![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I've added a sentence about Iowa into the section about the 2008 campaign. Iowa was critical. McCain's decision to not expend much effort there was pivotal to his later victories. Romney made a major effort in Iowa, and Romney's loss to Huckabee weakened Romney enough so that McCain could win in New Hampshire. The rest is history. This article really should mention Iowa. I've also added a few pics today. Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I've also briefly mentioned Fred Thompson, whom pundits credit for McCain's South Carolina win (by drawing votes away from Huckabee). Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent)This article does not currently mention Iowa. I very much think it should. McCain's decision to not do much in Iowa was pivotal, allowing him to focus on New Hampshire, and allowing Huckabee to take down Romney a notch in Iowa without hurting McCain. Here are some further sources:
"About 48 percent of Republican voters in the New Hampshire primary decided who to vote for within the last week and McCain overwhelmingly bested Mitt Romney among this group, CNN polling shows -- an indication Romney's second-place showing in Iowa may have had a significant effect on New Hampshire voters." --- CNN
"McCain won by never really leaving when his Republican rivals invested time in Iowa." --- Manchester Union Leader
"Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's victory in the Republican Iowa caucus threw open the party's race in New Hampshire....McCain has concentrated his efforts in New Hampshire and stands to gain from Romney's second-place finish, said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster not aligned with any campaign. Huckabee's victory over Romney in Iowa 'goes a long way to helping ensure a McCain victory in New Hampshire,' Fabrizio said." --- Bloomberg
Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
One useful way of checking the neutrality of an article is looking at how similar articles are edited. Right now there's a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama (in fact, it's a long, ongoing debate taking up most of the page, but the active section right now is at the Attempt to build consensus on the details section. I looked through this McCain article and the ones on Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to see how negative information was treated in each, particularly how much information was presented about people associated with the candidate. The debate over on the Obama page is about whether to include any information on people associated with him ( Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, specifically) and if so, how much information to include about each. My own opinion is that, since there are articles about each of these people and their relationship to the election, we can have a very small amount on each, but we should have just enough so that the reader immediately knows why the person has become controversial in the election. For Bill Ayers, for instance, people should know that he's controversial because he's said to be unrepentant about violence with the Weather Underground. Other opinions are that this description unnecessarily lengthens the article or has nothing to do with Obama or that it's an opinion, not a fact, that he's unrepentant. It would be useful if people interested in this page would participate in the discussion there, because, as the quote I've put at the top of this section shows, editors there may be coming here to make changes.
Here's what I found in looking into negative information in three similar articles, particularly as it relates to people associated with the candidate who have become controversial. I'm re-posting it here for the information of editors who are unlikely to see it at Talk:Barack Obama. Any comments about this comparison as it relates to this article would be useful on this page, of course, and any comments on how the Obama article should treat information on associates would best be posted on that page. Please keep in mind that whatever happens in that discussion may well affect this page, with a good number of editors willing to form a consensus that might force changes here. A centralized discussion on the common points may be best on that page, where it's already started:
Presidential candidates are big boys (and a big girl), and they get tough treatment in the media because they are trying to get a very powerful, very important job. We don't overprotect them on Wikipedia just as the U.S. media and international media don't protect them. The exclusionist side of this discussion appears to want far higher standards for inclusion of information about Obama than we have for Hilary Clinton, John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani. This goes against both Wikipedia practice and policy & guidelines. Noroton ( talk) 14:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(redent because no one should have to count more than six colons) I'm not saying any particular thing about McCain is as prominent or should receive as much coverage as some particular thing about Obama should receive. That's not part of my argument (although it is worth looking at Google hits and other things in trying to decide how much to cover something). We're not just the equivalent of the old dead-tree Britannica but the equivalent of the Britannica Book of the Year. (I just checked the online version of the BBotY, the Obama article is only about five paragraphs long, no mention of any of this in that space, of course, and nothing in Iseman; they give you an "EBSCO" magazine and journal search function, and you get to Wright that way but not Iseman, and about 10 hits for "Hagee", all on the reverend, but none of this is really what we're talking about, oh well). I think the old printed Book of the Year would've mentioned it, but never mind. My point is that the items we're talking about are just encyclopedic enough for a mention and that a mention would mean a link and the mention and link would be in the best interests of our readers. We don't even have a "See also" section in this article where you could at least list the WP article on the affair. How are you serving the readers better by not having a link? Because it gives you that slight bit of extra space? (Not rhetorical questions.) Noroton ( talk) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There has long been a McCain (disambiguation) page. I disagree that there also should be a John McCain (disambiguation) page. The latter is included in the former, and this adds clutter to the top of this article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Why McCain's networth relevant? Obama and Clinton's networth aren't mentioned, so I don't see why McCain should be either. In addition, there is no reference or elaboration regarding his financial situation in the article, which is further reason to delete the networth mention.
If McCain's networth fact is going to remain, I hope editors will add Obama's networth (which is somewhere north of 1.5 million).
thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 ( talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
when an unsuspecting reader notices McCain's bloated networth, and tries to compare it with the rivaling candidates (who's networth are not mentioned in the fact box), it creates an unnecessary bias.
i think my comments are pretty reasonable and i hope editors understand.
thanks for the quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 ( talk) 02:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
subtleties go a long way, and in this day an age, it's better to be careful. the internet is a powerful tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 ( talk) 06:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added two key financial points into the main text of the article: (a) from the beginning, John and Cindy have kept their finances separate, file separate tax returns, and have a prenup; (b) Cindy currently has a net worth of around $100 million. As for the net worth in the infobox, I wasn't crazy about the official Senate financial disclosure form that was there. It's a primary source that's hard for regular folk to make much sense of. More importantly, the notion that it (apparently) and some other sources have, that John McCain's net worth is $20-40 million, seems strange to me ... it looks like some kind of melding between what he's actually worth (< $1 million, from what I can see) and what's she's actually worth (the "unit", as Texas oilmen say). So I've changed the infobox to break them out separately. This may be the wrong approach, so I won't object if someone more knowledgable sees a better way of handling this. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
again, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 ( talk) 05:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that focusing on Cindy McCain's networth, which is seperate from John McCain's, as they have filed sperate tax returns, unfairly influences the presentation of John McCain's financial status. He does not now nor never has had legal control of her $100m + assets, and to attribute them to him in the infobox is unethcial. And while I understand that networth of the candidates can be considered a viable fact for this page, I think the current election places a heavy burden on neutrality or perceived neutrality. We must have a content balance between this article and that of Obama, even if we feel it necessary to carry this article's discussion over to the other article. Mrathel ( talk) 17:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sample boxes placed in sandbox: User:Therequiembellishere/President-Infoboxes
I seem to not be able to edit this page despite the fact, that I am a longtime registered user.
In any event, US military ranks and rates (enlisted personnel does not have ranks but RATES) are always capitalized. That should be done in this article too. If somebody with authority cares to bother, please do so. For further reference see here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ranks/rankrate.html
In the section on his 2008 campaign, we should make sure that we follow the rules, absent a compelling reason. The MOS says: "Images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text, because the reader's eyes will tend to follow their direction. Therefore, portraits of a face looking to the reader's right should be left-aligned, looking into the main text." There may be some contary reasons in this long discussion, but for now I'll arrange the images per the MOS. Feel free to offer reasons why the MOS should not be followed in this instance. Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This section seems fractured at best. While there are 7 paragraphs on Senator McCain's captivity and torture, his family life is relatively unmentioned and the dissolution of his first marriage is effectively hidden at the end of paragraphs detailing his accomplishments.
Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973.[55] McCain's return to the United States reunited him with his wife and family. His wife Carol had suffered her own crippling ordeal during his captivity, due to an automobile accident in December 1969.[56] As a returned POW, McCain became a celebrity of sorts.[56]
McCain underwent treatment for his injuries, including months of grueling physical therapy,[57] and attended the National War College in Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. during 1973–1974.[56][17] Having been rehabilitated, by late 1974, McCain had his flight status reinstated,[56] and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida.[56][58] He turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation.[57] During this period, the McCains' marriage began to falter;[59] he would later accept blame.[59]
McCain served as the Navy's liaison to the U.S. Senate, beginning in 1977.[60] He would later say it represented "[my] real entry into the world of politics and the beginning of my second career as a public servant".[56] McCain played a key behind-the-scenes role in gaining congressional financing for a new supercarrier against the wishes of the Carter administration.[61][57]
In 1979,[57] McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[59] His wife Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[57] effective in April of 1980.[21] The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments for injuries resulting from the 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms.[59] McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980.[12]
Senator McCain's wrote in his book about a series of affairs he had when he could not deal with his the aftermath of his wife's crippling accident which led to his divorce and second marriage. While I believe this is relevent information (and frankly think much less of him for it), I can conceive others may not. However, the information should either be presented or not. As currently organized, it seems as if the Senator's behavior is being deemphasized (intentionally or not) by placing it in subordinate places within the broader military record.
Simply grouping the information about the end of the Senator's first marriage into one paragraph would be cleaner and provide a more unbiased presentation of his personal affairs. Alternately, removing the information would reduce the lack of logical flow and actually create less of an air of trying to hide negative information IMO.
As an example, this is the organization of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Although he married after he began his military service, his marriage is included with his family life in general. I propose something like
McCain's wife Carol was involved automobile accident in December 1969 that led to multiple surgeries and left her partially disabled[56] In the years following his release in 1973, their marriage suffered in part due to McCain's "[c]arousing, womanizing, and a poor choice of companions" which "led to some unsavory episodes" [4], for which he would later accept blame.[59]. After seperating with his first wife, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co in 1979.[59] One year later, his first wife Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[57] effective in April of 1980.[21] The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments for injuries resulting from the 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms.[59] McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980.[12]
Alternately, the two sections could be divided entirely, so his family life and military service are kept under their own subheaders (which would probably be more consistent with other bio entries). In my opinion this seperates the early personal and professional lives of Senator McCain. PantsB ( talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think this is a neutral point of view and wikipedia appropriate. Not only is the phrase sensational, it's downright debatable. But alas, I'm not here to argue. Rather, bring light to the fact that are multiple perspectives regarding this ordeal, and thus we should treat the situation accordingly. Throwing in a controversial term like "womanizing" is not the right move. I gather that intellectual honesty is a primary concern among wiki wizards, so I think we should go the safe route and avoid controversy. And by controversy, I mean using information from politically motivated sources.
Any naysayers?
( 70.181.148.148 ( talk) 04:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC) )
As done with James Stewert's page on wikipedia may I suggest that a Military info box be added to the appropriate section, with the accompanying 'salad bar'.-- 207.114.206.48 ( talk) 09:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a part of the main page that claims that McCain was offered an admiral star, but that he declined to run for Congress. There was an article today (6/17/08) that claims that this is a false claim. It warrants looking into. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_107409.html Film.addict ( talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Joe (film.addict)
Do you get a bachelor's after finishing at the Naval Academy? Therequiembellishere ( talk) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This sentence might be intended to improve text flow, but it just makes me laugh: "McCain's father battled alcoholism, and his wife battled addiction to painkillers; their efforts at self-improvement have become part of McCain’s family tradition as well.[242]" The source is an op-ed that does not use the word "family" or "tradition". I think it's cruel to call his whole family a bunch of addicts, even if he's a Republican. ;) Wnt ( talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the “Military service and marriages” Section do not contain all the facts concerning the situation they describe, and should be amended as follows. The apparent footnote numbers are as shown in the Wikipedia bio, and will automatically change as the section is updated. The data to be removed is lined through. The data to be added, together with additional footnotes is underlined
Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[36] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[36] and announce his capture. His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of The New York Times [37] and The Washington Post [38] McCain was badly wounded. Attempts were made to question him which were unsuccessful, in part because he would only give his name, rank, serial number and date of birth, but mostly because he would pass out when he was hit. His captors kept saying, "You will not receive any medical treatment until you talk." After four days of captivity, and after becoming aware of the severity of his injuries, McCain told his captors, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." He was told it was “too late” but, after somehow discovering that McCain’s father was an admiral, McCain was taken to a hospital.
[1]
[2] McCain’s condition was stablilized, but he was told he would not get needed surgery for his injuries unless he provided military information. He then accurately provided the consequential information (identification of his ship, squadron and target on the date of shoot-down) they requested, together with providing some falsified information on issues that were inconsequential.
[3] McCain was also required, as a condition for treatment, to participate in a filmed interview. McCain participated in the filmed interview, which included a discussion of both the consequential information referenced above and also a discussion of other matters concerning ships on which he served in the seas around Vietnam.
[4]
McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33]After providing the requested information, McCain received one of two required surgeries on his leg. He did not receive the second surgery that had been previously discussed. He was discharged from the hospital in December 1967, having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and in pain.
[5] with his hair turned white,[33] McCain was sent to a different camp, which the POWs called “the Plantation, on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] The Plantation was the “showplace” camp where films, photos and interviews of POWs were staged, and served as the staging point for groups of POWs prior to their release.
[6] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]
Amendments to paragraph 9, “Military service and marriages” Section
In August of 1968, McCain claims that a program of severe torture began on McCain him.[44] McCain claims that he was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[44] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession", in which he "admitted" that he was a war criminal. This confession was both written and taped, and was broadcast both in POW camps and to the military personnel serving in the area around Vietnam.[33]
[7] He claims that has always felt that his statement was dishonorable,[45] but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[46] His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[47] Col. Bui Tin , one of McCain’s interrogators, told people that McCain was never tortured.
[8] McCain claims that heHe subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[48] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements, with many enduring even worse treatment than McCain.[49]
COMMENTS ON EDITS
Utahcarol ( talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The last photo in the article shows McCain on Memorial Day. The caption pointed out that he was wearing a purple heart, but this has been deleted. The photo is meant to accompany the section on his image, which emphasizes his military background. That's why an image of him wearing a medal is shown. People will not notice the purple heart unless it is pointed out in the caption. Is there some concern that mentioning the purple heart will make him look bad, or make him look good? It's unusual to see a photo of a U.S. Senator wearing a purple heart. McCain certainly earned his, so I'm not sure I see the problem with mentioning it --- and medals are surely meant to be seen and noticed.
I very much prefer the current photo in the Image section, compared to the other photos in the subarticle about his image. But if the caption for the current photo in the Image section does not clearly show how it's related to his military background, then I'm concerned that one of the other photos in the subarticle will be used instead.
By the way, Quartermaster, my MOS was 76Y in 1982. :-) Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I originally put in a picture of John McCain getting a birthday cake from George W. Bush in Arizona, because, you know, I've never seen a picture of a Senator getting a birthday cake from a President - that's very unusual to me. There's also a great photo of John McCain hugging Bush that I've never seen with other Senators. The point? No good reason exists to include that photo. Another point. There are WAY too many photos in this biography (I think about 15). This biography looks like a campaign site for the good Senator. Heck, it used to have TWO versions of the same official picture from his Senate web site.
I still think we need to include in the caption, for the same reasons and using the same logic above, that McCain is not wearing an American flag on his lapel. That way a reader can click on the thumbnail and see for themselves since it's not really clear from the smaller photo. Some people might think that is an absurd proposal, but I'm not the one who set the bar so low. -- Quartermaster ( talk) 09:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does McCain redirect here? Surely the multinational company with $5.8 billion CAD in revenue last year is the better known "McCain", especially they use "McCain" as their primary brand name? I find it fanciful that a politician is considered "more important" than the second largest company in Canada, a company with 20,000 employees - 62.172.143.205 ( talk) 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No need to argue about this. I've changed the redirect notice to directly link to McCain Foods Limited using template:redirect6 rather than simply template:redirect. If anyone mistakenly gets here intending to look up the Canadian company, they're only one click away. -- Rick Block ( talk) 20:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a suitable way to reword "McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in Panama"? Of course it's made clear that was in the Canal Zone, but if taken literally, the phrase indicates he was born outside the US, which if true would have made him ineligible to be President. Biruitorul Talk 05:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on his political and cultural image was recently edited to refer to “his history of womanising and carousing.” I’m unaware that he has any such history during the past quarter century, so I think this is misleading and undue weight. Stuff like an extramarital affair is already covered in the chronological sections of this article. He currently is not considered a womaniser or a carouser, so this probably shouldn't go in the section on his image. Ferrylodge ( talk) 05:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Arzel and Ferrylodge. The information on "womanising and carousing" is undue weight and NOT NPOV. C08040804 ( talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I am saying that womanizing and carousing (as an adult, in his forties, not his youth) is a part of his character (not dominant) and deserves at least one clause in a description of his character in a four-paragraph description of his character. His relationship with his family (including his dead father and grandfather) gets a whole paragraph, so "it happened a long time ago" is irrelelevant. Excluding information on his womanising and carousing is POV censorship. -- Dr.enh ( talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Dr.enh, you still have not responded. Instead, you continue to reinsert the disputed material. Please stop your edit-warring and disruption. For the record:
Initially inserted by Dr.enh on 9 June 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218186506&oldid=218186415
Gustav von Humpelschmumpel reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218199272&oldid=218186506
Dr.enh reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218336088&oldid=218327395
Ferrylodge reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218343217&oldid=218336523
Dr.enh reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218397737&oldid=218343217
Arzel reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218398394&oldid=218397737
Dr.enh reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218403683&oldid=218398394
Arzel reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218404661&oldid=218403683
Dr.enh reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218745251&oldid=218699423
Arzel reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218746410&oldid=218745251
Dr.enh reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219201215&oldid=219192363
Ferrylodge reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219203601&oldid=219201215
Dr.enh reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219400545&oldid=219392969
Ferrylodge reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219403546&oldid=219400545
Dr.enh reverts. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219596088&oldid=219512702
Coemgenus reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219596930&oldid=219596088
Dr.enh reverts. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219837525&oldid=219836159
Ferrylodge reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219846490&oldid=219837525
Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe there is a statute of limitations for character traits. The impassioned exchange between all of you regarding this "carousing" issue is enough to convince me that both parties are trying to impose either side of POV spin. I would hope that whatever you guys decide to do, you include more, rather than less, information about McCain. Archytect ( talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge removed some information on this subject with the ES "Rmv new stuff on Carol's weight. Cited source doesn't mention it. Also, it gives undue weight to simplistic idea that weight led to divorce."
The fact is that there are plenty of sources noting that, when McCain returned home, he found his wife looking significantly worse than he'd expected (height, weight, difficulty walking). It's hardly a fringe view to believe that this was a factor in his dumping her. See, for example, "The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind", an article in the Daily Mail. We should not adopt this point of view but we should report it, with attribution. We should also report, on the other side, Carol's opinion that her accident wasn't the reason for the divorce, and any comment McCain himself has made on the subject. I'll try writing up a suitably NPOV discussion of this aspect of McCain's bio, which is underreported in the current version of the article. JamesMLane t c 07:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to add the date of their divorce (April 2, 1980) to the bio box, but it won't let me edit. Would someone do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.0.50 ( talk) 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The article reads as more of an advertisement than an informative piece. The pupose of an encylopedia is not to reflect one in a positive light, it is to create a factual representation of the topic covered. This piece in some cases lacks valid criticisms and in others glosses over or minimizes critiques. Misrepresentation of any candidate in a medium which is meant to be an informational forum is a disservice to the project as a whole. There have been many situations in which McCain has placed himself in situations where the impression of inproprieties were present and that pattern of behaviour is a valid piece of information. The downfall of his first marriage is also a valid topic for expansion considering the moral stance of the GOP. Further, while the alleged affair with the lobbyist for Paxon communications is not relevant, the fact that McCain petitioned the FCC on his behalf as well as accepting the use of their jet in spite of the lessons from Keating constitute a valid criticism of his judgment. These and other topics are necessary to present a factual picture of the man as opposed to a campaign advertisement. A Criticisms/Controversies section should be added and include the previously mentioned topics as well as issues with his own party over his partisanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.224.67 ( talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
How about some physical attributes, e.g. how tall is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.7.121 ( talk) 15:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with mentioning that McCain was separated in 1979, prior to his 1980 divorce? [8] Does anyone dispute that he was separated in 1979? Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent)WTR, much of the material you refer to is already in this main article. This main article currently says:
During this period [i.e. 1976-1977], the McCains' marriage began to falter;[58] he would later accept blame[58]….In 1979,[56] McCain met and began an extramarital relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[58] His wife Carol Shepp McCain accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[56] effective in April of 1980.[20] ….McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980.[11]
We can certainly consider including additional material if you would like to suggest it (which you haven't done as best I can recall), but I do not think your current (and uncharacteristic!) tit-for-tat approach is the best way to edit articles. And, weren't you the one who wanted to remove material in the first place regarding affairs in Jacksonville and a two-week separation upon moving to D.C.?
You drafted the present abbreviated language in this article: “During this period [i.e. 1976-1977], the McCains' marriage began to falter”, [9] and you subsequently advised me to insert it into this article. [10] Since you are apparently the person who requested deletion of explicit discussion in this article about dalliances in Jacksonville, as well as the McCain's two-week separation upon moving to DC, I am more than a little bit perplexed about your present position.
If you want to suggest language about Jacksonville, or about a two-week separation upon moving to DC, then please go ahead. You seem to be the one who wanted that removed in the first place, and I don't recall that I ever objected to reinsertion. Why are you preemptively threatening me with "grief", and blocking an otherwise unobjectionable edit, when you haven't even suggested reinserting the material that you yourself caused to be removed?
If you want to now elaborate in this article about affairs from the 1970s, and/or about a two-week separation (that is relatively trivial compared to the permanent separation in 1979), then there may be other material from Early life and military career of John McCain that also should be included in this main article for context, such as a quote from John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg ("Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on") and from McCain himself ("I had changed, she had changed....People who have been apart that much change"). And if we do include all of that, then we would have to consider whether it creates an undue weight problem, which is doubtless why you removed this stuff in the first place. But I'm glad to consider it if you suggest it---you haven't. Instead of warning me about "grief" and blocking an otherwise unobjectionable edit, maybe a different approach would be better? Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: Be more patience. You saw what happened after yesterday, remember? (told you so). I don't mean to be a smartass so please don't take it personal. -- Floridianed ( talk) 05:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The caption on the McCain voting history image under the Political positions section seems out of place. The caption currently reads
The trace the course line seams unencyclopedic. I have removed it and the parenthetic "see chart for the progression" but am happy to discuss this with anyone who thinks it should be there Vantar ( talk) 02:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If you read McCain's "An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom" [13] especially pointing out page four, would it be fair to say that his orientation to (western) Europe (giving them more importance?!) is stronger than W. Bush's and all presidential candidates (also the ones that already dropped out) from both major parties? Would there be consensus to include some words about it in the article? -- Floridianed ( talk) 02:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping someone here fallows McCain's activities much more closely than I. McCain has opposed $2 billion of Congressional funds for Restoration of the Everglades, claiming he was rejecting pork barrel riders on a bill for Everglades restoration, but not the actual restoration itself. He's getting some bad press in the Miami Herald, but I would like to know specifics. Does anyone know specifically what projects he was referring to? I appreciate it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't any information about his personal life past 1981. Just a general blurb about his wife and kids would help. Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 11:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
hi. a few things i was wondering about that this article does not mention: can mccain speak vietnamese? does he know any other languages? and also, are the video/audio recordings that the (North) Vietnamese authorities made of him available anywhere online? do they still exist? if anyone has citable answers, maybe they could work them into the article. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this isn't mentioned especially considering all the controversy that surrounded Barack Obama and his priest. He is reported to have explicitly said "I hate those gooks...until the day I die." Heres links for proof [14] www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020608_gook_comments.htm] [15] [16]
I appreciate he was tortured by the Vietcong but Gook is an extremely offensive remark and it came directly from his mouth, I am very surprised it is not documented here. I don't have an account here but i felt this needed to be brought to your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.83.217 ( talk) 09:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok I have noticed this is actually addressed in the article called "cultural and political image of John Mccain". I find this a ridiculous place to put it (thats without mentioning the redundancy of the article, the article could easily be combined into the political positions and this article) especially since any other person who makes a racist remark would have it somewhere on their main page, never mind a presidential candidate. At the moment it feels like its been covered up and the 2 articles are not presented equally, especially since the remarks of Obamas' priest is on his main page and that wasn't even his direct words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.83.217 ( talk) 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I know quite a lot of wars thanks so I don't need to study them and you don't need to be so condescending, I know the origin of the word gook etc. The issue is the word itself is inherently offensive to Asians, its more common use is as a racist term rather than specifically towards the Vietcong and so his continued use of the word up to the year 2000 suggests at the very least being out of touch with what language is acceptable. I mean can you imagine if there had something similar happened in an African country and him refering to his captors as niggers? Like nigger it is an out of date word that is unacceptable in all contexts, its not as if there weren't other strong words he could've used without what is considered an ethnic slur.
(undent) Please take a look at the FAQ at the top of this discussion page. It says:
Q2:Why does this article cover up the fact that McCain has called Asians "gooks" and made other similar remarks? A2:Nothing is being covered up. This article is written according to summary style which requires that material in other articles is only summarized here in this article. The information about McCain's use of the term "gook" is discussed in the articles on John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 and Cultural and political image of John McCain. Many other controversial remarks by McCain are detailed in the latter article. The "gook" comment was narrowly used by McCain with reference to the specific people who captured and then tortured him in Vietnam; McCain stopped using the term in 2000, and many Asians did not mind him narrowly using the term in the way he did. Singling out this remark for inclusion in this article would give it undue weight, and providing the necessary background and context would also take up too much space in this article.
I hope this helps to explain. Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for directing me to this information, now I see the reasons it is not mentioned. I did a quick Ctrl+F before I typed anything and assumed it had not been discussed. Thanks for showing me this feature.
The Controversial remarks section of Cultural and political image of John McCain is not fairly summarized in the main article. This article has been repeatedly censored by Ferrylodge of material unflattering to McCain. See also the POV fork Carol McCain and its talk page for more examples of POV censorship by Ferrylodge.-- Dr.enh ( talk) 01:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Today I added the following short section following the section on McCain's military career and it was deleted: - McCain had profound doubts about his continued bombing of Vietnamese women and children. Following the accidental blast in which bombs and ordinance were set off across the deck of the aircraft carrier on which he was stationed, a shaken McCain told a New York Times reporter in Saigon: "Now that I've seen what the bombs and the napalm did to the people on our ship, I'm not so sure that I want to drop any more of that stuff on North Vietnam." [1] Notwithstanding his suspicions about his own actions, McCain continued the bombings. Years later on the CBS investigative journalism program 60 Minutes, McCain admitted that he felt he was guilty of war crimes on account of his bombing of Vietnamese women and children: "I am a war criminal," McCain said on "60 Minutes" in 1997. "I bombed innocent women and children." [2]
The deleter cited RS, NPOV, and Bibl Living Persons objections. The source I cite quotes McCain's own words as published by the NY Times and 60 Minutes. I don't have free access to the NY Times archives and 60 Min transcripts going back that far, but Ted Rall is a syndicated columnist and UExpress carries the work of many prominent syndicated columnists. Why remove?-- NYCJosh ( talk) 22:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the best I've found so far for the October 1997 60 Minutes transcript. As is clear, McCain is simply repeating what the North Vietnamese forced him to say under torture, not what he really thinks. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Also, if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency,"
Previously, [17] it said:
"Also, if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency, and the second-oldest president to be inaugurated (Ronald Reagan was 73 years and 350 days old at his second inauguration)." 71.88.58.198 ( talk) 02:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I've added a sentence about Iowa into the section about the 2008 campaign. Iowa was critical. McCain's decision to not expend much effort there was pivotal to his later victories. Romney made a major effort in Iowa, and Romney's loss to Huckabee weakened Romney enough so that McCain could win in New Hampshire. The rest is history. This article really should mention Iowa. I've also added a few pics today. Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I've also briefly mentioned Fred Thompson, whom pundits credit for McCain's South Carolina win (by drawing votes away from Huckabee). Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent)This article does not currently mention Iowa. I very much think it should. McCain's decision to not do much in Iowa was pivotal, allowing him to focus on New Hampshire, and allowing Huckabee to take down Romney a notch in Iowa without hurting McCain. Here are some further sources:
"About 48 percent of Republican voters in the New Hampshire primary decided who to vote for within the last week and McCain overwhelmingly bested Mitt Romney among this group, CNN polling shows -- an indication Romney's second-place showing in Iowa may have had a significant effect on New Hampshire voters." --- CNN
"McCain won by never really leaving when his Republican rivals invested time in Iowa." --- Manchester Union Leader
"Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's victory in the Republican Iowa caucus threw open the party's race in New Hampshire....McCain has concentrated his efforts in New Hampshire and stands to gain from Romney's second-place finish, said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster not aligned with any campaign. Huckabee's victory over Romney in Iowa 'goes a long way to helping ensure a McCain victory in New Hampshire,' Fabrizio said." --- Bloomberg
Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
One useful way of checking the neutrality of an article is looking at how similar articles are edited. Right now there's a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama (in fact, it's a long, ongoing debate taking up most of the page, but the active section right now is at the Attempt to build consensus on the details section. I looked through this McCain article and the ones on Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to see how negative information was treated in each, particularly how much information was presented about people associated with the candidate. The debate over on the Obama page is about whether to include any information on people associated with him ( Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, specifically) and if so, how much information to include about each. My own opinion is that, since there are articles about each of these people and their relationship to the election, we can have a very small amount on each, but we should have just enough so that the reader immediately knows why the person has become controversial in the election. For Bill Ayers, for instance, people should know that he's controversial because he's said to be unrepentant about violence with the Weather Underground. Other opinions are that this description unnecessarily lengthens the article or has nothing to do with Obama or that it's an opinion, not a fact, that he's unrepentant. It would be useful if people interested in this page would participate in the discussion there, because, as the quote I've put at the top of this section shows, editors there may be coming here to make changes.
Here's what I found in looking into negative information in three similar articles, particularly as it relates to people associated with the candidate who have become controversial. I'm re-posting it here for the information of editors who are unlikely to see it at Talk:Barack Obama. Any comments about this comparison as it relates to this article would be useful on this page, of course, and any comments on how the Obama article should treat information on associates would best be posted on that page. Please keep in mind that whatever happens in that discussion may well affect this page, with a good number of editors willing to form a consensus that might force changes here. A centralized discussion on the common points may be best on that page, where it's already started:
Presidential candidates are big boys (and a big girl), and they get tough treatment in the media because they are trying to get a very powerful, very important job. We don't overprotect them on Wikipedia just as the U.S. media and international media don't protect them. The exclusionist side of this discussion appears to want far higher standards for inclusion of information about Obama than we have for Hilary Clinton, John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani. This goes against both Wikipedia practice and policy & guidelines. Noroton ( talk) 14:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(redent because no one should have to count more than six colons) I'm not saying any particular thing about McCain is as prominent or should receive as much coverage as some particular thing about Obama should receive. That's not part of my argument (although it is worth looking at Google hits and other things in trying to decide how much to cover something). We're not just the equivalent of the old dead-tree Britannica but the equivalent of the Britannica Book of the Year. (I just checked the online version of the BBotY, the Obama article is only about five paragraphs long, no mention of any of this in that space, of course, and nothing in Iseman; they give you an "EBSCO" magazine and journal search function, and you get to Wright that way but not Iseman, and about 10 hits for "Hagee", all on the reverend, but none of this is really what we're talking about, oh well). I think the old printed Book of the Year would've mentioned it, but never mind. My point is that the items we're talking about are just encyclopedic enough for a mention and that a mention would mean a link and the mention and link would be in the best interests of our readers. We don't even have a "See also" section in this article where you could at least list the WP article on the affair. How are you serving the readers better by not having a link? Because it gives you that slight bit of extra space? (Not rhetorical questions.) Noroton ( talk) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There has long been a McCain (disambiguation) page. I disagree that there also should be a John McCain (disambiguation) page. The latter is included in the former, and this adds clutter to the top of this article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Why McCain's networth relevant? Obama and Clinton's networth aren't mentioned, so I don't see why McCain should be either. In addition, there is no reference or elaboration regarding his financial situation in the article, which is further reason to delete the networth mention.
If McCain's networth fact is going to remain, I hope editors will add Obama's networth (which is somewhere north of 1.5 million).
thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 ( talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
when an unsuspecting reader notices McCain's bloated networth, and tries to compare it with the rivaling candidates (who's networth are not mentioned in the fact box), it creates an unnecessary bias.
i think my comments are pretty reasonable and i hope editors understand.
thanks for the quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 ( talk) 02:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
subtleties go a long way, and in this day an age, it's better to be careful. the internet is a powerful tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 ( talk) 06:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added two key financial points into the main text of the article: (a) from the beginning, John and Cindy have kept their finances separate, file separate tax returns, and have a prenup; (b) Cindy currently has a net worth of around $100 million. As for the net worth in the infobox, I wasn't crazy about the official Senate financial disclosure form that was there. It's a primary source that's hard for regular folk to make much sense of. More importantly, the notion that it (apparently) and some other sources have, that John McCain's net worth is $20-40 million, seems strange to me ... it looks like some kind of melding between what he's actually worth (< $1 million, from what I can see) and what's she's actually worth (the "unit", as Texas oilmen say). So I've changed the infobox to break them out separately. This may be the wrong approach, so I won't object if someone more knowledgable sees a better way of handling this. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
again, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 ( talk) 05:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that focusing on Cindy McCain's networth, which is seperate from John McCain's, as they have filed sperate tax returns, unfairly influences the presentation of John McCain's financial status. He does not now nor never has had legal control of her $100m + assets, and to attribute them to him in the infobox is unethcial. And while I understand that networth of the candidates can be considered a viable fact for this page, I think the current election places a heavy burden on neutrality or perceived neutrality. We must have a content balance between this article and that of Obama, even if we feel it necessary to carry this article's discussion over to the other article. Mrathel ( talk) 17:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sample boxes placed in sandbox: User:Therequiembellishere/President-Infoboxes
I seem to not be able to edit this page despite the fact, that I am a longtime registered user.
In any event, US military ranks and rates (enlisted personnel does not have ranks but RATES) are always capitalized. That should be done in this article too. If somebody with authority cares to bother, please do so. For further reference see here: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ranks/rankrate.html
In the section on his 2008 campaign, we should make sure that we follow the rules, absent a compelling reason. The MOS says: "Images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text, because the reader's eyes will tend to follow their direction. Therefore, portraits of a face looking to the reader's right should be left-aligned, looking into the main text." There may be some contary reasons in this long discussion, but for now I'll arrange the images per the MOS. Feel free to offer reasons why the MOS should not be followed in this instance. Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This section seems fractured at best. While there are 7 paragraphs on Senator McCain's captivity and torture, his family life is relatively unmentioned and the dissolution of his first marriage is effectively hidden at the end of paragraphs detailing his accomplishments.
Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973.[55] McCain's return to the United States reunited him with his wife and family. His wife Carol had suffered her own crippling ordeal during his captivity, due to an automobile accident in December 1969.[56] As a returned POW, McCain became a celebrity of sorts.[56]
McCain underwent treatment for his injuries, including months of grueling physical therapy,[57] and attended the National War College in Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. during 1973–1974.[56][17] Having been rehabilitated, by late 1974, McCain had his flight status reinstated,[56] and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida.[56][58] He turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation.[57] During this period, the McCains' marriage began to falter;[59] he would later accept blame.[59]
McCain served as the Navy's liaison to the U.S. Senate, beginning in 1977.[60] He would later say it represented "[my] real entry into the world of politics and the beginning of my second career as a public servant".[56] McCain played a key behind-the-scenes role in gaining congressional financing for a new supercarrier against the wishes of the Carter administration.[61][57]
In 1979,[57] McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[59] His wife Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[57] effective in April of 1980.[21] The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments for injuries resulting from the 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms.[59] McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980.[12]
Senator McCain's wrote in his book about a series of affairs he had when he could not deal with his the aftermath of his wife's crippling accident which led to his divorce and second marriage. While I believe this is relevent information (and frankly think much less of him for it), I can conceive others may not. However, the information should either be presented or not. As currently organized, it seems as if the Senator's behavior is being deemphasized (intentionally or not) by placing it in subordinate places within the broader military record.
Simply grouping the information about the end of the Senator's first marriage into one paragraph would be cleaner and provide a more unbiased presentation of his personal affairs. Alternately, removing the information would reduce the lack of logical flow and actually create less of an air of trying to hide negative information IMO.
As an example, this is the organization of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Although he married after he began his military service, his marriage is included with his family life in general. I propose something like
McCain's wife Carol was involved automobile accident in December 1969 that led to multiple surgeries and left her partially disabled[56] In the years following his release in 1973, their marriage suffered in part due to McCain's "[c]arousing, womanizing, and a poor choice of companions" which "led to some unsavory episodes" [4], for which he would later accept blame.[59]. After seperating with his first wife, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co in 1979.[59] One year later, his first wife Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[57] effective in April of 1980.[21] The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments for injuries resulting from the 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms.[59] McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980.[12]
Alternately, the two sections could be divided entirely, so his family life and military service are kept under their own subheaders (which would probably be more consistent with other bio entries). In my opinion this seperates the early personal and professional lives of Senator McCain. PantsB ( talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think this is a neutral point of view and wikipedia appropriate. Not only is the phrase sensational, it's downright debatable. But alas, I'm not here to argue. Rather, bring light to the fact that are multiple perspectives regarding this ordeal, and thus we should treat the situation accordingly. Throwing in a controversial term like "womanizing" is not the right move. I gather that intellectual honesty is a primary concern among wiki wizards, so I think we should go the safe route and avoid controversy. And by controversy, I mean using information from politically motivated sources.
Any naysayers?
( 70.181.148.148 ( talk) 04:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC) )
As done with James Stewert's page on wikipedia may I suggest that a Military info box be added to the appropriate section, with the accompanying 'salad bar'.-- 207.114.206.48 ( talk) 09:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a part of the main page that claims that McCain was offered an admiral star, but that he declined to run for Congress. There was an article today (6/17/08) that claims that this is a false claim. It warrants looking into. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_107409.html Film.addict ( talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Joe (film.addict)
Do you get a bachelor's after finishing at the Naval Academy? Therequiembellishere ( talk) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This sentence might be intended to improve text flow, but it just makes me laugh: "McCain's father battled alcoholism, and his wife battled addiction to painkillers; their efforts at self-improvement have become part of McCain’s family tradition as well.[242]" The source is an op-ed that does not use the word "family" or "tradition". I think it's cruel to call his whole family a bunch of addicts, even if he's a Republican. ;) Wnt ( talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the “Military service and marriages” Section do not contain all the facts concerning the situation they describe, and should be amended as follows. The apparent footnote numbers are as shown in the Wikipedia bio, and will automatically change as the section is updated. The data to be removed is lined through. The data to be added, together with additional footnotes is underlined
Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[36] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[36] and announce his capture. His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of The New York Times [37] and The Washington Post [38] McCain was badly wounded. Attempts were made to question him which were unsuccessful, in part because he would only give his name, rank, serial number and date of birth, but mostly because he would pass out when he was hit. His captors kept saying, "You will not receive any medical treatment until you talk." After four days of captivity, and after becoming aware of the severity of his injuries, McCain told his captors, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." He was told it was “too late” but, after somehow discovering that McCain’s father was an admiral, McCain was taken to a hospital.
[1]
[2] McCain’s condition was stablilized, but he was told he would not get needed surgery for his injuries unless he provided military information. He then accurately provided the consequential information (identification of his ship, squadron and target on the date of shoot-down) they requested, together with providing some falsified information on issues that were inconsequential.
[3] McCain was also required, as a condition for treatment, to participate in a filmed interview. McCain participated in the filmed interview, which included a discussion of both the consequential information referenced above and also a discussion of other matters concerning ships on which he served in the seas around Vietnam.
[4]
McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33]After providing the requested information, McCain received one of two required surgeries on his leg. He did not receive the second surgery that had been previously discussed. He was discharged from the hospital in December 1967, having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and in pain.
[5] with his hair turned white,[33] McCain was sent to a different camp, which the POWs called “the Plantation, on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] The Plantation was the “showplace” camp where films, photos and interviews of POWs were staged, and served as the staging point for groups of POWs prior to their release.
[6] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]
Amendments to paragraph 9, “Military service and marriages” Section
In August of 1968, McCain claims that a program of severe torture began on McCain him.[44] McCain claims that he was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[44] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession", in which he "admitted" that he was a war criminal. This confession was both written and taped, and was broadcast both in POW camps and to the military personnel serving in the area around Vietnam.[33]
[7] He claims that has always felt that his statement was dishonorable,[45] but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[46] His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[47] Col. Bui Tin , one of McCain’s interrogators, told people that McCain was never tortured.
[8] McCain claims that heHe subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[48] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements, with many enduring even worse treatment than McCain.[49]
COMMENTS ON EDITS
Utahcarol ( talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The last photo in the article shows McCain on Memorial Day. The caption pointed out that he was wearing a purple heart, but this has been deleted. The photo is meant to accompany the section on his image, which emphasizes his military background. That's why an image of him wearing a medal is shown. People will not notice the purple heart unless it is pointed out in the caption. Is there some concern that mentioning the purple heart will make him look bad, or make him look good? It's unusual to see a photo of a U.S. Senator wearing a purple heart. McCain certainly earned his, so I'm not sure I see the problem with mentioning it --- and medals are surely meant to be seen and noticed.
I very much prefer the current photo in the Image section, compared to the other photos in the subarticle about his image. But if the caption for the current photo in the Image section does not clearly show how it's related to his military background, then I'm concerned that one of the other photos in the subarticle will be used instead.
By the way, Quartermaster, my MOS was 76Y in 1982. :-) Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I originally put in a picture of John McCain getting a birthday cake from George W. Bush in Arizona, because, you know, I've never seen a picture of a Senator getting a birthday cake from a President - that's very unusual to me. There's also a great photo of John McCain hugging Bush that I've never seen with other Senators. The point? No good reason exists to include that photo. Another point. There are WAY too many photos in this biography (I think about 15). This biography looks like a campaign site for the good Senator. Heck, it used to have TWO versions of the same official picture from his Senate web site.
I still think we need to include in the caption, for the same reasons and using the same logic above, that McCain is not wearing an American flag on his lapel. That way a reader can click on the thumbnail and see for themselves since it's not really clear from the smaller photo. Some people might think that is an absurd proposal, but I'm not the one who set the bar so low. -- Quartermaster ( talk) 09:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does McCain redirect here? Surely the multinational company with $5.8 billion CAD in revenue last year is the better known "McCain", especially they use "McCain" as their primary brand name? I find it fanciful that a politician is considered "more important" than the second largest company in Canada, a company with 20,000 employees - 62.172.143.205 ( talk) 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No need to argue about this. I've changed the redirect notice to directly link to McCain Foods Limited using template:redirect6 rather than simply template:redirect. If anyone mistakenly gets here intending to look up the Canadian company, they're only one click away. -- Rick Block ( talk) 20:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a suitable way to reword "McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in Panama"? Of course it's made clear that was in the Canal Zone, but if taken literally, the phrase indicates he was born outside the US, which if true would have made him ineligible to be President. Biruitorul Talk 05:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on his political and cultural image was recently edited to refer to “his history of womanising and carousing.” I’m unaware that he has any such history during the past quarter century, so I think this is misleading and undue weight. Stuff like an extramarital affair is already covered in the chronological sections of this article. He currently is not considered a womaniser or a carouser, so this probably shouldn't go in the section on his image. Ferrylodge ( talk) 05:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Arzel and Ferrylodge. The information on "womanising and carousing" is undue weight and NOT NPOV. C08040804 ( talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I am saying that womanizing and carousing (as an adult, in his forties, not his youth) is a part of his character (not dominant) and deserves at least one clause in a description of his character in a four-paragraph description of his character. His relationship with his family (including his dead father and grandfather) gets a whole paragraph, so "it happened a long time ago" is irrelelevant. Excluding information on his womanising and carousing is POV censorship. -- Dr.enh ( talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Dr.enh, you still have not responded. Instead, you continue to reinsert the disputed material. Please stop your edit-warring and disruption. For the record:
Initially inserted by Dr.enh on 9 June 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218186506&oldid=218186415
Gustav von Humpelschmumpel reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218199272&oldid=218186506
Dr.enh reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218336088&oldid=218327395
Ferrylodge reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218343217&oldid=218336523
Dr.enh reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218397737&oldid=218343217
Arzel reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218398394&oldid=218397737
Dr.enh reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218403683&oldid=218398394
Arzel reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218404661&oldid=218403683
Dr.enh reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218745251&oldid=218699423
Arzel reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=218746410&oldid=218745251
Dr.enh reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219201215&oldid=219192363
Ferrylodge reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219203601&oldid=219201215
Dr.enh reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219400545&oldid=219392969
Ferrylodge reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219403546&oldid=219400545
Dr.enh reverts. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219596088&oldid=219512702
Coemgenus reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219596930&oldid=219596088
Dr.enh reverts. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219837525&oldid=219836159
Ferrylodge reverts http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_McCain&diff=219846490&oldid=219837525
Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe there is a statute of limitations for character traits. The impassioned exchange between all of you regarding this "carousing" issue is enough to convince me that both parties are trying to impose either side of POV spin. I would hope that whatever you guys decide to do, you include more, rather than less, information about McCain. Archytect ( talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge removed some information on this subject with the ES "Rmv new stuff on Carol's weight. Cited source doesn't mention it. Also, it gives undue weight to simplistic idea that weight led to divorce."
The fact is that there are plenty of sources noting that, when McCain returned home, he found his wife looking significantly worse than he'd expected (height, weight, difficulty walking). It's hardly a fringe view to believe that this was a factor in his dumping her. See, for example, "The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind", an article in the Daily Mail. We should not adopt this point of view but we should report it, with attribution. We should also report, on the other side, Carol's opinion that her accident wasn't the reason for the divorce, and any comment McCain himself has made on the subject. I'll try writing up a suitably NPOV discussion of this aspect of McCain's bio, which is underreported in the current version of the article. JamesMLane t c 07:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to add the date of their divorce (April 2, 1980) to the bio box, but it won't let me edit. Would someone do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.0.50 ( talk) 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The article reads as more of an advertisement than an informative piece. The pupose of an encylopedia is not to reflect one in a positive light, it is to create a factual representation of the topic covered. This piece in some cases lacks valid criticisms and in others glosses over or minimizes critiques. Misrepresentation of any candidate in a medium which is meant to be an informational forum is a disservice to the project as a whole. There have been many situations in which McCain has placed himself in situations where the impression of inproprieties were present and that pattern of behaviour is a valid piece of information. The downfall of his first marriage is also a valid topic for expansion considering the moral stance of the GOP. Further, while the alleged affair with the lobbyist for Paxon communications is not relevant, the fact that McCain petitioned the FCC on his behalf as well as accepting the use of their jet in spite of the lessons from Keating constitute a valid criticism of his judgment. These and other topics are necessary to present a factual picture of the man as opposed to a campaign advertisement. A Criticisms/Controversies section should be added and include the previously mentioned topics as well as issues with his own party over his partisanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.224.67 ( talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
How about some physical attributes, e.g. how tall is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.7.121 ( talk) 15:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with mentioning that McCain was separated in 1979, prior to his 1980 divorce? [8] Does anyone dispute that he was separated in 1979? Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent)WTR, much of the material you refer to is already in this main article. This main article currently says:
During this period [i.e. 1976-1977], the McCains' marriage began to falter;[58] he would later accept blame[58]….In 1979,[56] McCain met and began an extramarital relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[58] His wife Carol Shepp McCain accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[56] effective in April of 1980.[20] ….McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980.[11]
We can certainly consider including additional material if you would like to suggest it (which you haven't done as best I can recall), but I do not think your current (and uncharacteristic!) tit-for-tat approach is the best way to edit articles. And, weren't you the one who wanted to remove material in the first place regarding affairs in Jacksonville and a two-week separation upon moving to D.C.?
You drafted the present abbreviated language in this article: “During this period [i.e. 1976-1977], the McCains' marriage began to falter”, [9] and you subsequently advised me to insert it into this article. [10] Since you are apparently the person who requested deletion of explicit discussion in this article about dalliances in Jacksonville, as well as the McCain's two-week separation upon moving to DC, I am more than a little bit perplexed about your present position.
If you want to suggest language about Jacksonville, or about a two-week separation upon moving to DC, then please go ahead. You seem to be the one who wanted that removed in the first place, and I don't recall that I ever objected to reinsertion. Why are you preemptively threatening me with "grief", and blocking an otherwise unobjectionable edit, when you haven't even suggested reinserting the material that you yourself caused to be removed?
If you want to now elaborate in this article about affairs from the 1970s, and/or about a two-week separation (that is relatively trivial compared to the permanent separation in 1979), then there may be other material from Early life and military career of John McCain that also should be included in this main article for context, such as a quote from John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg ("Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on") and from McCain himself ("I had changed, she had changed....People who have been apart that much change"). And if we do include all of that, then we would have to consider whether it creates an undue weight problem, which is doubtless why you removed this stuff in the first place. But I'm glad to consider it if you suggest it---you haven't. Instead of warning me about "grief" and blocking an otherwise unobjectionable edit, maybe a different approach would be better? Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: Be more patience. You saw what happened after yesterday, remember? (told you so). I don't mean to be a smartass so please don't take it personal. -- Floridianed ( talk) 05:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The caption on the McCain voting history image under the Political positions section seems out of place. The caption currently reads
The trace the course line seams unencyclopedic. I have removed it and the parenthetic "see chart for the progression" but am happy to discuss this with anyone who thinks it should be there Vantar ( talk) 02:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If you read McCain's "An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom" [13] especially pointing out page four, would it be fair to say that his orientation to (western) Europe (giving them more importance?!) is stronger than W. Bush's and all presidential candidates (also the ones that already dropped out) from both major parties? Would there be consensus to include some words about it in the article? -- Floridianed ( talk) 02:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping someone here fallows McCain's activities much more closely than I. McCain has opposed $2 billion of Congressional funds for Restoration of the Everglades, claiming he was rejecting pork barrel riders on a bill for Everglades restoration, but not the actual restoration itself. He's getting some bad press in the Miami Herald, but I would like to know specifics. Does anyone know specifically what projects he was referring to? I appreciate it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't any information about his personal life past 1981. Just a general blurb about his wife and kids would help. Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 11:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
hi. a few things i was wondering about that this article does not mention: can mccain speak vietnamese? does he know any other languages? and also, are the video/audio recordings that the (North) Vietnamese authorities made of him available anywhere online? do they still exist? if anyone has citable answers, maybe they could work them into the article. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this isn't mentioned especially considering all the controversy that surrounded Barack Obama and his priest. He is reported to have explicitly said "I hate those gooks...until the day I die." Heres links for proof [14] www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020608_gook_comments.htm] [15] [16]
I appreciate he was tortured by the Vietcong but Gook is an extremely offensive remark and it came directly from his mouth, I am very surprised it is not documented here. I don't have an account here but i felt this needed to be brought to your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.83.217 ( talk) 09:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok I have noticed this is actually addressed in the article called "cultural and political image of John Mccain". I find this a ridiculous place to put it (thats without mentioning the redundancy of the article, the article could easily be combined into the political positions and this article) especially since any other person who makes a racist remark would have it somewhere on their main page, never mind a presidential candidate. At the moment it feels like its been covered up and the 2 articles are not presented equally, especially since the remarks of Obamas' priest is on his main page and that wasn't even his direct words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.83.217 ( talk) 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I know quite a lot of wars thanks so I don't need to study them and you don't need to be so condescending, I know the origin of the word gook etc. The issue is the word itself is inherently offensive to Asians, its more common use is as a racist term rather than specifically towards the Vietcong and so his continued use of the word up to the year 2000 suggests at the very least being out of touch with what language is acceptable. I mean can you imagine if there had something similar happened in an African country and him refering to his captors as niggers? Like nigger it is an out of date word that is unacceptable in all contexts, its not as if there weren't other strong words he could've used without what is considered an ethnic slur.
(undent) Please take a look at the FAQ at the top of this discussion page. It says:
Q2:Why does this article cover up the fact that McCain has called Asians "gooks" and made other similar remarks? A2:Nothing is being covered up. This article is written according to summary style which requires that material in other articles is only summarized here in this article. The information about McCain's use of the term "gook" is discussed in the articles on John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 and Cultural and political image of John McCain. Many other controversial remarks by McCain are detailed in the latter article. The "gook" comment was narrowly used by McCain with reference to the specific people who captured and then tortured him in Vietnam; McCain stopped using the term in 2000, and many Asians did not mind him narrowly using the term in the way he did. Singling out this remark for inclusion in this article would give it undue weight, and providing the necessary background and context would also take up too much space in this article.
I hope this helps to explain. Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for directing me to this information, now I see the reasons it is not mentioned. I did a quick Ctrl+F before I typed anything and assumed it had not been discussed. Thanks for showing me this feature.
The Controversial remarks section of Cultural and political image of John McCain is not fairly summarized in the main article. This article has been repeatedly censored by Ferrylodge of material unflattering to McCain. See also the POV fork Carol McCain and its talk page for more examples of POV censorship by Ferrylodge.-- Dr.enh ( talk) 01:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Today I added the following short section following the section on McCain's military career and it was deleted: - McCain had profound doubts about his continued bombing of Vietnamese women and children. Following the accidental blast in which bombs and ordinance were set off across the deck of the aircraft carrier on which he was stationed, a shaken McCain told a New York Times reporter in Saigon: "Now that I've seen what the bombs and the napalm did to the people on our ship, I'm not so sure that I want to drop any more of that stuff on North Vietnam." [1] Notwithstanding his suspicions about his own actions, McCain continued the bombings. Years later on the CBS investigative journalism program 60 Minutes, McCain admitted that he felt he was guilty of war crimes on account of his bombing of Vietnamese women and children: "I am a war criminal," McCain said on "60 Minutes" in 1997. "I bombed innocent women and children." [2]
The deleter cited RS, NPOV, and Bibl Living Persons objections. The source I cite quotes McCain's own words as published by the NY Times and 60 Minutes. I don't have free access to the NY Times archives and 60 Min transcripts going back that far, but Ted Rall is a syndicated columnist and UExpress carries the work of many prominent syndicated columnists. Why remove?-- NYCJosh ( talk) 22:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the best I've found so far for the October 1997 60 Minutes transcript. As is clear, McCain is simply repeating what the North Vietnamese forced him to say under torture, not what he really thinks. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Also, if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency,"
Previously, [17] it said:
"Also, if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would be the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency, and the second-oldest president to be inaugurated (Ronald Reagan was 73 years and 350 days old at his second inauguration)." 71.88.58.198 ( talk) 02:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)