![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ----Rawkcuf. (This is the same 'form letter' I've sent to all the other dicussion pages for candidate' articles. I understand that there is some major upheaval going on with John McCain's staff, so that it may make this issue irrelevant. I noticed that there was a lot of mention given to departing staff members-- perhaps it would help to put things on a more positive note, and mention those that remain. Just an observation. -R.) [04:39, 20 September 2007 Rawkcuf]
I noticed these on Thompson's, Romney's and Guliani's articles as well. As far as I know normal articles don't present these many graphs in excess. You don't write scientific articles this way. You refer to images in the text. These images are just pasted blatanly filling more than half the article. It is very annoying, disruptive for reading and actually not very informative either in the context and layout they are presented. Lord Metroid 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As some of you may know there have been flyers found around South Carolina which make "claims" that John McCain was a "songbird" who turned on other POWs while imprisoned in North Vietnam supposedly in order to get better treatment. Following the smears that happened in the 2000 campaign against McCain he set up a "truth squad" in South Carolina and quickly disavowed these "claims". The following are the front and back of these flyers both in pdf format:
In the bottom-right of the back of the flyer there are two links which take you to the following sites:
The first is run by Jerry Kiley and the second is run by Ted Sampley. Here is an AP piece on CBS News that talks about the Kiley connection to this incident and also here is the Sourcewatch article on Ted Sampley. I don't regularly edit the John McCain article but I thought I might as well leave this information here so that other regulars on this article could consider how to add this information on the article. Thanks.-- Jersey Devil ( talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ross Perot attacked McCain pretty badly. Shouldn't this be added? -- S TX 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone comfirm that the radio talkshows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been attacking John McCain lately? I don't get it. Spongefan ( talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the fact that the Florida Governor endorsed John McCain, this should be added to this article or another one.
Reed Ebarb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.179.35 ( talk) 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought McCain won the closed caucus in Louisiana; how come it isn't mentioned in this article? - 134.50.75.114 ( talk) 17:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Trying to figure out how to set up Super Tuesday... this article is already pretty long. If McCain gets the nomination, are we going to separate into primary/general election articles? I guess this applies to whoever gets the nominations. Paisan30 ( talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Bytebear has placed a cleanup tag on the "Caucuses and primaries 2008" section of the article, with the edit summary "sounds too much like a story, and not an encycolpedia article". Which raises the question, what would be a useful encyclopedia article about McCain's campaign? Most encyclopedias don't have separate articles on campaigns, so there isn't much prior art to go by. But to me, it should read like a narrative history of the campaign, describing what happened when and outlining the general themes and strategies of the campaign and why they led to eventual success or failure. Wasted Time R ( talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
McCain won all the delegates? I thought this primary was proportional? GoodDay ( talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
So--which section of the article should be put her in? 4.246.120.240 ( talk) 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrap up — this grew inactive; there was no consensus to merge; the bio article on her still exists. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
We have an article at Vicki Iseman. I have proposed it should be merged here, as she is unremarkable outside of gossip in this campaign, interested parties may wish to comment on the talk page of that article.-- Docg 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does she fail the test of notability? Should we have waited for Brian McNamee to appear on Ellen before including an article? What is the relevance whether the "thing" is true or not? Which part are you referring to? The ethical conflicts or the report that two advisers feared that she was romantically involved? The source doesn't state she was romantically involved. Regardless, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And the details of the controversy are given only a mention in Iseman. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
This article is properly sourced, pared down and entirely neutral. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)When writing about a person notable only for one or two events ... biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
If you are proposing to bring forward the personal and career details of the Iseman page, then you are recommending a merger. I'm all for a merger discussion as long as we are actually stating that the "stuff from the Iseman page be brought forward -- at this point, there is little redundancy. It is best left where it is per WP:BLP:You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That is fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add the new stuff [emphasis mine].
The bio is pared, sourced, neutral and on-topic (re: Iseman). ∴ Therefore | talk 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
Well, many others seem to think a merger is better.-- Docg 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Does this really deserve such promenence in the article? Same for his birthplace? I would rather see those maybe at the end of the introduction as they appear more as trivia rather than details about the actual campaign. Thoughts? Thanks, -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 20:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrap up — this grew inactive; there was no consensus to merge; the lobbyist controversy article still exists. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The article prior to blanking and redirection
This event was too abruptly made into its own article. The media has already stopped covering it almost entirely. No major consequences occurred because of the Times' article. John McCain denied the allegations the same day; the media made a fuss for two days about the Times' credibility and John McCain's lobbying record; the controversy ended. It's not like, for examples, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal or the Burr-Hamilton duel, which had a marked history and the events went on for a marked period of time and had lasting ramifications. Unless this story later proves to become a much bigger and important aspect of the 2008 elections, it should only remain as a subsection under McCain's presidential run and in the 2008 U.S. elections in general. -- Mbenzdabest ( talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just saw on Fox News that he won the Repub nomination; I'll provide a cite in a minute. Happyme22 ( talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This should not be there. Every candidate's campaign has a group of people who oppose it for one reason or another. Be it a political or personal reason those people are always there. However, they should not be mentioned in this article. There was a section in the Clinton campaign article about opposition to her campaign and it was removed becuase it was believed to create bias. The same set of rules should hold true for all candidates. If McCain has it Clinton should have and if she doesn't neither should he. ---
I don't think that including an opposing forces section necessarily creates bias. I do agree that a uniform rule should apply to all candidates, but I'm guessing that not the same people visit (and thus edit) McCain's article and Clinton's, so that seems like wishful thinking. Regardless, I removed the "citizens" (which claimed that McCain was a racist and didn't care about certain states) from the list of opposing forces because that was clearly biased. Lv99redwizard ( talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we split this article into John McCain presidential primary campaign, 2008 with information about the primary contests, and an article under the title John McCain general election presidential campaign, 2008 based on the general election. The article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 should remain but should be very vague in its coverage and link to the two new more indepth articles. -- S TX 04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Paisan30 ( talk) 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. This article isn't that long right now, and we could probably pare it down a bit further. Not much is going to happen in McCain's campaign from now until the convention ... the next big event is when he picks a vice presidential candidate. I'd say we leave it as just one article and see how it goes. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Another approach is to split out the endorsements section into a separate subarticle, as was done for the Hillary and Obama endorsements. This would reduce the article size, and would especially reduce the number of references, which is the thing that impacts article load time the most. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as McCain has a majority of the delegates pledged to him for the Republican presidential nomination. I wonder if it would be too early to have a section concerning speculative vice presidential running-mates (with reliable sources provided). I'm assuming a speculative based section isn't a good idea though. Any thoughts? GoodDay ( talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks WT. GoodDay ( talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to have a wikilink to United States Republican vice presidential candidates, 2008. Why not? Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I went ahead and added it. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we can stop adding all of the Representatives, Governors, etc. McCain is the Republican nominee. Nearly every Republican on the national and state level will endorse him. Paisan30 ( talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
More importantly, List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements was created on March 12 by User:Iamwisesun, akin to the breakouts that were done for Hillary and Obama. Good idea. But he/she failed to remove the contents from this article, or to do a "main" template link from this article to the new one, so people kept updating this article in ignorance of that one (while some people discovered the subarticle and were updating that one). I've now removed the endorsement contents from here, after reapplying those updates made here after March 12 (there weren't too many, fortunately) to the subarticle. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just doing a comparison between various sets of articles on wikipedia. Does the McCain set of articles have anything like the Obama's set of A More Perfect Union (An apparently minor campaign development as its own article)? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 09:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The article John McCain presidential eligibility has been nominated for deletion by myself here. -- Naerii 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
i was just wondering why this article contains no mention of mccain seeking and gaining the endorsement of controversial preacher john hagee. the obama article spends a while discussing jeremiah wright and i think its only fair that the mccain article contain information about this much looked over endorsement. ps sorry about the formatting issues with this post, im relatively new to wikipedia and havent completely gotten the hang of it yet. g.j.g ( talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
i added a paragraph on it, im still not quite sure how to put in foot notes and linmks so here are my two main sources http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html and http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/03/new_video_revea.php g.j.g ( talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) also i think i kinda messed up with the formatting any advise would be appreciaed :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
the democrat homepage is for the "john mccain garnerd criticism from democrats" part of what i wrote. whether or not it would be considered a biased source normally is irrelevant what matters is that this IS what the democrats are saying. as for the huffington post it was just the first link that i could find. you want more ok http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2749859920080228?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 , http://youtube.com/watch?v=HS9F7O2lhWg&feature=related (normally not a reliable source but its a video of cnn which is), http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/mccain-hagee-hewitt/ (this (which i only used for 1 of mccains quotes is probabely not the most reliable so if u ccan get me another quotewhere mccain discusses hagges quotes being taken out of contest please do), for the controversial statements e said you can use the same things listed in the john hagee article if u need anymore please tell me and ill give you more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hagee has endorsed Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. McCain said, "I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support." [1]
As i stated earlier in this discussion i have all of the nesscacary sources but im not sure how to insert them, if anybody else wants to insert them and/or teach me how to i would greatly appreciate it g.j.g ( talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
their are two things that confuse me about recent edits, first off perhaps the best place to put the hagee section wasnt under controversies but how IS the best place "allegations of innapropriate involvement with lobbyists"? and two i think that the george bush thing is very relevant, not only is it one of the main reasons that the dems r criticising mccain but it also helps provide background for why people are so angered by mccain. this is my personal humble opinion on the article but in order to avoid a revert war and actiong under the assumption that the people who editted this wouldnt have done so without a reason im going to wait for a day or so (or until i get a response) to give the editors a chance to explain themselves g.j.g ( talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
first off its one of the leasing criticisms that the dems have towards mccain second off how is it a shot at bush, its saying that mccain scalded bush back in 2000 for doing the exact same thing that mccain did with hagee??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
would you mnd clarifying on that statement please??? which phrases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Odd, ALL of Hagee's article does not mention anti-black, nor anti-women, however this article includes it (unsourced ofc) If you are having problems inserting references, use the last icon above the editing window or use: <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> 195.216.82.210 ( talk) 14:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
My concern here is with Hagee and those who have endorsed him, but I pause to note that the Hagee-McCain association antedates Hagee’s formal endorsement last week. In fact, in South Carolina back in September, Hagee was invited to introduce McCain at a pre-primary rally titled “No Surrender”; his full-throated introduction was until recently featured on McCain’s campaign Web site.
McCain’s immediate response, later partially modified, to the Hagee endorsement was all smiles: “I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support.” (Just imagine that Obama had invited Farrakhan for a joint appearance and had spoken of his pride in obtaining Farrakhan’s endorsement.)
The Washington Times reports on April 11,2008,on page A1(top article),about the extensive and lucrative ties of John McCain's top advisors and fund raisers to foreign governments including Communist China and Saudi Arabia. The supporters include: Charles Black, who has received more than $700,000 to lobby for the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Thomas Loeffler, who has received more than $10 million to advance the interests of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Rob Allyn, who was paid $720,000 to promote the cause of Mexican nationals who are in the U.S. illegally. Peter T. Madigan, a top Washington lobbyist whose clients include the trade bureau of the nation of Columbia. Kirk Blalock, national chairman of Young Professionals for McCain, whose lobbying firm which was established in 1978 represents Peru, Vietnam and Bahrain. These ties are significant in any relevant context, from politics to macroeconomics, and speak to Mcain's fundamental goals and ethics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk) 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The current--May--issue of Harper's Magazine has a lead article entitled "My Lobby Myself: How John McCain's Hypocrisy Is Laundered as Reform. "The article deconstruct's McCain's Reform Institute and shows how it violates nearly every reform it claims to advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My quick survey of the boxes didn't reveal what the problem was. Can someone please look into this and fix it? Thanks Enigma message 00:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, only liberal groups raised questions over McCain's eligibility. Is there a reference for an actual non-left leaning group (not coverage of, but an actual non partisan group) raising questions? If so, then the current version would work. If not, however, then the partisan motives of the questioners warrants inclusion. Trilemma ( talk) 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the books section being removed, though some others may desire its inclusion. So, just in case they want to make a case for its inclusion, I'll open a discussion area for it. Trilemma ( talk)
Using Wikipedia data from a related article Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008 and Excel, I crunched the numbers in states where the lead in the polls for any one candidate is close or has shown signs of swinging back and forth between Obama and McCain. At this point, I've selected Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana and Missouri for additional analysis using charts and trendlines. I believe that these seven states are, as it happens, a good representative example, because three of the states are currently leaning toward Obama (Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania), three are currently leaning toward McCain (Florida, Indiana and Missouri) and Virginia is virtually tied. Incidentally, between these seven states, there are 120 electoral votes at stake, which represents 44% of the total (270) needed to secure the nomination. In most of the states, there are still at least about 10% of the voters with no opinion yet between the two candidates (or are supporting a third candidate). Your thoughts, suggestions and general input are greatly appreciated. If time is available, I will work to create these charts in the more visually friendly PNG format.-- Robapalooza ( talk) 23:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Paisan30 states "we're not going to report on every campaign ad nor every controversy. save it for major stories about ad campaigns, if there are any." I might agree with Paisan30 if it were an isolated incident. However, there is an obvious pattern that has emerged recently:
All of the above links are from FactCheck.org. On their home page I see a few reports critical of Obama (but nowhere near as many as those critical of McCain), so FactCheck appears to cut both ways when they see lies in campaign ads. I think we owe the Wikipedia reader to provide reliable verifiable information about this controversy. -- Art Smart ( talk) 14:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the section above, I hereby retract my thanks. Your additions aren't the least bit neutral, and they totally ignore the well-documented lies in McCain's attack ads, as evaluated by neutral third parties. Please revise to improve neutrality ASAP. -- Art Smart ( talk) 19:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
A recent ad run by McCain alleged that Obama chose to skip a chance to meet with wounded troops because media was not allowed. The claims are being disputed. [6]
McCain attacked Obama for canceling a visit to an American military base to visit wounded U.S. troops while in Germany. [7] This was the subject of a McCain television advertisement, which chided Obama for making "time to go to the gym" instead of visiting with wounded troops. The Obama campaign responded, saying that it would be "innapropriate" to "have injured soldiers get pulled into the back-and-forth of a political campaign", which led a McCain spokesman to respond, "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."
Above is the content originally added today by Happyme22. Let's argue the specifics below. Thanks. -- Art Smart ( talk) 20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Some coverage of the fact that several media outlets reported McCain's claims to be transparently false would be nice. — goethean ॐ 20:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1. Why no mention that the whole trip was at the instigation of McCain himself? How else could it be "international?"
2. The
NewsHour segment answered all the questions about why Obama canceled visiting the wounded, and the truth differs markedly from the characterizations in McCain's ads. In that segment, both of the NewsHour's guests were neutral (one with FactCheck and the other being a news reporter), so their input is much more neutral then Happyme22's imperfect interpretations of the campaigns' backs-and-forths.
1. The Spears/Hilton ad has been widely criticized by journalists on multiple news outlets today (Good Morning America, Today show, local news). The Today Show's Matt Lauer was especially critical in his questions of the McCain surrogate. I've never seen him so offended by a guest.
2. On "The View" today, Whoopi Goldberg was highly critical of McCain's use of white girls in the Obama comparison, instead of celebrities like Will Smith. She repeatedly shouted "it was a junk ad" over Hasselbeck's objections. "The View" is just a symptom of widespread criticism of the Spears/Hilton ad. I'm sure there are tons of URLs out there equally critical of the ad, some of which would meet Wikipedia's RS guidelines.
I'll take a break for now, and give others the chance to chime in. Thanks. -- Art Smart ( talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably best to leave Happyme22's proposed new subsection out completely. The issues are changing so fast that by the time we reach a consensus (assuming that is possible), new issues will have overtaken them.
I agree that we need to avoid WP:RECENTISM. However, I suspect that long after this election is over, pundits will look back on McCain's sudden attack of negativism (to most) and prevarication (to some) as a key event in the arc of the election -- not a turning point, unless he ultimate wins, but obviously a high-stakes roll of the dice (possibly destroying his "straight talk" brand, which I've always thought was his greatest asset). For that reason I think these recent ads satisfy the requirement to avoid WP:RECENTISM. I just think we are too close to it time-wise, and of too divergent a set of opinions on how to interpret lessons from the exact same set reliable sources, to reach a consensus.
When I read Happyme22's proposed new subsection, I saw not the least bit of neutrality, though I'll grant he probably acted completely in good faith. For example, I can read the exact same reliable source and see a phrase like, "Overall, the media sees McCain's move as a sign that he is going negative on Obama," which Happyme22 certainly didn't quote in his proposed new subsection. For another example, Happyme22 has dismissed FactCheck.org as an unreliable source, but I'm unconvinced of his belief. And if it turns out that is a reliable source, then we owe it to our readers to reveal FactCheck's questioning of the honesty of McCain's campaign in multiple instances.
No doubt the two campaigns have now turned negative, and unfortunately, that is to be expected as inevitable (e.g., Kerry's slowness to respond to being swift boated is a mistake that Obama will not repeat). Any two opposing campaigns naturally will always differ as to who started the negativity. And as others have pointed out, our neutrality requires we tread with extreme caution on the subject of negativity, if at all.
But on the issue of honesty, when relable third parties have done the fact-checking, that's an area that meets all guidelines for inclusion in the article. That's why I originally stated, "A recent ad run by McCain alleged that Obama chose to skip a chance to meet with wounded troops because media was not allowed. The claims are being disputed." I cited the PBS NewsHour segment which used FactCheck's neutral research on the subject, as well as a Washington Post reporter who had first-hand knowledge of the events in question. I'm not sure how more neutral and reliable one could get on this or any other matter.
But while I would welcome a fuller exposition on the subject, in my opinion Happyme22's good-faith attempt at neutrality fell far short of the mark. I'm doubtful we could wordsmith it into something we could all agree upon, and even if we could, by then the issue would be overtaken with other notable events. Therefore, I say let's drop this whole proposed section. Anyone other ideas? Thanks. -- Art Smart ( talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
How is this notable? Furthermore, how is this not a wikipedia self-reference? A wiki editor emails a blogger and says these phrases look similar which is then picked up by a couple of bloggers. Additionally, is it even possible to plagerize historical facts which one would expect him to know....How many different ways could you possibly even say this information? This should be removed per undue weight, and lack of RS that actually show plagerism. Arzel ( talk) 02:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Randy Scheunemann be mentioned? While it's relevant to recent events, it certainly seems like an enduring relevant issue rather than the gaffe of the day - and it was in the news last spring. Some recent articles on it: in the NYT [ [8]] and the Wash Post [ [9]]. Eeblet ( talk) 06:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this edit. It's purely an issue of grammar and syntax, and doesn't affect neutrality one way or the other. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The article has been edited like so: "In the event of his victory in 2008, he would also become the first President of the United States not to be born within the contiguous United States (he was born in Panama within the
Panama Canal Zone)...."
Why remove the word "contiguous"? If it's removed, then the sentence appears to say that McCain was not born in the U.S. whereas this is debateable given that the Canal was at that time a U.S. possession. Isn't it true that McCain would be the first President not born in what are now the contiguous 48 states? Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This should remain in the article because it is accurate and verifiable and newsworthy.
In August of 2008, McCain supporters in the Pennsylvania GOP filed a lawsuit to remove Bob Barr from the ballot in Pennsylvania. [2] The suit says Libertarians waited too long to substitute Barr's name for the stand-in candidate whose name had appeared on petitions, although Barr's substitution fell well within the historically permitted period. Barr has called this the actions of a "dictator." Barr points out that in 2000, when New York GOP supporters of George W. Bush tried to remove McCain from the New York primary ballot, McCain spoke forcefully against trying to remove another candidate from the ballot, saying "We all know that the Berlin wall is down ... People should be able to get on the ballot in states," also describing it as something "I would never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of mine to challenge Governor Bush's right to be on the ballot in all 50 states." [3]
This action can be criticized as showing that:
Looking at the parallel article here Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008, it seems to me that way to much puffery has crept into this McCain article, most notably in its summary. I think in the interest of WP:NPOV we should be careful to keep the two articles similar in their tone and amount of detail. betsythedevine ( talk) 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the paragraph "The closeness of the relationship recalls McCain's earlier and continued contacts with corporate lobbyists including Charles Keating, Phil Gramm, Richard Davis, and Charlie Black. Black and Davis, like Iseman, are telcom lobbyists. Davis ran McCain's previous presidential campaign and Black is a senior advisor to McCain's 2008 campaign.[167]" The politico article cited [10] does not mention Iseman at all, making this paragraph a violation of WP:SYNTH. It is also off-topic in this section, as the section discusses the alleged romantic involvement. Finally, it seems to me than the synthesis was a violation of WP:NPOV which conflated one attack with another, leading to a greater negative impression of the subject. RayAYang ( talk) 05:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
What on earth is the picture of Sarah Palin from 1984 doing in the article? It serves no conceivable purpose. If there's no counter-arguments, I'll remove it. --- Alinnisawest, Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here) 20:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is important that somebody cracked (or betrayed) their security and prereleased that Sarah Palin was to be his running-mate the night before his official announcement. Inspite of extremely intense media pressure and scrutiny, no news outlets uncovered this information. Contrary to Wasted Time R's assertion, after checking his article's history, I see no wikipedians labelling Mitt Romney as the VP choice. People speculated that the VP choice night be Mitt, but nobody claimed that he was. -- Bertrc ( talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This opinion polling map includes another wikipedia article as it's reference. My understanding is that Wikipedia articles may not be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles per WP:SPS. Am I missing something? Shouldn't this kind of information be readily availabile from verifiable sources?-- Rtphokie ( talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Neutral Point of View States: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each"
I feel the reactions against McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as VP are grossly under-represented. There are far more positive reactions noted, and very few negative. I think the bias in the article could be reduced or eliminated simply by adding more references to negative reactions to McCain's choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.166.250 ( talk) 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The overwhelming response in the public sphere (i.e. mainstream media and public discussion) focuses on these aspects of her personal history and the process story on inadequate vetting. This should be given due prominence. The first paragraph which details an estimate of money raised, presented by a McCain aide on a blog, is given especially undue prominence. As a first start, I propose to reverse the order of this paragraph with that of the paragraph covering the vetting story in the MSM 79.74.148.122 ( talk) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Now the Palin article's in full lockdown. Just great, now more of them will come here to fight it out.... Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
1. Primary and General Campaigns as stand-alone articles
2. Split off polling graphics charts for battleground states
This article will not be getting any smaller. Time to consider splitting out the two major parts into subarticles. Let's get the Primary and General elections floated out into their own articles, and make this more of a summary-style article. Proposed titles, criticism in -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The battleground states polling charts are in both this article,
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008
What a surprise.
It's time to take these enormous graphics out of the article, and put them in a suitable location which both of these campaign articles would link to. I propose something like
U.S. presidential election 2008 polling charts in battleground states.
Comments, amendments, suggestions, complaints, counter-proposals below. I propose the same at the Obama campaign article talk page.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In the section on the reaction to the pick of Sarah Palin, I was struck by a rather interesting statistic.
Zogby reported that the announcement pushed the McCain/Palin ticket ahead of Obama/Biden, with 47% to 45% the margin of error being 2.2%.
That poll was an online, interactive poll. While Zogby appears to be standing behind it, I think it should be policy on this page, and on all political pages, to explain when a poll is am online one. If it were up to me, I'd remove that poll completely. Internet polls are not truly scientific. They are easy to manipulate. Sites that track polling data do not include them. The Rasmussen poll after it looks fine to me, and carries a similar perspective. I'm going to remove the Zogby poll. Porvida ( talk) 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed parts of the article are written in British English. They should be written in American English since this is an article most likely viewed by Americans. Does anyone dis/agree?-- 75.164.119.47 ( talk) 03:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This should be split into two pages: a primary campaign page and general campaign. It is way to long. Also the individual state polls should also get their own page.-- Levineps ( talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it time to start thinking about adding something about the claims that the McCain campaign is outright lying? For example (I know it's not a reliable source itself) see the rather impressive list at [11]. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I was over at the Barack Obama presidential campaign article and noticed that the section entitled:
* 5 Media campaign * 5.1 Television advertisements * 5.2 Campaign song * 5.3 Counter-campaign
Has no comparable section in the John Mccain presidential campaign. This should be resolved. Qutorial ( talk) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow - 5 paragraphs of 'hurray!" and one neutral response from Obama. You didn't even try to give a balanced impression of the reaction, did you? LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Happy, in one of your edit summaries you say "... while I question if this section should even remain here ..." I don't understand your reluctance to incorporate material on this. This is a major, major news event that's happening at the peak of the campaign; instead of the candidates talking about how many houses or lipsticks on pigs or the other usual daily campaign silliness, this is something that actually matters. Furthermore it may have a major effect on the outcome of the campaign, just as the Palin pick did, and we're certainly covering that extensively here. So I say, the more the better on how the McCain campaign has responded to the financial crisis. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that this should be added to the financial crisis section where McCain's economic comment is mentioned. http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/17/economists-mccain-right-on-fundamentals/.It talks about the large number of economists who agree with McCain that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. This would only be fair and if this is not added I see a bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.58.172 ( talk) 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This should be removed, "As President, McCain would not have the power to fire Cox; the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled such an action unconstitutional." It's wrong . The source used is a blog as well. Theosis4u ( talk) 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Such a section needs to express reactions both positive and negative. The section basically only lists off supporters' views of the matter. That's why I changed the heading to "Reaction to Palin among supporters", thinking in good faith that maybe that's what someone actually meant. Now that the heading has been reverted, I see that there was no attempt at neutrality - thus, the need for the POV tag. You have a choice between keeping the heading intact, or the content intact. If you want the content of the section to stay as is, I would recommend restoring the heading, "Reaction to Palin among supporters". Otherwise, if you want the heading to stay as is, I will be coming back inserting reactions of equal weight, opposing Palin, to create the NPOV that is absent at present. After all, half the country can't stand her, so listing off glowing republican statements of support is wildly inaccurate in the absence of a list of outraged democratic/green/other statements of opposition. Best, LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this section because:
Removing this material was discussed a few threads above, and therefore I hope that this will not result in signifcant objections. Best as always, Happyme22 ( talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Should "Suspended September 24, 2008" be added to the infobox, considering recent developments? Bflorsheim ( talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There was no suspension of his campaign. His surrogates and ads remained on television. Huffington Post bloggers, working the phones, couldn’t find a single McCain campaign office that had gone on hiatus.
... is not mentioned. Jooler ( talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the colored map in the opinion polling section sort of the definition of original research? If we want a colored map, shouldn't we use a specific one from a reliable source, perhaps [12]? I strongly suggest this map be referenced to a much more reliable source than a Wikipedia article (which is specifically prohibited by WP:RS). -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I added this to the article, but someone erased it:
Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a pro-Obama book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is being released on January 20, 2009. [4] [5] [6]
Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a separate debate article, so details about debate moderators belong there (if anywhere), not here. — KCinDC ( talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Last part of final sentence in the "Palin reaction" section reads: ...these commentators believing her responses revealed her considerable political acumen.[254]
I don't seem to be able to find this in the cited reference. Please would some kind soul with better eyesight and/or a longer attention span direct me to it? - Writegeist ( talk) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
There is new information about facts on this subject that needs to be added. See the latest issue of The New Yorker, as well as numerous other sources on the subject. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ----Rawkcuf. (This is the same 'form letter' I've sent to all the other dicussion pages for candidate' articles. I understand that there is some major upheaval going on with John McCain's staff, so that it may make this issue irrelevant. I noticed that there was a lot of mention given to departing staff members-- perhaps it would help to put things on a more positive note, and mention those that remain. Just an observation. -R.) [04:39, 20 September 2007 Rawkcuf]
I noticed these on Thompson's, Romney's and Guliani's articles as well. As far as I know normal articles don't present these many graphs in excess. You don't write scientific articles this way. You refer to images in the text. These images are just pasted blatanly filling more than half the article. It is very annoying, disruptive for reading and actually not very informative either in the context and layout they are presented. Lord Metroid 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As some of you may know there have been flyers found around South Carolina which make "claims" that John McCain was a "songbird" who turned on other POWs while imprisoned in North Vietnam supposedly in order to get better treatment. Following the smears that happened in the 2000 campaign against McCain he set up a "truth squad" in South Carolina and quickly disavowed these "claims". The following are the front and back of these flyers both in pdf format:
In the bottom-right of the back of the flyer there are two links which take you to the following sites:
The first is run by Jerry Kiley and the second is run by Ted Sampley. Here is an AP piece on CBS News that talks about the Kiley connection to this incident and also here is the Sourcewatch article on Ted Sampley. I don't regularly edit the John McCain article but I thought I might as well leave this information here so that other regulars on this article could consider how to add this information on the article. Thanks.-- Jersey Devil ( talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ross Perot attacked McCain pretty badly. Shouldn't this be added? -- S TX 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone comfirm that the radio talkshows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been attacking John McCain lately? I don't get it. Spongefan ( talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the fact that the Florida Governor endorsed John McCain, this should be added to this article or another one.
Reed Ebarb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.179.35 ( talk) 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought McCain won the closed caucus in Louisiana; how come it isn't mentioned in this article? - 134.50.75.114 ( talk) 17:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Trying to figure out how to set up Super Tuesday... this article is already pretty long. If McCain gets the nomination, are we going to separate into primary/general election articles? I guess this applies to whoever gets the nominations. Paisan30 ( talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Bytebear has placed a cleanup tag on the "Caucuses and primaries 2008" section of the article, with the edit summary "sounds too much like a story, and not an encycolpedia article". Which raises the question, what would be a useful encyclopedia article about McCain's campaign? Most encyclopedias don't have separate articles on campaigns, so there isn't much prior art to go by. But to me, it should read like a narrative history of the campaign, describing what happened when and outlining the general themes and strategies of the campaign and why they led to eventual success or failure. Wasted Time R ( talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
McCain won all the delegates? I thought this primary was proportional? GoodDay ( talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
So--which section of the article should be put her in? 4.246.120.240 ( talk) 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrap up — this grew inactive; there was no consensus to merge; the bio article on her still exists. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
We have an article at Vicki Iseman. I have proposed it should be merged here, as she is unremarkable outside of gossip in this campaign, interested parties may wish to comment on the talk page of that article.-- Docg 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does she fail the test of notability? Should we have waited for Brian McNamee to appear on Ellen before including an article? What is the relevance whether the "thing" is true or not? Which part are you referring to? The ethical conflicts or the report that two advisers feared that she was romantically involved? The source doesn't state she was romantically involved. Regardless, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And the details of the controversy are given only a mention in Iseman. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
This article is properly sourced, pared down and entirely neutral. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)When writing about a person notable only for one or two events ... biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
If you are proposing to bring forward the personal and career details of the Iseman page, then you are recommending a merger. I'm all for a merger discussion as long as we are actually stating that the "stuff from the Iseman page be brought forward -- at this point, there is little redundancy. It is best left where it is per WP:BLP:You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That is fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add the new stuff [emphasis mine].
The bio is pared, sourced, neutral and on-topic (re: Iseman). ∴ Therefore | talk 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
Well, many others seem to think a merger is better.-- Docg 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Does this really deserve such promenence in the article? Same for his birthplace? I would rather see those maybe at the end of the introduction as they appear more as trivia rather than details about the actual campaign. Thoughts? Thanks, -- 70.109.223.188 ( talk) 20:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrap up — this grew inactive; there was no consensus to merge; the lobbyist controversy article still exists. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The article prior to blanking and redirection
This event was too abruptly made into its own article. The media has already stopped covering it almost entirely. No major consequences occurred because of the Times' article. John McCain denied the allegations the same day; the media made a fuss for two days about the Times' credibility and John McCain's lobbying record; the controversy ended. It's not like, for examples, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal or the Burr-Hamilton duel, which had a marked history and the events went on for a marked period of time and had lasting ramifications. Unless this story later proves to become a much bigger and important aspect of the 2008 elections, it should only remain as a subsection under McCain's presidential run and in the 2008 U.S. elections in general. -- Mbenzdabest ( talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just saw on Fox News that he won the Repub nomination; I'll provide a cite in a minute. Happyme22 ( talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This should not be there. Every candidate's campaign has a group of people who oppose it for one reason or another. Be it a political or personal reason those people are always there. However, they should not be mentioned in this article. There was a section in the Clinton campaign article about opposition to her campaign and it was removed becuase it was believed to create bias. The same set of rules should hold true for all candidates. If McCain has it Clinton should have and if she doesn't neither should he. ---
I don't think that including an opposing forces section necessarily creates bias. I do agree that a uniform rule should apply to all candidates, but I'm guessing that not the same people visit (and thus edit) McCain's article and Clinton's, so that seems like wishful thinking. Regardless, I removed the "citizens" (which claimed that McCain was a racist and didn't care about certain states) from the list of opposing forces because that was clearly biased. Lv99redwizard ( talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we split this article into John McCain presidential primary campaign, 2008 with information about the primary contests, and an article under the title John McCain general election presidential campaign, 2008 based on the general election. The article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 should remain but should be very vague in its coverage and link to the two new more indepth articles. -- S TX 04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Paisan30 ( talk) 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. This article isn't that long right now, and we could probably pare it down a bit further. Not much is going to happen in McCain's campaign from now until the convention ... the next big event is when he picks a vice presidential candidate. I'd say we leave it as just one article and see how it goes. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Another approach is to split out the endorsements section into a separate subarticle, as was done for the Hillary and Obama endorsements. This would reduce the article size, and would especially reduce the number of references, which is the thing that impacts article load time the most. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as McCain has a majority of the delegates pledged to him for the Republican presidential nomination. I wonder if it would be too early to have a section concerning speculative vice presidential running-mates (with reliable sources provided). I'm assuming a speculative based section isn't a good idea though. Any thoughts? GoodDay ( talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks WT. GoodDay ( talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to have a wikilink to United States Republican vice presidential candidates, 2008. Why not? Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I went ahead and added it. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we can stop adding all of the Representatives, Governors, etc. McCain is the Republican nominee. Nearly every Republican on the national and state level will endorse him. Paisan30 ( talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
More importantly, List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements was created on March 12 by User:Iamwisesun, akin to the breakouts that were done for Hillary and Obama. Good idea. But he/she failed to remove the contents from this article, or to do a "main" template link from this article to the new one, so people kept updating this article in ignorance of that one (while some people discovered the subarticle and were updating that one). I've now removed the endorsement contents from here, after reapplying those updates made here after March 12 (there weren't too many, fortunately) to the subarticle. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just doing a comparison between various sets of articles on wikipedia. Does the McCain set of articles have anything like the Obama's set of A More Perfect Union (An apparently minor campaign development as its own article)? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 09:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The article John McCain presidential eligibility has been nominated for deletion by myself here. -- Naerii 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
i was just wondering why this article contains no mention of mccain seeking and gaining the endorsement of controversial preacher john hagee. the obama article spends a while discussing jeremiah wright and i think its only fair that the mccain article contain information about this much looked over endorsement. ps sorry about the formatting issues with this post, im relatively new to wikipedia and havent completely gotten the hang of it yet. g.j.g ( talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
i added a paragraph on it, im still not quite sure how to put in foot notes and linmks so here are my two main sources http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html and http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/03/new_video_revea.php g.j.g ( talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) also i think i kinda messed up with the formatting any advise would be appreciaed :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
the democrat homepage is for the "john mccain garnerd criticism from democrats" part of what i wrote. whether or not it would be considered a biased source normally is irrelevant what matters is that this IS what the democrats are saying. as for the huffington post it was just the first link that i could find. you want more ok http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2749859920080228?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 , http://youtube.com/watch?v=HS9F7O2lhWg&feature=related (normally not a reliable source but its a video of cnn which is), http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/mccain-hagee-hewitt/ (this (which i only used for 1 of mccains quotes is probabely not the most reliable so if u ccan get me another quotewhere mccain discusses hagges quotes being taken out of contest please do), for the controversial statements e said you can use the same things listed in the john hagee article if u need anymore please tell me and ill give you more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hagee has endorsed Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. McCain said, "I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support." [1]
As i stated earlier in this discussion i have all of the nesscacary sources but im not sure how to insert them, if anybody else wants to insert them and/or teach me how to i would greatly appreciate it g.j.g ( talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
their are two things that confuse me about recent edits, first off perhaps the best place to put the hagee section wasnt under controversies but how IS the best place "allegations of innapropriate involvement with lobbyists"? and two i think that the george bush thing is very relevant, not only is it one of the main reasons that the dems r criticising mccain but it also helps provide background for why people are so angered by mccain. this is my personal humble opinion on the article but in order to avoid a revert war and actiong under the assumption that the people who editted this wouldnt have done so without a reason im going to wait for a day or so (or until i get a response) to give the editors a chance to explain themselves g.j.g ( talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
first off its one of the leasing criticisms that the dems have towards mccain second off how is it a shot at bush, its saying that mccain scalded bush back in 2000 for doing the exact same thing that mccain did with hagee??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
would you mnd clarifying on that statement please??? which phrases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Odd, ALL of Hagee's article does not mention anti-black, nor anti-women, however this article includes it (unsourced ofc) If you are having problems inserting references, use the last icon above the editing window or use: <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> 195.216.82.210 ( talk) 14:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
My concern here is with Hagee and those who have endorsed him, but I pause to note that the Hagee-McCain association antedates Hagee’s formal endorsement last week. In fact, in South Carolina back in September, Hagee was invited to introduce McCain at a pre-primary rally titled “No Surrender”; his full-throated introduction was until recently featured on McCain’s campaign Web site.
McCain’s immediate response, later partially modified, to the Hagee endorsement was all smiles: “I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support.” (Just imagine that Obama had invited Farrakhan for a joint appearance and had spoken of his pride in obtaining Farrakhan’s endorsement.)
The Washington Times reports on April 11,2008,on page A1(top article),about the extensive and lucrative ties of John McCain's top advisors and fund raisers to foreign governments including Communist China and Saudi Arabia. The supporters include: Charles Black, who has received more than $700,000 to lobby for the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Thomas Loeffler, who has received more than $10 million to advance the interests of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Rob Allyn, who was paid $720,000 to promote the cause of Mexican nationals who are in the U.S. illegally. Peter T. Madigan, a top Washington lobbyist whose clients include the trade bureau of the nation of Columbia. Kirk Blalock, national chairman of Young Professionals for McCain, whose lobbying firm which was established in 1978 represents Peru, Vietnam and Bahrain. These ties are significant in any relevant context, from politics to macroeconomics, and speak to Mcain's fundamental goals and ethics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk) 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The current--May--issue of Harper's Magazine has a lead article entitled "My Lobby Myself: How John McCain's Hypocrisy Is Laundered as Reform. "The article deconstruct's McCain's Reform Institute and shows how it violates nearly every reform it claims to advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 ( talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My quick survey of the boxes didn't reveal what the problem was. Can someone please look into this and fix it? Thanks Enigma message 00:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, only liberal groups raised questions over McCain's eligibility. Is there a reference for an actual non-left leaning group (not coverage of, but an actual non partisan group) raising questions? If so, then the current version would work. If not, however, then the partisan motives of the questioners warrants inclusion. Trilemma ( talk) 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the books section being removed, though some others may desire its inclusion. So, just in case they want to make a case for its inclusion, I'll open a discussion area for it. Trilemma ( talk)
Using Wikipedia data from a related article Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008 and Excel, I crunched the numbers in states where the lead in the polls for any one candidate is close or has shown signs of swinging back and forth between Obama and McCain. At this point, I've selected Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana and Missouri for additional analysis using charts and trendlines. I believe that these seven states are, as it happens, a good representative example, because three of the states are currently leaning toward Obama (Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania), three are currently leaning toward McCain (Florida, Indiana and Missouri) and Virginia is virtually tied. Incidentally, between these seven states, there are 120 electoral votes at stake, which represents 44% of the total (270) needed to secure the nomination. In most of the states, there are still at least about 10% of the voters with no opinion yet between the two candidates (or are supporting a third candidate). Your thoughts, suggestions and general input are greatly appreciated. If time is available, I will work to create these charts in the more visually friendly PNG format.-- Robapalooza ( talk) 23:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Paisan30 states "we're not going to report on every campaign ad nor every controversy. save it for major stories about ad campaigns, if there are any." I might agree with Paisan30 if it were an isolated incident. However, there is an obvious pattern that has emerged recently:
All of the above links are from FactCheck.org. On their home page I see a few reports critical of Obama (but nowhere near as many as those critical of McCain), so FactCheck appears to cut both ways when they see lies in campaign ads. I think we owe the Wikipedia reader to provide reliable verifiable information about this controversy. -- Art Smart ( talk) 14:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the section above, I hereby retract my thanks. Your additions aren't the least bit neutral, and they totally ignore the well-documented lies in McCain's attack ads, as evaluated by neutral third parties. Please revise to improve neutrality ASAP. -- Art Smart ( talk) 19:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
A recent ad run by McCain alleged that Obama chose to skip a chance to meet with wounded troops because media was not allowed. The claims are being disputed. [6]
McCain attacked Obama for canceling a visit to an American military base to visit wounded U.S. troops while in Germany. [7] This was the subject of a McCain television advertisement, which chided Obama for making "time to go to the gym" instead of visiting with wounded troops. The Obama campaign responded, saying that it would be "innapropriate" to "have injured soldiers get pulled into the back-and-forth of a political campaign", which led a McCain spokesman to respond, "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."
Above is the content originally added today by Happyme22. Let's argue the specifics below. Thanks. -- Art Smart ( talk) 20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Some coverage of the fact that several media outlets reported McCain's claims to be transparently false would be nice. — goethean ॐ 20:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1. Why no mention that the whole trip was at the instigation of McCain himself? How else could it be "international?"
2. The
NewsHour segment answered all the questions about why Obama canceled visiting the wounded, and the truth differs markedly from the characterizations in McCain's ads. In that segment, both of the NewsHour's guests were neutral (one with FactCheck and the other being a news reporter), so their input is much more neutral then Happyme22's imperfect interpretations of the campaigns' backs-and-forths.
1. The Spears/Hilton ad has been widely criticized by journalists on multiple news outlets today (Good Morning America, Today show, local news). The Today Show's Matt Lauer was especially critical in his questions of the McCain surrogate. I've never seen him so offended by a guest.
2. On "The View" today, Whoopi Goldberg was highly critical of McCain's use of white girls in the Obama comparison, instead of celebrities like Will Smith. She repeatedly shouted "it was a junk ad" over Hasselbeck's objections. "The View" is just a symptom of widespread criticism of the Spears/Hilton ad. I'm sure there are tons of URLs out there equally critical of the ad, some of which would meet Wikipedia's RS guidelines.
I'll take a break for now, and give others the chance to chime in. Thanks. -- Art Smart ( talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably best to leave Happyme22's proposed new subsection out completely. The issues are changing so fast that by the time we reach a consensus (assuming that is possible), new issues will have overtaken them.
I agree that we need to avoid WP:RECENTISM. However, I suspect that long after this election is over, pundits will look back on McCain's sudden attack of negativism (to most) and prevarication (to some) as a key event in the arc of the election -- not a turning point, unless he ultimate wins, but obviously a high-stakes roll of the dice (possibly destroying his "straight talk" brand, which I've always thought was his greatest asset). For that reason I think these recent ads satisfy the requirement to avoid WP:RECENTISM. I just think we are too close to it time-wise, and of too divergent a set of opinions on how to interpret lessons from the exact same set reliable sources, to reach a consensus.
When I read Happyme22's proposed new subsection, I saw not the least bit of neutrality, though I'll grant he probably acted completely in good faith. For example, I can read the exact same reliable source and see a phrase like, "Overall, the media sees McCain's move as a sign that he is going negative on Obama," which Happyme22 certainly didn't quote in his proposed new subsection. For another example, Happyme22 has dismissed FactCheck.org as an unreliable source, but I'm unconvinced of his belief. And if it turns out that is a reliable source, then we owe it to our readers to reveal FactCheck's questioning of the honesty of McCain's campaign in multiple instances.
No doubt the two campaigns have now turned negative, and unfortunately, that is to be expected as inevitable (e.g., Kerry's slowness to respond to being swift boated is a mistake that Obama will not repeat). Any two opposing campaigns naturally will always differ as to who started the negativity. And as others have pointed out, our neutrality requires we tread with extreme caution on the subject of negativity, if at all.
But on the issue of honesty, when relable third parties have done the fact-checking, that's an area that meets all guidelines for inclusion in the article. That's why I originally stated, "A recent ad run by McCain alleged that Obama chose to skip a chance to meet with wounded troops because media was not allowed. The claims are being disputed." I cited the PBS NewsHour segment which used FactCheck's neutral research on the subject, as well as a Washington Post reporter who had first-hand knowledge of the events in question. I'm not sure how more neutral and reliable one could get on this or any other matter.
But while I would welcome a fuller exposition on the subject, in my opinion Happyme22's good-faith attempt at neutrality fell far short of the mark. I'm doubtful we could wordsmith it into something we could all agree upon, and even if we could, by then the issue would be overtaken with other notable events. Therefore, I say let's drop this whole proposed section. Anyone other ideas? Thanks. -- Art Smart ( talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
How is this notable? Furthermore, how is this not a wikipedia self-reference? A wiki editor emails a blogger and says these phrases look similar which is then picked up by a couple of bloggers. Additionally, is it even possible to plagerize historical facts which one would expect him to know....How many different ways could you possibly even say this information? This should be removed per undue weight, and lack of RS that actually show plagerism. Arzel ( talk) 02:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Randy Scheunemann be mentioned? While it's relevant to recent events, it certainly seems like an enduring relevant issue rather than the gaffe of the day - and it was in the news last spring. Some recent articles on it: in the NYT [ [8]] and the Wash Post [ [9]]. Eeblet ( talk) 06:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this edit. It's purely an issue of grammar and syntax, and doesn't affect neutrality one way or the other. Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The article has been edited like so: "In the event of his victory in 2008, he would also become the first President of the United States not to be born within the contiguous United States (he was born in Panama within the
Panama Canal Zone)...."
Why remove the word "contiguous"? If it's removed, then the sentence appears to say that McCain was not born in the U.S. whereas this is debateable given that the Canal was at that time a U.S. possession. Isn't it true that McCain would be the first President not born in what are now the contiguous 48 states? Ferrylodge ( talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This should remain in the article because it is accurate and verifiable and newsworthy.
In August of 2008, McCain supporters in the Pennsylvania GOP filed a lawsuit to remove Bob Barr from the ballot in Pennsylvania. [2] The suit says Libertarians waited too long to substitute Barr's name for the stand-in candidate whose name had appeared on petitions, although Barr's substitution fell well within the historically permitted period. Barr has called this the actions of a "dictator." Barr points out that in 2000, when New York GOP supporters of George W. Bush tried to remove McCain from the New York primary ballot, McCain spoke forcefully against trying to remove another candidate from the ballot, saying "We all know that the Berlin wall is down ... People should be able to get on the ballot in states," also describing it as something "I would never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of mine to challenge Governor Bush's right to be on the ballot in all 50 states." [3]
This action can be criticized as showing that:
Looking at the parallel article here Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008, it seems to me that way to much puffery has crept into this McCain article, most notably in its summary. I think in the interest of WP:NPOV we should be careful to keep the two articles similar in their tone and amount of detail. betsythedevine ( talk) 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the paragraph "The closeness of the relationship recalls McCain's earlier and continued contacts with corporate lobbyists including Charles Keating, Phil Gramm, Richard Davis, and Charlie Black. Black and Davis, like Iseman, are telcom lobbyists. Davis ran McCain's previous presidential campaign and Black is a senior advisor to McCain's 2008 campaign.[167]" The politico article cited [10] does not mention Iseman at all, making this paragraph a violation of WP:SYNTH. It is also off-topic in this section, as the section discusses the alleged romantic involvement. Finally, it seems to me than the synthesis was a violation of WP:NPOV which conflated one attack with another, leading to a greater negative impression of the subject. RayAYang ( talk) 05:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
What on earth is the picture of Sarah Palin from 1984 doing in the article? It serves no conceivable purpose. If there's no counter-arguments, I'll remove it. --- Alinnisawest, Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here) 20:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is important that somebody cracked (or betrayed) their security and prereleased that Sarah Palin was to be his running-mate the night before his official announcement. Inspite of extremely intense media pressure and scrutiny, no news outlets uncovered this information. Contrary to Wasted Time R's assertion, after checking his article's history, I see no wikipedians labelling Mitt Romney as the VP choice. People speculated that the VP choice night be Mitt, but nobody claimed that he was. -- Bertrc ( talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This opinion polling map includes another wikipedia article as it's reference. My understanding is that Wikipedia articles may not be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles per WP:SPS. Am I missing something? Shouldn't this kind of information be readily availabile from verifiable sources?-- Rtphokie ( talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Neutral Point of View States: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each"
I feel the reactions against McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as VP are grossly under-represented. There are far more positive reactions noted, and very few negative. I think the bias in the article could be reduced or eliminated simply by adding more references to negative reactions to McCain's choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.166.250 ( talk) 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The overwhelming response in the public sphere (i.e. mainstream media and public discussion) focuses on these aspects of her personal history and the process story on inadequate vetting. This should be given due prominence. The first paragraph which details an estimate of money raised, presented by a McCain aide on a blog, is given especially undue prominence. As a first start, I propose to reverse the order of this paragraph with that of the paragraph covering the vetting story in the MSM 79.74.148.122 ( talk) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Now the Palin article's in full lockdown. Just great, now more of them will come here to fight it out.... Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
1. Primary and General Campaigns as stand-alone articles
2. Split off polling graphics charts for battleground states
This article will not be getting any smaller. Time to consider splitting out the two major parts into subarticles. Let's get the Primary and General elections floated out into their own articles, and make this more of a summary-style article. Proposed titles, criticism in -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The battleground states polling charts are in both this article,
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008
What a surprise.
It's time to take these enormous graphics out of the article, and put them in a suitable location which both of these campaign articles would link to. I propose something like
U.S. presidential election 2008 polling charts in battleground states.
Comments, amendments, suggestions, complaints, counter-proposals below. I propose the same at the Obama campaign article talk page.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In the section on the reaction to the pick of Sarah Palin, I was struck by a rather interesting statistic.
Zogby reported that the announcement pushed the McCain/Palin ticket ahead of Obama/Biden, with 47% to 45% the margin of error being 2.2%.
That poll was an online, interactive poll. While Zogby appears to be standing behind it, I think it should be policy on this page, and on all political pages, to explain when a poll is am online one. If it were up to me, I'd remove that poll completely. Internet polls are not truly scientific. They are easy to manipulate. Sites that track polling data do not include them. The Rasmussen poll after it looks fine to me, and carries a similar perspective. I'm going to remove the Zogby poll. Porvida ( talk) 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed parts of the article are written in British English. They should be written in American English since this is an article most likely viewed by Americans. Does anyone dis/agree?-- 75.164.119.47 ( talk) 03:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This should be split into two pages: a primary campaign page and general campaign. It is way to long. Also the individual state polls should also get their own page.-- Levineps ( talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it time to start thinking about adding something about the claims that the McCain campaign is outright lying? For example (I know it's not a reliable source itself) see the rather impressive list at [11]. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I was over at the Barack Obama presidential campaign article and noticed that the section entitled:
* 5 Media campaign * 5.1 Television advertisements * 5.2 Campaign song * 5.3 Counter-campaign
Has no comparable section in the John Mccain presidential campaign. This should be resolved. Qutorial ( talk) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow - 5 paragraphs of 'hurray!" and one neutral response from Obama. You didn't even try to give a balanced impression of the reaction, did you? LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Happy, in one of your edit summaries you say "... while I question if this section should even remain here ..." I don't understand your reluctance to incorporate material on this. This is a major, major news event that's happening at the peak of the campaign; instead of the candidates talking about how many houses or lipsticks on pigs or the other usual daily campaign silliness, this is something that actually matters. Furthermore it may have a major effect on the outcome of the campaign, just as the Palin pick did, and we're certainly covering that extensively here. So I say, the more the better on how the McCain campaign has responded to the financial crisis. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that this should be added to the financial crisis section where McCain's economic comment is mentioned. http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/17/economists-mccain-right-on-fundamentals/.It talks about the large number of economists who agree with McCain that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. This would only be fair and if this is not added I see a bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.58.172 ( talk) 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This should be removed, "As President, McCain would not have the power to fire Cox; the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled such an action unconstitutional." It's wrong . The source used is a blog as well. Theosis4u ( talk) 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Such a section needs to express reactions both positive and negative. The section basically only lists off supporters' views of the matter. That's why I changed the heading to "Reaction to Palin among supporters", thinking in good faith that maybe that's what someone actually meant. Now that the heading has been reverted, I see that there was no attempt at neutrality - thus, the need for the POV tag. You have a choice between keeping the heading intact, or the content intact. If you want the content of the section to stay as is, I would recommend restoring the heading, "Reaction to Palin among supporters". Otherwise, if you want the heading to stay as is, I will be coming back inserting reactions of equal weight, opposing Palin, to create the NPOV that is absent at present. After all, half the country can't stand her, so listing off glowing republican statements of support is wildly inaccurate in the absence of a list of outraged democratic/green/other statements of opposition. Best, LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this section because:
Removing this material was discussed a few threads above, and therefore I hope that this will not result in signifcant objections. Best as always, Happyme22 ( talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Should "Suspended September 24, 2008" be added to the infobox, considering recent developments? Bflorsheim ( talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There was no suspension of his campaign. His surrogates and ads remained on television. Huffington Post bloggers, working the phones, couldn’t find a single McCain campaign office that had gone on hiatus.
... is not mentioned. Jooler ( talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the colored map in the opinion polling section sort of the definition of original research? If we want a colored map, shouldn't we use a specific one from a reliable source, perhaps [12]? I strongly suggest this map be referenced to a much more reliable source than a Wikipedia article (which is specifically prohibited by WP:RS). -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I added this to the article, but someone erased it:
Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a pro-Obama book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is being released on January 20, 2009. [4] [5] [6]
Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a separate debate article, so details about debate moderators belong there (if anywhere), not here. — KCinDC ( talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Last part of final sentence in the "Palin reaction" section reads: ...these commentators believing her responses revealed her considerable political acumen.[254]
I don't seem to be able to find this in the cited reference. Please would some kind soul with better eyesight and/or a longer attention span direct me to it? - Writegeist ( talk) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
There is new information about facts on this subject that needs to be added. See the latest issue of The New Yorker, as well as numerous other sources on the subject. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)