrased and broken from his party's positions, so I don't find a play-by-play commentary of his relations with Bush to be necessary or NPOV. Mrathel ( talk) 20:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This article has a section on "Cultural and political image." So, this section of the article seems like an appropriate place to cite Julia Keller who is the cultural critic for the Chicago Tribune. However, the following italicized words were recently deleted (without any edit summary or talk page discussion):
"Regarding his temper, or what might be viewed as passionate conviction,[1] McCain acknowledges it while also saying that the stories have been exaggerated."
[1]Keller, Julia. "Me? A bad temper? Why, I oughta ...", Chicago Tribune ( 2008-05-01): "we ... want people in public life to be passionate and engaged. We want them to be fiery and feisty. We like them to care enough to blow their stacks every once in a while. Otherwise, we question the sincerity of their convictions." Retrieved 2008-05-10.
I don't see why this wouldn't be appropriate material for this Wikipedia article. We quote people who say McCain's temper is a bad thing, so why not mention that some people think it might be a good thing? Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor recently inserted the following, which has since been reverted:
A. J. Cristol, a Jewish bankruptcy judge from Florida, wrote a book called THE LIBERTY INCIDENT, in which he says Israel is exonerated for the attack on the USS LIBERTY because it was a case of mistaken identity. According to the survivors "the book is full of lies, falsehoods and continues the cover-up for Israel’s blatant murder of American sons on the high seas". John Mcain endorses this book ""After years of research for this book, Judge A. Jay Cristol has reached a similar conclusion to one my father reached in his June 18, 1967, endorsement of the findings of the court of inquiry. I commend Judge Cristol for his thoroughness and fairness, and I commend this work." - SEN. JOHN MCAIN [1][2]
[1] http://www.thelibertyincident.com/book.html
[2] http://ussliberty.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/three-peas-in-a-pod/
I agree with the revert. I'm not quite sure that I see why Cristol's religion is more relevant than that he's a retired U.S. Navy captain and fighter pilot, as well as a law school professor.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28813] He spent 18 years as a naval aviator and 20 years in the Navy's Judge-Advocate General Corps, but that he's Jewish is most relevant? His 2002 book was followed in 2003 by the NSA's release of transcripts of the Israeli communications at the time, which confirm the attack on Liberty was a tragic mistake. [8] In any event, why bring it up here in this Wikipedia article about McCain? The incident occurred June 8, 1967. At that time McCain was stationed on the USS Oriskany off the coast of Vietnam. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was interested in McCain's education and was appalled by the information present in that section. specifically, this paragraph.
"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. There, he was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, and stood up for people who were being bullied. He also became a lightweight boxer.[5][11] McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894/899) that he did not aim to improve.[12][13][14][15] McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him,[5] and he graduated in 1958.[13]"
wow - he stood up for people being bullied? how is that relevant? also, if he was a leader please link me to a club/activity in which he held a leadership position. you can't just say someone was a leader because he is now running for president. also, saying that he did well in the academic subjects that interested him is clearly trying to mask his position in the bottom 1% of his class - in fact, it maybe even puts a positive spin on it. further, i checked the source cited and the information was from a former roommate who said it very casually, shortly after discussing mccain's party spirit - it's hardly reputable. this page will obviously be heavily viewed as the election draws near and needs to be as accurate, informative, and nonbiased as possible! what do you guys think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFitch ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think McCain's description of his Vietnamese captors as "gooks" should be in the article. McCain said of his North Vietnamese captors, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." McCain Criticized for Slur He is documented as having used this description multiple times. And he refused to apologize for using the term "gooks" repeatedly in February 2000, stating that he did not believe it to be a racial slur. This is not a misquote and was verified by McCain, who said "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends." This should be included, as well as his defense of his statement. Ramblinmindblues ( talk) 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not about controversy. This is a quote from McCain describing a biographical part of his life. This is his impression of the perpetrators. It’s how McCain referred to his captors for over 30 years and should be left in the article. Removing it shows blatant bias because you think the term “gook” makes him look bad. Ramblinmindblues ( talk) 18:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
By filtering out all controversial biographical info into sub articles, you’ve (perhaps) inadvertently made McCain’s page into romanticized campaign storybook Ramblinmindblues ( talk) 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned in this article that John McCain is member of the Trilateral Commission? - Jack's Revenge ( talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Over at the Barack Obama article, there was some discussion of whether his book authorship merited lead position. I argued (and consensus seems agreed on this), that very brief mention of those best-sellers should be in the lead, particularly since the books have their own article section.
In McCain's case, he is co-author on several books (none seem as prominent in sales-ranking and the like), and there is not a separate section that discusses them (just a bibliography). However, I still wonder whether there's any sentiment that authorship should still get a clause in the lead. LotLE× talk 19:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this works best immediately before the section on his 2000 presidential campaign. The book was published before he announced for president. So, that's why I inserted a mention of the book into the sub-article on House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the book is now discussed in the text, I figure it's okay to include the book cover image. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In the article, under the heading Fourth Senate Term the third paragraph discusses the McCain Detainee Amendment in 2005 and McCain being against torture. I think this section should have information about the fact that Senator McCain recently voted against the ban on torture. See the following articles: McCain: Against Torture But Maverick Fails the Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban, Shame, Senator McCain and John McCain Sells His Soul to the Right: Backs Off on Torture Ban If you leave the article as is it makes it appear that Senator McCain is still against torture and his vote shows that he obviously isn't. -- donncook ( talk) 21:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The current text reads:
This makes it seem as if it was a little bit of time between his original decision to oppose it and his subsequent reversal. When, as I understand it, he did not reverse his position until many years later. I feel that the text should be revised to reflect his original position and his stated reasons for that position at the time as well as mentioning his subsequent change in position and why he changed. Also might be worth mentioning him speaking at the site of the MLK assassination on the anniversary of the assassination. Remember ( talk) 14:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Yes, I did revert the edit subsequent to my most recent comment. I will look into this some more today, and suggest how your edit might be improved. Let's work this out on the talk page first.
It seems very slanted to say that McCain's support for an MLK holiday in Arizona was a "slight" change on his part. Also, I think we should try to find out when McCain decided to support a federal MLK holiday. Additionally, I'm concerned about undue weight here. Only a few specific Americans are honored with a federal holiday, so McCain's past opposition to a federal MLK Day does not seem like it needs so many sentences here in this article. Personally, I think Albert Einstein should get a federal holiday, but it's not hugely notable that lots of prominent politicians disagree that there should be an Einstein holiday, and it certainly doesn't mean they're anti-semitic or the like. Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Okay, I'd suggest this: "In 1983, McCain was elected to lead the incoming group of Republican representatives. Also that year, he opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but in 2008 said: 'I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support for a state holiday in Arizona.'"
That packs a lot of info into a few words. Of course, footnotes would also be included. Sound okay? Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ferrylodge's slight modification looks like an improvement to me. I think it reads slightly better, however, with the date as an editorial mark inside the direct quote: Also that year, he opposed creation of a Federal Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but admitted in 2008: "I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support [in 1990] for a state holiday in Arizona." I do think the contrast between state- and federal-holiday is worth making clear, but that should only take two words (one of them 'a'). LotLE× talk 00:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't McCain consider Amtrak to be pork-barrel spending back when he was on that transportation committee? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
McCain lost the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and gained enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee on March 4, 2008.
The last sentence doesn't sound very encyclopedia. Sounds more like a diary. Ruwq2 ( talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
March 4, 2008 is not necessary unless we also include many other details so that it is a McCain book and not a Wikipedia article.
McCain lost the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
After the convention, then... McCain lost the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for and became the Republican Party candidate for President in 2008. Ruwq2 ( talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed the became-presumptive date to just March 2008, looks less overly specific. As LotLE points out, this isn't worth worrying about too much, as the lead will evolve in obvious ways over the course of the year. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is just POV. The section has no place here.
Who's political image should Wikipedia cover? How about what Hugo Chavez thinks about McCain? "showing a more confrontational stance with Venezuela than the current U.S. administration, and relations may worsen should McCain win" according to Chavez. So Chavez thinks McCain has a confrontational image compared to Obama and Hillary. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=asr76ngcNhFM&refer=latin_america
Then why not add the image that the Canadians, Japanese, Vietnamese, Egyptians, French, and Dutch have about McCain? Better yet, just trim it. Why does the other encyclopedias not have this? Because they are really encyclopedias. Ruwq2 ( talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The section is clearly biased in favor of McCain, I don't think it has any place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GruePaisley ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, User:Quartermaster put a 2005 photo of GWB giving McCain a birthday cake in this section, with the edit comment "replaced duplicate picture (already in info box) with more appropriate one for this section)". The semi-duplicate picture business I won't get into, but I don't see how the new one was appropriate for this section. The other sections above it deal with the GWB-McCain relationship, not this one, and indeed I've added this photo to the Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present article. Not to mention that Quartermaster's caption identified the person as Bush 41, not Bush 43! Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
2000 Presidential campaign It says
The battle between Bush and McCain for South Carolina has entered American political lore as one of the dirtiest and most brutal ever.[106][115][116] A variety of interest groups that McCain had challenged in the past now pounded him with negative ads.[106] Bush tried to co-opt McCain's message of reform.[117
This is just opinionated commentary. If this is allowed, who is the judge of what commentary is allowed? Dirtiest and most brutal? That's one person's opinion. It has a reference but that only says that it has been published.
There are dozens of issues like this. Should we consider them or ignore them and allow POV? Your choice, I will give suggestions if you want NPOV. Will also subject Obama's article to the same NPOV scrutiny if done here (and count so that for each improvement in this article, one improvement is done for the Obama article). Ruwq2 ( talk) 20:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
We can add further cites about South Carolina 2000 being dirty and brutal. How many do you need before you believe it? And the effect of that is key to understanding what happened afterward, why in the early 2000s McCain was the most maverick he ever was, why he may have considered leaving the Republican party, etc. It's an important point. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Somehow the general statement about South Carolina 2000 got replaced by a quote from McCain saying it was "the ugly underside of politics." Well, candidates almost always complain about races getting ugly; that's not too notable. If we have to use in-text attributed quotes here, much better to use ones from serious, mainstream newspapers. Thus, I've replaced the McCain quote with: "The Arizona Republic would write that the McCain-Bush primary contest in South Carolina "has entered national political lore as a low-water mark in presidential campaigns", while The New York Times called it "a painful symbol of the brutality of American politics". Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
i was wondering, since republicans are denying that hagee and parsley are/were mccains pastor(s) who is, i know that origional research is not allowed but their must have been some interview in which he reffered to somebody as his pastor, ive tried googling but all of the recent pages are devoted to hagee and parsley
sincerely [Gavrielyosef (Talk | contribs)] 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
i dont believe for a second that they were (whether or not they should still be included is a second unrelated issue) what im wondering is who his actual pastor was, their must be some point in 1 interview over the course of his life where he named someone as his pastor, sorry for any misunderstanding g.j.g ( talk) 00:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
az-arizona
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I would like to suggest deleting the "military service" stuff from the infobox. There's already a whole section of the article devoted to awards, so the list of awards in the infobox is kind of redundant. Also, the infobox is currently huge. And McCain is primarily notable as a politician rather than as a Navy Captain. We could break off the military stuff from the infobox, and make another template to insert later in the article, but really all of the material in the infobox is well-covered in the text, and doesn't require repetition, IMHO. Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The political positions section isn't very useful. Instead up providing McCain's actual position on issues, it focuses on conservative and liberal ratings generated by sites of questionable validity. McCain's liberal or conservative ranking, I find, is quite useless... the few sentences about his actual stances at the end of the article should be expanded. The whole ranking thing is pointless.
And as for intimate details of McCain's torture and witholding of information from his captors: Doesn't it seem a little... overdone? The details concerning the rest of his life are scarce, but the article provides a romanticized and glorified account of his torture ordeal. This seems biased, especially concerning Ross Perot's recent remarks to the contrary. True he may be heroic, but this section should definately be condensed; if not it could be reworded. Maybe another article concerning only his torture ordeal may be applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.175.106 ( talk) 17:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The Votemaster (the proprietor of the http://www.electoral-vote.com website) has produced ratings for liberalism and conservatism by averaging the ratings of seven groups in each category. The ADA and the ACU are included but other voices from the same end of the political spectrum are also heard. Here are the averages based on votes in 2007 for liberal groups and conservative groups.
The liberal groups' average puts McCain near the bottom of the pack, at 9%, making him less liberal than 95 other Senators. On the conservatives' ratings, he's nearer to the middle of the pack, though still conservative; his average with the conservatives is 73%, making him less conservative than 36 of his colleagues. JamesMLane t c 03:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This issue crops up now and then, and has again today. See this diff. The editor SWozniak would like for the article to mention that "the issue of McCain's eligibility may arise yet again." SWozniak cites a State Department document (7 FAM 1100) from 1995 that does not mention McCain.
There are several reasons why I'll revert here. The cited document does not mention McCain and is thus very tangential to this article. This kind of document can more appropriately be discussed at the wikilinked article on natural-born citizen rather than here. Additionally, it's not clear how that document would apply to McCain; the document discusses something called "automatic naturalization", and it's not clear whether someone who is automatically naturalized qualifies as a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)This was just deleted:
Bipartisan research indicates that he is nevertheless a natural-born citizen of the United States, a constitutional requirement to become president.[1]
[1]Sidoti, Liz. "Bipartisan team says McCain natural born", Associated Press ( 2008-03-27). Retrieved 2008-04-18): "Senator McCain's birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution."
The edit summary says, "Deleted statement not supported by cited reference." No further explanation was given, and the cited reference was completely deleted from this Wikipedia article. I'm going to restore it, for two reasons: first, no one has explained why the cited reference doesn't support the statement; and, second, even if the cited reference is not characterized properly (and I think it is), there should be a way to characterize it properly without comlpetely removing it from the article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The page needs to include McCain's vote in February 2008 against the ban on waterboarding, which passed both chambers and was vetoed by Bush. 128.195.105.18 ( talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It is premature to use this template as there is not yet a candidate (on either side). Technically, John McCain is not yet the Republican candidate, he is the "presumptive nominee" which means he is still a candidate for the Republican nomination, not the Republican candidate for President. Yes, he's obviously going to be the nominee, but we don't use this template on primary candidates so it would be incorrect to use it now. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Going to change it to this photo located on wikipedia. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/47/20070125033411!John_McCain_official_photo_portrait.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman419 ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a suggestion at the Peer Review to get rid of the section on Awards, honors, and decorations. I kind of agree. The first item, on military awards, can easily be added onto the sentence about his retirement from the Navy. The second item, about Profiles in Courage, is already in the text. The remaining miscellaneous awards from 2004-2007 can easily be transferred to the sub-article on Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present. Sound okay?
Also, how about if we fold "Writings of McCain" into "References and further reading" which is arranged alphabetically by author (so it will be very easy to identify the writings by McCain)? Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If you compare the section on Obama's books to that of McCain's, you find Obama's is much more in depth...probably too much so. But the awards is a no-brainer. Mrathel ( talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The McCain partisans that have been scrubbing McCain's article need to recognize that all of the information below is factual, verified material, much of it is now an essential part of any legitimate encyclopedic article on McCain now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee for President.
Amongst the factual material scrubbed from John McCain's page are McCain's controversial favors for real estate investors Don Diamond, Steven Betts, and Fred Ruskin, as well as McCain's favors for media corporations like Paxson and Cablevision.
The article also scrubs John McCain's extensive lobbyist connections, the fact that his campaign is run by lobbyists like Rick Davis and Charlie Black, the fact that some of the lobbyists that were working with McCain were also working for the repressive authoritarian regime of Mynamar, that Davis has worked for a reputed Russian mobster, that Charlie Black has formerly worked, according to Hapers.org journalist Ken Silverstein, for disreputable figures like "Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, one of the most kleptocratic rulers of all time, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, also known for stealing a few billion dollars, and the murderous Angolan rebels known as UNITA." The lobbyist Rick Davis also ran McCain's "Reform Institute."
Also scrubbed has been McCain's lobbyist run campaign associations with EADS, the Airbus/Boeing controversy where McCain's lobbyist aids helped take the military aircraft manufacturing jobs away from Boeing and put it in the hands of the EU's EADS corporation. McCain's complaints about Boeing lead to the reevaluation of the Boeing contract that ultimately was granted in favor of EADS.
Omitted as well are McCain's controversial association with extreme right-wing religious figures like John Hagee and Rod Parsley, including those he had previously denounced as :agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell.
Of note as well is McCain's rejection of the GI Bill, McCain's failure to know the difference between Shia and Sunni five years into a war in Iraq where the two competing religious groups are central to a military understanding of the conflict. McCain's assertions in 2002 that, "We're not going to get into house to house fighting in Iraq," McCain's assertion in March 2003 that "we will be welcomed as liberators" in Iraq, McCain's assertion in April 2003 that, "We're not going to get into house to house fighting in Iraq," McCain's assertion in May 2003 that Iraq was a "Mission accomplished," comments all particularly pertinent now that McCain sees Iraq lasting until at least January 2013.
Also not mentioned is McCain's failure to release his medical records, something he has repeatedly promised then failed to do.
Also not mentioned is McCain's endorsement of torture.
Also not mentioned is McCain's campaign finance problems, first taking public money, then rejecting the public money he promised to take, then claiming he wasn't required to follow the law regarding the public campaign finances he'd legally obligated himself to in a contractual agreement with a bank loan for more campaign money.
McCain hid Abramoff e-mails that protected Republican colleagues.
McCain's designation of religion is dubious, his claim of being a "Baptist" while never having actually been Baptized is a serious matter amongst those that take baptism serious.
The John McCain page also omits McCain's womanizing, adultery, and subsequent desertion of his first wife for the much younger multi-millionaire "rodeo queen," Cindy McCain. The page also omits that Cindy McCain was stealing narcotics from her charity.
Noteworthy too is that the tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy that McCain claimed offended him, he now supports, a tax cut that his wife will inordinately profit from even while she hides her tax returns.
The controversy over millionaire heiress Cindy McCain's tax returns have grown more heated after it was revealed that she had at least $2 Million invested in genocide ridden Sudan through various companies including the Chinese government's quasi-corporation Petrochina. Also scrubbed is the fact that Cindy McCain was invested with Charles Keating of the Keating Five scandal. Also not mentioned is McCain's use of Cindy McCain's private jet for campaign purposes, often for free.
Sources: John McCain News -HavenWorks.com News Reference John McCain Blog -HavenWorks.com Weblog Reference Aide Helped Controversial Russian Meet McCain -Washington Post -By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and John Solomon Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain -NYTimes.com -By David D. Kirkpatrick and Jim Rutenberg McCain: A Question of Temperament -Washington Post -By Michael Leahy McCain Allies Want Reform (and Money) -NYTimes -By Carl Hulse and Anne E. Kornblut McCain Withheld Controversial Abramoff Email -Huffington Post -By Sam Stein McCain’s “Courtly Southerner” -Harpers.org -By Ken Silverstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.139.167 ( talk) 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully Wasted Time, most, if not all of the details above are factual and relevant within the main encyclopedia entry. Because you (Wasted Time) are a professional Wiki-reader/writer you've lost perspective on what the majority of wiki-readers perceive when they look at an article like the McCain article.
Average readers aren't going to see the fine print directing to broken out articles and so will get a trimmed view of what the article(s) offer. Even after being told to look for those sub articles I had to scan the main article page very carefully before realizing that there's a small box low on the right and waaaay down on the bottom that linked to the articles you mention.
Perhaps all of the McCain controversies should be referenced on one page?
A John_McCain_controversies page? <- from which significant controversies would then have their own sub page as the Vicki Iseman lobbyist controversy has. Perhaps a another specific page for John_McCain_lobbyists for the long list of lobbyists on the McCain campaign?
A McCain "controversies" section would need to also include such things as McCain's physical "scuffles" he's had late in life with colleagues; including physical "scuffles" with elderly Strom Thurmond, Rick Renzi, and Chuck Grassley (all Republicans, none of whom have reputed the reports, with independent witnesses having confirmed each of the "scuffles" to credible news outlets).
McCain's work as a Senator has again been tied to another financial boon by a private corporation, SunCor and Pinnacle West, in a public property real estate deal where American tax dollars benefited a corporation who had contributed significantly, $224,000, to McCain's electoral campaigns.
McCain's campaign energy policy advisor has been let go because he, Eric Burgeson, was an energy lobbyist with clients including Southern Company, a nuclear and electric utilities corporation.
Again the controversies above are all well sourced and don't include more poorly sourced stories. However, claims such as McCain's vulgar use of language towards his wife, calling her the C word and calling her the antiquated insult, "trollop," referenced in the Cliff Schecter book are significant considering he's applying for the leader of the Super Power. Diplomatic skills can avert stupid wars and McCain's media base have largely omitted or excused a lifetime of intemperance.
Both the language and physical "scuffles" are significant and important considering McCain is running to be in charge of the Big Red Button and he himself has held himself forward as an open book with nothing to hide. Concealing such facts do him as well as the public a disservice. Particularly the latter as both the language and the physical "scuffles" reflect on his temperament, something he himself has publicly acknowledged having a problem with, and something acutely pertinent to both the American voters considering him for office as well as everyone else on the planet reading Wikipedia.
A separate "controversies" section would also give more respectability to those "trimming" the article of verifiable facts such as McCain's stern dismissal of talking with Hamas in the middle of May of 2008 just before a video from 2006 turns up showing he was firmly for talking with Hamas. The fact that McCain was for talking with enemies before he was against it also reflects on McCain's character, a basic biographical feature.
Such a dramatic shift in two short years shows that what people thought they knew of McCain even a few years ago may have no resemblance to who he is today.
Much of the current McCain article reads a bit like a puff piece put out by McCain's public relations lobbyists. Indeed, the main McCain page references "Maverick" NINE separate times. Considering McCain's reputed a vast majority of the things that earned him that moniker, those repudiations are more factually and temporally accurate and deserve mention in the main article.
Temporally factual in the sense that while McCain was once against torture, he now supports it; where McCain was once against tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy like his wife, he's now for them; where McCain was once for talking to Hamas, he's now against it; where McCain was once for transparency, he's now against it (Cindy McCain's reputed $100,000,000.00 in wealth is now a secret); where McCain was once against lobbyists in Washington, he's now got lobbyists working throughout his campaign; where once McCain was against "pork", he's now for it (with the real kicker that the monetary benefits are going to people who in turn are contributing to McCain's electoral campaigns).
Ultimately, the public relations puff piece that is McCain's wiki page is a disservice to Wikipedia, it's contributors, and it's readership.
Sources:
Price of power: McCain action helped Arizona land developer -USATODAY.com -By Matt Kelley McCain axes energy advisor -MiamiHerald.com -Beth Reinhard John McCain News HavenWorks.com News Reference McCain on Hamas in 2006: Going to Have to Deal With Them -Youtube.com video of McCain interview McCain: A Question of Temperament -WashingtonPost.com -By Michael Leahy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.139.167 ( talk) 10:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The McCain biographical series includes two somewhat replicated navigation templates, one that is specifically for the series the Life of McCain towards the upper right and another one that is more inclusive in its constituent links as a banner along the bottom. So, looking for guidance from WP:SUMMARY, we see it lists as an example World War II, where there is at the upper right a navigational template linking to its constituent subarticles, but there also happens to be a template along this article's bottom (which happens to contain links to WP articles about the many World War II military campaigns). However, as an example of a navigation box to subarticles, WP:SUMMARY points us to the one for the Isaac Newton bio series, whose only template is a sidebar towards the upper right.
Yet, numerous main articles thoughout WP actually have side nav boxes inclusive of links to articles that are not specifically "subs" of the mainarticle; so, if we're to be guided by both WP informal practice and its formal guidelines...
(undent) There seems to be some miscommunication here. The banner at the bottom has a pic of Obama in it, right?
[5] I don't see such a banner at the bottom of
Barack Obama. Oh never mind, I see. The banner is at the bottom of both
John McCain as well as
Barack Obama but is hidden. That way is fine with me.
Ferrylodge (
talk)
16:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says he was stationed “in the Caribbean Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea.[20] He survived two airplane crashes and a collision with power lines.[20]” The cite is to “Timberg, American Odyssey, 66–68.” But I don’t see anything on those pages about that subject.
The article says, “McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[30]” The cite is to “Timberg, American Odyssey, 72–74.” But I don’t see anything on those pages about that subject.
The article says, “As Forrestal headed for repairs, McCain volunteered for the USS Oriskany.[33]” The cite is to “Timberg, An American Odyssey, 75.” But I don’t see anything on those pages about that subject.
Anyone know what’s going on here? As far as I know, page numbering does not normally change from one edition to another. The edition I have was printed in September 2007. Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the voteview.com material is particularly helpful, and doesn't add much to the ACU/ADA/Almanac of American Politics ratings, especially since voteview has merely taken two snapshots that don't establish any trend. Additionally, I don't think that voteview.com has the kind of reliable reputation that ACU/ADA/Almanac of American Politics have. So, I'll remove the voteview.com stuff, and see if anyone objects.
In place of it, I'd like to elaborate McCain's positions on the economy and Iraq, while also pointing out that these have long been the two issues of primary concern to voters. For example, see these poll results about which issues people are most concerned about. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I've removed the last paragraph. [6] It's a laundry list of miscellaneous issue positions, without any rationale for not listing other issue positions. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)It seems ( from the peer review) that there are still concerns about whether OnTheIssues is a reliable source, and whether we're leaning too heavily on them. So, in place of the last paragraph of the "political positions" section, how about something like this:
McCain is a former board member of Project Vote Smart (PVS) which was set up by Richard Kimball, his 1986 Senate opponent.[1] PVS provides neutral and non-partisan information to voters online about the political positions of McCain,[2] and of other candidates for political office. Additionally, McCain uses his Senate web site,[3] and his 2008 campaign web site,[4] to describe his political positions.
[1] Kimball, Richard. "Program History", Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-05-20. Also see Nintzel, Jim. "Test Study: Why are politicians like John McCain suddenly so afraid of Project Vote Smart?", Tucson Weekly ( 2008-04-17). Retrieved 2008-05-21.
[2] "Senator John Sidney McCain III (AZ)", Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2008-05-20. Non-partisan information about McCain's issue positions is also provided online by On the Issues. See "John McCain on the Issues", OnTheIssues. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
[3] "Issues", McCain's official Senate web site. Retrieved 2008-05-21.
[4] "Issues", johnmccain.com. Retrieved 2008-05-20.
Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
On another part of this section, I've backed out a change that reduced to one year the Almanac scores. On these kinds of ratings, more data points are always better! Any given year can be an outlier. Ideally, we should present an average over a number of editions, or chart their progression over time. Sounds like a project.... Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we're just about through making edits to the McCain article in response to the previous FAC, in response to the good article review, and in response to the peer review. So, I expect a period of tranquility to begin about now at the McCain article (though I wouldn't bet money on it). Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There should also be mention about John McCain turning into a neoconservative. Amongst his advisers are William Kristol and Robert Kagan, the co-founders of the "Project for New American Century". Obviously enough, McCain has also allied himself with Bush who brought into his administration a vast supply of neo-cons and PNAC members. McCain also expresses many imperialistic intentions, as well as dramatically switching his view since being associated with these neo-cons (some call it flip flopping). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.200.141 ( talk) 10:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, while a discussion of his policy changes and relationship with Bush seems like an important topic, any discussion of them in light of his entire political carreer would weigh too heavily toward recentism. The article duly notes McCain's position as a mavrick and how he has both embrased and broken from his party's positions, so I don't find a play-by-play commentary of his relations with Bush to be necessary or NPOV. Mrathel ( talk) 20:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This article has a section on "Cultural and political image." So, this section of the article seems like an appropriate place to cite Julia Keller who is the cultural critic for the Chicago Tribune. However, the following italicized words were recently deleted (without any edit summary or talk page discussion):
"Regarding his temper, or what might be viewed as passionate conviction,[1] McCain acknowledges it while also saying that the stories have been exaggerated."
[1]Keller, Julia. "Me? A bad temper? Why, I oughta ...", Chicago Tribune ( 2008-05-01): "we ... want people in public life to be passionate and engaged. We want them to be fiery and feisty. We like them to care enough to blow their stacks every once in a while. Otherwise, we question the sincerity of their convictions." Retrieved 2008-05-10.
I don't see why this wouldn't be appropriate material for this Wikipedia article. We quote people who say McCain's temper is a bad thing, so why not mention that some people think it might be a good thing? Ferrylodge ( talk) 06:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor recently inserted the following, which has since been reverted:
A. J. Cristol, a Jewish bankruptcy judge from Florida, wrote a book called THE LIBERTY INCIDENT, in which he says Israel is exonerated for the attack on the USS LIBERTY because it was a case of mistaken identity. According to the survivors "the book is full of lies, falsehoods and continues the cover-up for Israel’s blatant murder of American sons on the high seas". John Mcain endorses this book ""After years of research for this book, Judge A. Jay Cristol has reached a similar conclusion to one my father reached in his June 18, 1967, endorsement of the findings of the court of inquiry. I commend Judge Cristol for his thoroughness and fairness, and I commend this work." - SEN. JOHN MCAIN [1][2]
[1] http://www.thelibertyincident.com/book.html
[2] http://ussliberty.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/three-peas-in-a-pod/
I agree with the revert. I'm not quite sure that I see why Cristol's religion is more relevant than that he's a retired U.S. Navy captain and fighter pilot, as well as a law school professor.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28813] He spent 18 years as a naval aviator and 20 years in the Navy's Judge-Advocate General Corps, but that he's Jewish is most relevant? His 2002 book was followed in 2003 by the NSA's release of transcripts of the Israeli communications at the time, which confirm the attack on Liberty was a tragic mistake. [8] In any event, why bring it up here in this Wikipedia article about McCain? The incident occurred June 8, 1967. At that time McCain was stationed on the USS Oriskany off the coast of Vietnam. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was interested in McCain's education and was appalled by the information present in that section. specifically, this paragraph.
"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. There, he was a friend and leader for many of his classmates, and stood up for people who were being bullied. He also became a lightweight boxer.[5][11] McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894/899) that he did not aim to improve.[12][13][14][15] McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him,[5] and he graduated in 1958.[13]"
wow - he stood up for people being bullied? how is that relevant? also, if he was a leader please link me to a club/activity in which he held a leadership position. you can't just say someone was a leader because he is now running for president. also, saying that he did well in the academic subjects that interested him is clearly trying to mask his position in the bottom 1% of his class - in fact, it maybe even puts a positive spin on it. further, i checked the source cited and the information was from a former roommate who said it very casually, shortly after discussing mccain's party spirit - it's hardly reputable. this page will obviously be heavily viewed as the election draws near and needs to be as accurate, informative, and nonbiased as possible! what do you guys think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFitch ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think McCain's description of his Vietnamese captors as "gooks" should be in the article. McCain said of his North Vietnamese captors, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." McCain Criticized for Slur He is documented as having used this description multiple times. And he refused to apologize for using the term "gooks" repeatedly in February 2000, stating that he did not believe it to be a racial slur. This is not a misquote and was verified by McCain, who said "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends." This should be included, as well as his defense of his statement. Ramblinmindblues ( talk) 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not about controversy. This is a quote from McCain describing a biographical part of his life. This is his impression of the perpetrators. It’s how McCain referred to his captors for over 30 years and should be left in the article. Removing it shows blatant bias because you think the term “gook” makes him look bad. Ramblinmindblues ( talk) 18:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
By filtering out all controversial biographical info into sub articles, you’ve (perhaps) inadvertently made McCain’s page into romanticized campaign storybook Ramblinmindblues ( talk) 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned in this article that John McCain is member of the Trilateral Commission? - Jack's Revenge ( talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Over at the Barack Obama article, there was some discussion of whether his book authorship merited lead position. I argued (and consensus seems agreed on this), that very brief mention of those best-sellers should be in the lead, particularly since the books have their own article section.
In McCain's case, he is co-author on several books (none seem as prominent in sales-ranking and the like), and there is not a separate section that discusses them (just a bibliography). However, I still wonder whether there's any sentiment that authorship should still get a clause in the lead. LotLE× talk 19:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this works best immediately before the section on his 2000 presidential campaign. The book was published before he announced for president. So, that's why I inserted a mention of the book into the sub-article on House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the book is now discussed in the text, I figure it's okay to include the book cover image. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In the article, under the heading Fourth Senate Term the third paragraph discusses the McCain Detainee Amendment in 2005 and McCain being against torture. I think this section should have information about the fact that Senator McCain recently voted against the ban on torture. See the following articles: McCain: Against Torture But Maverick Fails the Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban, Shame, Senator McCain and John McCain Sells His Soul to the Right: Backs Off on Torture Ban If you leave the article as is it makes it appear that Senator McCain is still against torture and his vote shows that he obviously isn't. -- donncook ( talk) 21:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The current text reads:
This makes it seem as if it was a little bit of time between his original decision to oppose it and his subsequent reversal. When, as I understand it, he did not reverse his position until many years later. I feel that the text should be revised to reflect his original position and his stated reasons for that position at the time as well as mentioning his subsequent change in position and why he changed. Also might be worth mentioning him speaking at the site of the MLK assassination on the anniversary of the assassination. Remember ( talk) 14:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Yes, I did revert the edit subsequent to my most recent comment. I will look into this some more today, and suggest how your edit might be improved. Let's work this out on the talk page first.
It seems very slanted to say that McCain's support for an MLK holiday in Arizona was a "slight" change on his part. Also, I think we should try to find out when McCain decided to support a federal MLK holiday. Additionally, I'm concerned about undue weight here. Only a few specific Americans are honored with a federal holiday, so McCain's past opposition to a federal MLK Day does not seem like it needs so many sentences here in this article. Personally, I think Albert Einstein should get a federal holiday, but it's not hugely notable that lots of prominent politicians disagree that there should be an Einstein holiday, and it certainly doesn't mean they're anti-semitic or the like. Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Okay, I'd suggest this: "In 1983, McCain was elected to lead the incoming group of Republican representatives. Also that year, he opposed creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but in 2008 said: 'I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support for a state holiday in Arizona.'"
That packs a lot of info into a few words. Of course, footnotes would also be included. Sound okay? Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ferrylodge's slight modification looks like an improvement to me. I think it reads slightly better, however, with the date as an editorial mark inside the direct quote: Also that year, he opposed creation of a Federal Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but admitted in 2008: "I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support [in 1990] for a state holiday in Arizona." I do think the contrast between state- and federal-holiday is worth making clear, but that should only take two words (one of them 'a'). LotLE× talk 00:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't McCain consider Amtrak to be pork-barrel spending back when he was on that transportation committee? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
McCain lost the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and gained enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee on March 4, 2008.
The last sentence doesn't sound very encyclopedia. Sounds more like a diary. Ruwq2 ( talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
March 4, 2008 is not necessary unless we also include many other details so that it is a McCain book and not a Wikipedia article.
McCain lost the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
After the convention, then... McCain lost the Republican nomination in the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He ran again for and became the Republican Party candidate for President in 2008. Ruwq2 ( talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed the became-presumptive date to just March 2008, looks less overly specific. As LotLE points out, this isn't worth worrying about too much, as the lead will evolve in obvious ways over the course of the year. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is just POV. The section has no place here.
Who's political image should Wikipedia cover? How about what Hugo Chavez thinks about McCain? "showing a more confrontational stance with Venezuela than the current U.S. administration, and relations may worsen should McCain win" according to Chavez. So Chavez thinks McCain has a confrontational image compared to Obama and Hillary. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=asr76ngcNhFM&refer=latin_america
Then why not add the image that the Canadians, Japanese, Vietnamese, Egyptians, French, and Dutch have about McCain? Better yet, just trim it. Why does the other encyclopedias not have this? Because they are really encyclopedias. Ruwq2 ( talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The section is clearly biased in favor of McCain, I don't think it has any place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GruePaisley ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, User:Quartermaster put a 2005 photo of GWB giving McCain a birthday cake in this section, with the edit comment "replaced duplicate picture (already in info box) with more appropriate one for this section)". The semi-duplicate picture business I won't get into, but I don't see how the new one was appropriate for this section. The other sections above it deal with the GWB-McCain relationship, not this one, and indeed I've added this photo to the Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present article. Not to mention that Quartermaster's caption identified the person as Bush 41, not Bush 43! Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
2000 Presidential campaign It says
The battle between Bush and McCain for South Carolina has entered American political lore as one of the dirtiest and most brutal ever.[106][115][116] A variety of interest groups that McCain had challenged in the past now pounded him with negative ads.[106] Bush tried to co-opt McCain's message of reform.[117
This is just opinionated commentary. If this is allowed, who is the judge of what commentary is allowed? Dirtiest and most brutal? That's one person's opinion. It has a reference but that only says that it has been published.
There are dozens of issues like this. Should we consider them or ignore them and allow POV? Your choice, I will give suggestions if you want NPOV. Will also subject Obama's article to the same NPOV scrutiny if done here (and count so that for each improvement in this article, one improvement is done for the Obama article). Ruwq2 ( talk) 20:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
We can add further cites about South Carolina 2000 being dirty and brutal. How many do you need before you believe it? And the effect of that is key to understanding what happened afterward, why in the early 2000s McCain was the most maverick he ever was, why he may have considered leaving the Republican party, etc. It's an important point. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Somehow the general statement about South Carolina 2000 got replaced by a quote from McCain saying it was "the ugly underside of politics." Well, candidates almost always complain about races getting ugly; that's not too notable. If we have to use in-text attributed quotes here, much better to use ones from serious, mainstream newspapers. Thus, I've replaced the McCain quote with: "The Arizona Republic would write that the McCain-Bush primary contest in South Carolina "has entered national political lore as a low-water mark in presidential campaigns", while The New York Times called it "a painful symbol of the brutality of American politics". Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
i was wondering, since republicans are denying that hagee and parsley are/were mccains pastor(s) who is, i know that origional research is not allowed but their must have been some interview in which he reffered to somebody as his pastor, ive tried googling but all of the recent pages are devoted to hagee and parsley
sincerely [Gavrielyosef (Talk | contribs)] 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
i dont believe for a second that they were (whether or not they should still be included is a second unrelated issue) what im wondering is who his actual pastor was, their must be some point in 1 interview over the course of his life where he named someone as his pastor, sorry for any misunderstanding g.j.g ( talk) 00:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
az-arizona
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).