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 realize that I never made note here that I began a major reworking and improvement of the article starting on 8 November 2007. I added a lot of biographical detail that had previously been missing, from early life all the way through his recovery from the Keating Five scandal (and aim to keep going). I merged the 'Personal life' section into the flow of the article's mainline sections, as McCain is a figure whose personal life changes are inextricably woven into his military and political life. I merged the 'Controversies' section into the article's mainline sections, as is currently being done for many political figures; in this case the Keating Five material clearly belonged in the Senate sections, while the various controversial remarks clearly belonged in a new section dealing with his temperment, public image and persona. I merged the 'Political positions' material into the subarticle that already deals with that, and I moved excessive detail in the 2008 campaign section to the subarticle that deals with that. I've tried to improve the consistency of the citing in the article, but more remains to be done with that and more ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
A couple quick comments about recent reversions. This photo from the Library of Congress seems to unequivocally identify McCain being pulled from a Lake.
Regarding being a "maverick", the present Wikipedia article says, “Reason and Los Angeles Times writer Matt Welch, author of McCain: The Myth of a Maverick, sees political pundits as projecting their own ideological fantasies upon McCain,” so there apparently is a school of thought that him being a maverick is a myth. On the other hand, how does McCain self-identify? Here's a quote from McCain:
“ | All my life I've stood a little apart from institutions I willingly joined. It just felt natural to me. But in a life that shared no common purpose, my so-called maverick nature, if that is what it truly is, wouldn't have amounted to much beyond eccentricity. There is no honor or happiness in just being strong enough to be left alone. | ” |
Anyway, those are my quick comments. Longer version available on request. :-) Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
McCain' active and successful fund raising among the K Street lobbying community and his tit for tat deliverance of legislative outcomes for donations was covered extensively by the Washington Post this December 31, 2007. The article is titled "McCain's Unlikely Ties to K Street" and it surveys the contradictions in McCain's political persona and the actual record. This difference surely seems to be a grand theme of his political life and deserves inclusion in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.159.213 ( talk) 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
there should be added a section on his wife/wives and family in the main article
/s willy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.5.90 ( talk) 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you guys write the story of his "walk through the market in Baghdad"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.29.76 ( talk) 11:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The map shows Bush winning Arizona and McCain winning New Mexico, but McCain won Arizona, as stated in the article. Therefore I'm deleting the map. Hopefully someone can find one that's public domain and contains the corrext information.-- Antodav2007 ( talk) 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I just read http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
It seems that this should be mentioned in the article. However, the problem is of course that we only have a he said-he said story. Still, it was a big story in 2001 (and again in the New York Times in 2004) and I think it should be mentioned. Additionally, John Kerry claimed that he was approached by people working for McCain "to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President". http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033
While the source MyDD will perhaps not be acceptable as a trusted source, they provide an audio tape which has Kerry's statements, so it is clear that he did say this, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlFrei ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 16 January 2008 (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) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
We do note it several times:
We also have a whole article, United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, on the committee, that covers the agreements and disagreements between McCain/Kerry and Bob Smith. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to start making an effort with the length of this article. It seems to me that much of the information is quite detailed and at times overbearing. I am just looking for feedback on things to cut if you want to share. Yialanliu ( talk) 03:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Another thing I have noticed is that this is a biography and wikipedia has a strict standard on a biography. "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." I believe the exposure of every detial of McCain's life is turning this article into a tabloid and this article makes little details seem important. Yialanliu ( talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The article isn't too long, McCains life has just been that incredible.
24.8.106.182 ( talk) 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Another question. Would it be possible to get this reviews for GA status as in if it does not acquire it, a list of suggestions would be helpful. Yialanliu ( talk) 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yialanliu, the thing you said in your comments at WP:BLPN that most bothered me was this: "The goal of this article is trying to portray someone as a maverick. Every thing about McCain is his actions that differ from the norm. This characterizes McCain as someone who is not normal and leads to an impression that he is deranged which is against NPOV." Do we perhaps have some kind of cultural misunderstanding here? In America, being thought of as a "maverick" is usually a good thing, and in this particular case, it is responsible for much of McCain's popularity. He's a "straight talker", he doesn't blindly obey stupid authority, he doesn't always follow the party line, he thinks for himself and says what he thinks, he doesn't always care about political correctness, and so forth. These departures from the norm do not make him "deranged", as you seem to think; rather, the American people often thinks it's what makes you a genuine individual. For other examples of popular cultural "mavericks" see Maverick (TV series) or Top Gun (film) (the Tom Cruise lead character was named "Maverick") or Ford Maverick (Car) or Dallas Mavericks. The article is not trying to say that McCain is "not normal", rather that he is a normal human being in a classic American sense. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/01/mccain_problems/print.html talks about mainstream media favoritising McCain who is not maverick anymore. From article: - would he vote for his own McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill if it came to the Senate floor tomorrow? No answer - Bush tax cuts, which he opposed on principle in 2001 and which he currently seems to support retroactively - He dropped his opposition to the religious right years ago, and has since walked away from the campaign finance reform crusade that once defined him - Reform Institute, Created after his failed presidential run in 2000, is a hybrid between a domestic issues think tank and a tasty sugar teat for campaign staffers. its own financing is not subject to the regulations and disclosures of federal election law. corporate donors with issues before the Commerce Committee could chip in a few bucks (with examples). Soft money loophole, by maverick reformer?
Every major news media is saying 12 million...-- Paleofreak ( talk) 14:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, have | has any of you heard the "more wars" tape that seems to have become available either today or yesterday? That deserves a paragraph.
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 12:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The article claims: "On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying as part of a 20-plane attack against a thermal power plant in central Hanoi, a heavily defended target area that had previously been off-limits to U.S. raids.[34][35] McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile[35] while pulling up after dropping its bombs.[36]"
This is NOT uncontroverted. Here is the text of an article (not online except via Lexis-Nexis, but it can be accessed here: http://lefti.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_archive.html#111746161273835959 ) that appeared in Knight-Ridder papers, e.g., the Philadelphia Inquirer on Feb. 5, 2000. McCain and the other planes were not bombing a "thermal power plant," they were bombing...a light-bulb factory. A war crime. This article is based on an interview with the man who saved him, who happened to be a security guard at that factory.
---
On that gray morning more than 32 years ago, McCain was knocked unconscious briefly when he ejected from his damaged bomber. Both his arms were broken, his right knee was shattered, and when he splashed into the middle of Truc Bach (White Silk) Lake, his 50 pounds of flight gear kept him from reaching the surface.
When [Mai Van] On finally got to him, about 200 yards out, all the older man could see was a bit of white silk, the top of the American's parachute.
With U.S. planes still bombing and strafing their target of the day - a nearby light-bulb factory where On worked as a security guard - On used a stout bamboo pole to hoist McCain off the bottom of the lake.
"If I had hesitated even one more minute, I'm sure he would have died," said On, still vigorous at 83 and still living in the same spot on the southern edge of the lake in the heart of downtown Hanoi.
"John McCain was lucky that morning," On said. "It was about 11 a.m. I had just come home for lunch and put my bicycle into the house. Then the air-raid siren went off, and 60 or 70 of us ran to a tunnel to avoid the bombs. I was at the entrance to the tunnel when I saw the pilot go into the water.
"The tunnel was still shaking from the bombing when I ran to the lake."
The two men differ on some small details of the rescue, but what is not in dispute is that On managed to drag McCain ashore, where a crowd of about 40 people had gathered. Unaware that their injured prisoner was the son of a high-ranking American admiral, they stripped McCain to his underwear, then began kicking him, spitting on him, screaming for him to be killed.
"One of them slammed a rifle butt down on my shoulder and smashed it pretty badly," McCain later wrote. "Another stuck a bayonet in my foot."
Then some young men approached with bricks in their hands.
"They tried to beat him in the head with the bricks, but I covered him," On said. "They surely would have beaten him to death. I said I wanted to rescue this man and return him to his family."
A nurse arrived and put bamboo splints on McCain's broken arms and leg, but when she tried to give him some sort of pill, he spit it out. A military ambulance appeared and carted him off to Hoa Lo prison in downtown Hanoi. Hoa Lo, which means "fiery oven" in Vietnamese, came to be known to many Americans as the "Hanoi Hilton." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftionthenews ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Vanity fair magazine ( http://www.vanityfair.com./politics/features/2007/02/mccain200702?currentPage=5) claims "Because his broken arms were allowed to heal without ever being properly set, to this day McCain cannot raise his arms above his shoulders." This photo ( http://johnmccain.com/images/hp/012908_flwin1a_01.jpg) is obviously recent, and his arm is above his shoulders. Is the photo manipulated, or is Vanity Fair wrong? Jcc1 ( talk) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed 'Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services', 'Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs' and 'Chairman of the Senate Committee of Commerce' from the infobox as McCain is the only holder of any of these positions who has it included. Also, it makes the infobox overly long. -- Hera1187 ( talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we at least wait until February 5th, before adding leading?? GoodDay ( talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The post in this section that says that McCain is not a war here is sociopathic in it's disregard for McCain's experience of torture during his 5 years as a Prisoner of War-- Yes McCain is without question a hero for enduring torture and war imprisonment no matter what kind of pilot he was. And the person who wrote the post underneath this one may in fact be a sociopath working as a paid political hitman to try to smear McCain.
Also there is a factual innacuracy (lie might be a better word) in the post as well-- my own father was an Air Force pilot-- and a Court Martial does not automatically follow a loss of an aircraft-- a review board always follows, which is not a court martial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean7phil ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Expect more of these anti-McCain smear tactics as the campaign grinds on. Not everyone has a conscience and not everyone has a heart.
(Statistically, 1 in 25 people is a sociopath-- read the post in this section claiming that mcCain is not a war here for an example of a live sociopath or at the very least a bitter misanthrope at work).
Sean7phil ( talk) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point and you could be right-- but the effect is the same-- smearing character and out of proportion thinking.
However one additional point-- I grew up intimately close to the POW / MIA movement (and some of it's original leadership) and Government Conspiracy was never the narrative for the whole movement-- it was / is the narrative for a small but vocal minority within that movement. Most of it's activists never had government conspiracy as a primary orientation. There were concerns about the government not making POWs a strong enough priority in relation to many competing wartime and post-war priorities, but for most "National League of Families" members this perception never rose to the level of outright conspiracy.
Sean7phil ( talk) 13:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a great idea! There should be a wikipedia article on the history of the POW / MIA movement and the Nationial League of Familes. Would you be interested in contributing to such an article?
Sean7phil ( talk) 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
All this talk about McCain being a war hero is utter nonsense.
His nickname in the Navy was "Ace" and "Reverse Ace" McCain. He piloted 5 Navy planes to their destruction and managed not to get court marshalled even once. Those who have served in the military know that when you are involved in the destruction of an expensive piece of military equipment a court marshall will follow. His first crash occurred in 1958 when he crashed a jet into Corpus Christi Bay. He claimed it was engine failure but when the engine was flush of salt water, then engine started up on the first try. The author of McCain's biography, Robert Timberg, cited several sources that only McCain's daddy the admiral kept him from being cashiered out of the Navy for his poor piloting skills.
He lost his 5th plane over Vietnam when it was shot down. It has been well noted that mCCain was tortured by his Vietnamese captures. Being tortured does NOT make you a hero. When he was offered early release because his father was an admiral, he was SUPPOSE to turn it down. American POWs are NOT suppose to accept special privilidges from their captures. If he accepted the early release, he would have violated military policy. You are NOT a hero when you do what your are suppose to do....
I have several sources but Robert Timberg's biography of McCain is my main source....... Here is a quote from one of McCain's flight instructors. "(McCain was) positively one of the weakest students to pass our way, and received consistently poor marks and a number of Dangerous Down grades assigned by more than one instructor. He had no real ability and was clearly out of his element in an airplane, and way over his head even as a junior naval officer." McCain owed his military career to his daddy the admiral. And speaking of McCain's father, he was a below average sub captain with regard to Japanese tonage sunk. BUT.....lucky for McCain's father, he was an admiral as well he got his son promotions. The only McCain of real ability was the grandfather......the son and the grandson are stories of nepotism and unearned promotions.... Felixnietzsche ( talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think doing what you are supposed to do does in fact make you a hero. Withstanding torture and doing your best to be honorable is heroic by my definition, if not yours. My father is actually an Air Force Cross recipient and was there during the time McCain was there. I don't know about McCain's flying ability, but the US had actually lost air superiority because of the SAM threat. We developed new tactics (Wild Weasels) to combat the threat, but many "good sticks" were lost before we cracked the code.
Regardless, unlike Clinton and even Bush, McCain did his duty (like Kerry) and it irks me highly when people try to take away from him on this basis. Based on my impression of POWs who were there with him (I know two), he was not the most nor the least honorable of them. He obviously was not the best pilot either, but he went and tried. There is something called situation awareness that you either have or you don't. He apparently didn't. He still did his duty, and he had a big chunk of his life robbed. As an American, I feel grateful to him. If you don't, OK, but please attack his politics based on his politics. Don't be so annoyed because some of us feel a sense of debt to him for his service and his lost health and youth.
I believe I have heard a story about a massive rescue mission being mounted to get McCain which was called off by McCain's father because of the futility of it. Not sure if I have this story completely correct. Has anyone else heard it? -- 72.47.157.252 ( talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That isn't what I meant. When a pilot was down, there was almost always a rescue operation immediately organized to extract the pilot before captured. I am talking about the day he was downed, not some operation undertaken to free a pilot already in North Vietnamese custody way after the fact. Anyhow, the story I heard had to do with his father calling of this rescue operation. -- Hhoblit ( talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised that there is not more discussion, particularly in his political views, on the long-term US commitment to Iraq. Iraq is mentioned, but not discussed in terms of forward looking policy. Is there an objection to coverage of this issue? 84.84.77.16 ( talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The article cited about McCain's opposition to the tax cuts (politifact.com) has been updated. It now notes that the opposition was not based on fiscal responsibly. Further, in every interview in 2001 and 2003 about the tax cuts (even 2004 - Meet the Press), McCain cites that he did not like the distribution of the tax cuts.
Thus, I think this line, at the very least, should be removed "arguing that he would support the tax cut plan if they were tied to subsequent decreases in spending" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.224.15 ( talk) 07:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
At 157K, this article is entirely too long. I'm on a cable modem and it takes too long to load. Maybe the 2000 Presidential election section (which is covered in another article) or the 2001-07 section (which probably goes into more detail than is necessary) could be trimmed. -- B ( talk) 20:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the old photo. This one was made before digital cameras. I can hardly recognize him with black eyebrows. 71.178.155.155 ( talk) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
71.178.155.155 ( talk) 07:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I am failing to understand how the phrase "mocking Governor Hull's opposition in the former" is supported by the footnoted article John McCain Report: The 'maverick' runs", The Arizona Republic, 2007-03-01.
I have read the article and don't see any mocking by McCain in it. Nightkey ( talk) 03:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Where is this cited and how do we know this? I think it is not a neutral statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.184.205 ( talk) 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but how is it relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 ( talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't see how a Senetor who partied in college and ranked near the bottom of his class is relevent? Reinoe ( talk) 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely not trivia and belongs in the article, because it's part-and-parcel of his rebellious, defiant personality then and now that he couldn't be bothered to do better. It's the same part of him that delights in ticking off orthodox conservatives, for example. However, this whole theme of his personality isn't really established in the lead section, so to include this in the lead without the relevant context (including that his poor performance was not due to poor intellect) is unfair. As I am the guilty party who put it in the lead, I'm removing it. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I agree with most of the people here that this info belongs in the article. However, I also agree with those who say it shoulod not be in the lead. The reason why it shouldn't be in the lead is because the body of the article includes the following sentence: "Possessed of a strong intelligence,[17] he did well in a few subjects that interested him, such as English literature, history and government." Without this context in the lead, the mere class rank is misleading. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Both McCain's grandfather and father were Admirals in the United States Navy. McCain attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he was intelligent and had done well in subjects that interested him. He became a naval aviator, flying attack aircraft from carriers. During the Vietnam War in 1967, he narrowly escaped death in the Forrestal fire. On his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam later in 1967, he was shot down and badly injured. He then endured five and a half years as a prisoner of war, including periods of torture, before he was released following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.
to
Both McCain's grandfather and father were Admirals in the United States Navy. McCain attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he did well in subjects that interested him. During the Vietnam War in 1967, he narrowly escaped death in the Forrestal fire. On his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam later in 1967, he was shot down and badly injured. He then endured five and a half years as a prisoner of war, including periods of torture, before he was released following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. Jensiverson ( talk) 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is his picture a tulip?
Florian
203.128.81.26 ( talk) 07:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
He did have —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.199.124 ( talk) 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I modified the claim that many Vietnamese Americans supported his use of gook and didn't find it offensive [3]. If you read the source carefully, it's quite clear that while many people understood why he felt the way he felt and some felt it was not offensive, others did find it offensive. The source specifically says the response was mixed not that many supported him. It quotes 2 or 3 people, I presume there are more but obviously no scientific poll was conducted of the Vietnamese-American community so it's impossible to know what proportion of the population supported his use of the term. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Isn't it a requirement for the US president to have been born inside the US (or to be more correct: to be a "natural born citizen") (thus Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't become the US president because he was born in Austria, even though he is a "naturalized citizen"). However, the Panama Canal Zone was kind of USA (organized incorporated territory) when McCain was born, so does that rule (not) apply?
Wouldn't it be interesting to address this question in the article? If only to clear up things? Or is it safe to assume that McCain and his supporters assume that he is in fact eligible to become president if only because no one would risk so much money and power and then be denied eligibility for office?-- Soylentyellow ( talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The top of the article currently includes this:
This seems like massive overkill. McCain's 2008 campaign is already linked at the top of the corresponding section of this article. Also, his father and grandfather are already linked at the disambiguation page. How about if we just say at the top of this article:
That should be sufficient, shouldn't it? Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The simplest solution here is just to go back to status quo ante, no deliberate up-top mention of the campaign article at all. WP:SUMMARY doesn't call for any such thing, after all; the pointers to the subarticles are supposed to come in the relevant sections that summarize them, which we already do. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is the main page locked out from edits? There are some historical details that are in the process of being verified right now that are very pertinent to the whole POW issue.
The material being verified is as follows:
The fact is, in exchange for better medical treatment, McCain violated this code four days after being captured on Oct. 26, 1967. In a U.S. News and World Report interview dated May 14, 1973, two months after he was released, McCain admitted that he exchanged military information in exchange for spending six weeks in a hospital normally reserve for North Vietnamese Military officers.
U.S. government records show that less than two weeks after he was taken to the hospital, Hanoi's press began quoting specific military information, including the name of the aircraft carrier on which McCain had been based, information about the location of rescue ships and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place.
The records demonstrate, according to the Dispatch article that McCain continued to collaborate with the Communists after he recovered from his injuries. He did a number of propaganda broadcasts that were aimed at destroying the moral of American servicemen fighting in the jungles of South Vietnam, On June 4, 1969, a U.S. Wire Service story reported one of McCain's broadcasts. The service reported "Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of the U.S. Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praised medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner."
McCain committed other breaches of the Code of Conduct by meeting with and giving interviews to foreign news reporters and anti American delegations.
McCain admits to talking with numerous high-ranking North Vietnamese leaders, including General Vo Nguyen Giap, their Minister of Defense.
He also did a cozy interview over coffee, oranges, and cake with a Cuban psychiatrist, which took place in the Hanoi office of the Committee for Foreign Cultural Relations.
He failed to "evade answering questions to the utmost of his ability;" by actually conversing with his interviewer in Spanish.
If this is backed up by the original articles, and I might add I have further information that the Washington Post carried that the wire service story mentioned on or about June 6, 1969, I think it is seriously important to add this information. The government sources mentioned are also being verified.
For any foreigners here, if this pans out and is verifiable, we here in the United States would consider John McCain to be the lowest of all Traitors, a POW who sold out to the enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 ( talk) 12:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Call this what you want, but if factual, it's fair play, and I might add, much more fair than what the Republicans did to Kerry.
Oh, and based on what I'm seeing here, does wikipedia have the campaign itself vetting the page? That's unethical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 ( talk) 12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, isn't it interesting the rapport he had with the psychiatric-trained Cuban intelligence officer? Has anyone seen "The Manchurian Candidate"? (of course I will leave that comment out of the article, and only state the known facts, as verified, and sourced). 66.41.19.246 ( talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What are the verification requirements? would a full bittorrent of all relevant documents scanned at 600dpi released to every bittorrent site in the world suffice for proper proof of verification (I've had experiences with the mods here before, and in cases dissing a republican this is what I think may be required to get the material into a wikipedia article).. US News and World Report should be archived at most major universities and libraries. The Washington Post. Maybe even the Vietnamese Government might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 ( talk) 12:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should find funding for a TV commercial if this pans out. Would that count as verification? Wikipedia took the words of the swift boat liars as fact at face value four years ago, and sanctioned anyone who posted information to the contrary, iirc. 66.41.19.246 ( talk) 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'll make several general responses to what you say.
More to follow on the specifics. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
On the specifics of the namvets.com material:
So all in all, unless some new reliable sources come forward here, there isn't anything that can be added to the article other than the two changes I've already indicated. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This sentence has me confused: "He returned to Pensacola station, where he served as a flight instructor at Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi, where McCain Field was named for his grandfather." Pensacola is in Florida, right? So, how could he serve as a flight instructor in Pensacola if he was in Mississippi? Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty now with this sentence: "By now it was clear that McCain's naval career was stalled; he would never be promoted to admiral as his grandfather and father had been. [7]" I'm not sure where this is in the cited NYT article. On the contrary, the NYT article says he had political (and presidential) aspirations while visiting the Hanoi Hilton. Where does the cited source say that he despaired of becoming an admiral? It may well say it, and I just missed it. Ferrylodge ( talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Nowadays there is a memorial at Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi that commemorates John McCain's capture. Can we use this free image instead of the unfree one that we currently use for his capture? DHN ( talk) 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've lightened up the sentence about his nicknames. [8] It seems pretty clear from the cited source that this was all in good fun. Here's a quote from the cited source:
“ | At Episcopal, students called McCain the “Punk,” a moniker he relished. From his senior yearbook entry, McCain is pictured in a trench coat, collar up, cigarette dangling from his lips. His classmates wrote: “It was three fateful years ago that the ‘Punk’ first crossed the threshold of the high school. His magnetic personality has won for him many life-long friends. John is remarkable for the amount of gray hair he has; this may come from his cramming for Annapolis or from his nocturnal perambulations.” | ” |
Ferrylodge ( talk) 10:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I don't know about your high school yearbook, but in general their senior year captions aren't always the most balanced portrayals. I'd suggest you read all of Timberg's "The Punk" chapter, then see what you think. This might be the key depiction:
Now Timberg gives a three-dimensional, full-colored painting of McCain back then, which is hard for us to capture briefly in this article. But I don't think your "lightening up" is correct; when you say,
I think you're wrong about the "playful" and you're wrong about the "many". Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Your current description is "Known as 'Punk' and 'McNasty', he playfully cultivated the image of a raff, and his magnetic personality won him friends;[8][13] he had a fiery personality ..." How does this "playfully" that you still use square with this part in Timberg:
I've read through Timberg several times, and I still don't get the feeling of "playful". Timberg alludes to McCain's cultivated image coming from James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause and Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye. Neither of these archetypes is usually viewed as "playful". And please understand, the point here is not "namecalling" at all! It's to establish a biographical character base. 'Cause the McCain back then is what grew into all the other McCain's, the one who survived injuries that everyone thought he would die from and the one withstood his captors and the one who keeps trying when his bill gets shelved and the one who curses at and annoys his fellow senators and the one who doesn't give a damn if he offends conservative orthodoxy and the one who keeps on going after his campaign implodes ... it's all the same guy. Wasted Time R ( talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
With the elections coming up, I'm sure there are people adding to wikipedia from within the campaign offices of each candidate. We should be extra vigialent in watching out for weasal words and try to remain neutral as possible, not only on the Mccain article but also the people he may be running against. If you read the article on Mike Huckabee, there seems to be a more neutral tone. The Huckabee article doesn't seem to be presenting useless information.
I find sentences like this "but suffered a near-collapse of his campaign in mid-2007 due to financial issues, and due to his support for comprehensive immigration reform." rather biased don't you think? Ok, his campaign may have suffered a near collapse, but really due to immigration reform? This obviously needs a citation also but at the same time adds useless information? Do some people feel this way too?
And this sentence also, "And graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he was intelligent and had done well in subjects that interested him." OK, doesn't this also seem like it adds useless information? Hqduong ( talk) 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone with editing privileges can make use of some of this material:
http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=display&webtag=bc-politics&tid=1854
<cut-and-paste of board's long anti-McCain rant deleted>
Fatswaller ( talk) 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
He didn't "publish" it. He may have written it, but publishing it is different. kthxbai. :-) -- 198.185.18.207 ( talk) 14:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest expanding the first line to "frontrunner candidate", since its pretty obvious, right? I can't, someone blocked the page.
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 realize that I never made note here that I began a major reworking and improvement of the article starting on 8 November 2007. I added a lot of biographical detail that had previously been missing, from early life all the way through his recovery from the Keating Five scandal (and aim to keep going). I merged the 'Personal life' section into the flow of the article's mainline sections, as McCain is a figure whose personal life changes are inextricably woven into his military and political life. I merged the 'Controversies' section into the article's mainline sections, as is currently being done for many political figures; in this case the Keating Five material clearly belonged in the Senate sections, while the various controversial remarks clearly belonged in a new section dealing with his temperment, public image and persona. I merged the 'Political positions' material into the subarticle that already deals with that, and I moved excessive detail in the 2008 campaign section to the subarticle that deals with that. I've tried to improve the consistency of the citing in the article, but more remains to be done with that and more ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
A couple quick comments about recent reversions. This photo from the Library of Congress seems to unequivocally identify McCain being pulled from a Lake.
Regarding being a "maverick", the present Wikipedia article says, “Reason and Los Angeles Times writer Matt Welch, author of McCain: The Myth of a Maverick, sees political pundits as projecting their own ideological fantasies upon McCain,” so there apparently is a school of thought that him being a maverick is a myth. On the other hand, how does McCain self-identify? Here's a quote from McCain:
“ | All my life I've stood a little apart from institutions I willingly joined. It just felt natural to me. But in a life that shared no common purpose, my so-called maverick nature, if that is what it truly is, wouldn't have amounted to much beyond eccentricity. There is no honor or happiness in just being strong enough to be left alone. | ” |
Anyway, those are my quick comments. Longer version available on request. :-) Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
McCain' active and successful fund raising among the K Street lobbying community and his tit for tat deliverance of legislative outcomes for donations was covered extensively by the Washington Post this December 31, 2007. The article is titled "McCain's Unlikely Ties to K Street" and it surveys the contradictions in McCain's political persona and the actual record. This difference surely seems to be a grand theme of his political life and deserves inclusion in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.159.213 ( talk) 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
there should be added a section on his wife/wives and family in the main article
/s willy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.5.90 ( talk) 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you guys write the story of his "walk through the market in Baghdad"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.29.76 ( talk) 11:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The map shows Bush winning Arizona and McCain winning New Mexico, but McCain won Arizona, as stated in the article. Therefore I'm deleting the map. Hopefully someone can find one that's public domain and contains the corrext information.-- Antodav2007 ( talk) 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I just read http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
It seems that this should be mentioned in the article. However, the problem is of course that we only have a he said-he said story. Still, it was a big story in 2001 (and again in the New York Times in 2004) and I think it should be mentioned. Additionally, John Kerry claimed that he was approached by people working for McCain "to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President". http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033
While the source MyDD will perhaps not be acceptable as a trusted source, they provide an audio tape which has Kerry's statements, so it is clear that he did say this, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlFrei ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 16 January 2008 (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) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
We do note it several times:
We also have a whole article, United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, on the committee, that covers the agreements and disagreements between McCain/Kerry and Bob Smith. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to start making an effort with the length of this article. It seems to me that much of the information is quite detailed and at times overbearing. I am just looking for feedback on things to cut if you want to share. Yialanliu ( talk) 03:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Another thing I have noticed is that this is a biography and wikipedia has a strict standard on a biography. "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." I believe the exposure of every detial of McCain's life is turning this article into a tabloid and this article makes little details seem important. Yialanliu ( talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The article isn't too long, McCains life has just been that incredible.
24.8.106.182 ( talk) 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Another question. Would it be possible to get this reviews for GA status as in if it does not acquire it, a list of suggestions would be helpful. Yialanliu ( talk) 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yialanliu, the thing you said in your comments at WP:BLPN that most bothered me was this: "The goal of this article is trying to portray someone as a maverick. Every thing about McCain is his actions that differ from the norm. This characterizes McCain as someone who is not normal and leads to an impression that he is deranged which is against NPOV." Do we perhaps have some kind of cultural misunderstanding here? In America, being thought of as a "maverick" is usually a good thing, and in this particular case, it is responsible for much of McCain's popularity. He's a "straight talker", he doesn't blindly obey stupid authority, he doesn't always follow the party line, he thinks for himself and says what he thinks, he doesn't always care about political correctness, and so forth. These departures from the norm do not make him "deranged", as you seem to think; rather, the American people often thinks it's what makes you a genuine individual. For other examples of popular cultural "mavericks" see Maverick (TV series) or Top Gun (film) (the Tom Cruise lead character was named "Maverick") or Ford Maverick (Car) or Dallas Mavericks. The article is not trying to say that McCain is "not normal", rather that he is a normal human being in a classic American sense. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/01/mccain_problems/print.html talks about mainstream media favoritising McCain who is not maverick anymore. From article: - would he vote for his own McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill if it came to the Senate floor tomorrow? No answer - Bush tax cuts, which he opposed on principle in 2001 and which he currently seems to support retroactively - He dropped his opposition to the religious right years ago, and has since walked away from the campaign finance reform crusade that once defined him - Reform Institute, Created after his failed presidential run in 2000, is a hybrid between a domestic issues think tank and a tasty sugar teat for campaign staffers. its own financing is not subject to the regulations and disclosures of federal election law. corporate donors with issues before the Commerce Committee could chip in a few bucks (with examples). Soft money loophole, by maverick reformer?
Every major news media is saying 12 million...-- Paleofreak ( talk) 14:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, have | has any of you heard the "more wars" tape that seems to have become available either today or yesterday? That deserves a paragraph.
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 12:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The article claims: "On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying as part of a 20-plane attack against a thermal power plant in central Hanoi, a heavily defended target area that had previously been off-limits to U.S. raids.[34][35] McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile[35] while pulling up after dropping its bombs.[36]"
This is NOT uncontroverted. Here is the text of an article (not online except via Lexis-Nexis, but it can be accessed here: http://lefti.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_archive.html#111746161273835959 ) that appeared in Knight-Ridder papers, e.g., the Philadelphia Inquirer on Feb. 5, 2000. McCain and the other planes were not bombing a "thermal power plant," they were bombing...a light-bulb factory. A war crime. This article is based on an interview with the man who saved him, who happened to be a security guard at that factory.
---
On that gray morning more than 32 years ago, McCain was knocked unconscious briefly when he ejected from his damaged bomber. Both his arms were broken, his right knee was shattered, and when he splashed into the middle of Truc Bach (White Silk) Lake, his 50 pounds of flight gear kept him from reaching the surface.
When [Mai Van] On finally got to him, about 200 yards out, all the older man could see was a bit of white silk, the top of the American's parachute.
With U.S. planes still bombing and strafing their target of the day - a nearby light-bulb factory where On worked as a security guard - On used a stout bamboo pole to hoist McCain off the bottom of the lake.
"If I had hesitated even one more minute, I'm sure he would have died," said On, still vigorous at 83 and still living in the same spot on the southern edge of the lake in the heart of downtown Hanoi.
"John McCain was lucky that morning," On said. "It was about 11 a.m. I had just come home for lunch and put my bicycle into the house. Then the air-raid siren went off, and 60 or 70 of us ran to a tunnel to avoid the bombs. I was at the entrance to the tunnel when I saw the pilot go into the water.
"The tunnel was still shaking from the bombing when I ran to the lake."
The two men differ on some small details of the rescue, but what is not in dispute is that On managed to drag McCain ashore, where a crowd of about 40 people had gathered. Unaware that their injured prisoner was the son of a high-ranking American admiral, they stripped McCain to his underwear, then began kicking him, spitting on him, screaming for him to be killed.
"One of them slammed a rifle butt down on my shoulder and smashed it pretty badly," McCain later wrote. "Another stuck a bayonet in my foot."
Then some young men approached with bricks in their hands.
"They tried to beat him in the head with the bricks, but I covered him," On said. "They surely would have beaten him to death. I said I wanted to rescue this man and return him to his family."
A nurse arrived and put bamboo splints on McCain's broken arms and leg, but when she tried to give him some sort of pill, he spit it out. A military ambulance appeared and carted him off to Hoa Lo prison in downtown Hanoi. Hoa Lo, which means "fiery oven" in Vietnamese, came to be known to many Americans as the "Hanoi Hilton." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftionthenews ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Vanity fair magazine ( http://www.vanityfair.com./politics/features/2007/02/mccain200702?currentPage=5) claims "Because his broken arms were allowed to heal without ever being properly set, to this day McCain cannot raise his arms above his shoulders." This photo ( http://johnmccain.com/images/hp/012908_flwin1a_01.jpg) is obviously recent, and his arm is above his shoulders. Is the photo manipulated, or is Vanity Fair wrong? Jcc1 ( talk) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed 'Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services', 'Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs' and 'Chairman of the Senate Committee of Commerce' from the infobox as McCain is the only holder of any of these positions who has it included. Also, it makes the infobox overly long. -- Hera1187 ( talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we at least wait until February 5th, before adding leading?? GoodDay ( talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The post in this section that says that McCain is not a war here is sociopathic in it's disregard for McCain's experience of torture during his 5 years as a Prisoner of War-- Yes McCain is without question a hero for enduring torture and war imprisonment no matter what kind of pilot he was. And the person who wrote the post underneath this one may in fact be a sociopath working as a paid political hitman to try to smear McCain.
Also there is a factual innacuracy (lie might be a better word) in the post as well-- my own father was an Air Force pilot-- and a Court Martial does not automatically follow a loss of an aircraft-- a review board always follows, which is not a court martial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean7phil ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Expect more of these anti-McCain smear tactics as the campaign grinds on. Not everyone has a conscience and not everyone has a heart.
(Statistically, 1 in 25 people is a sociopath-- read the post in this section claiming that mcCain is not a war here for an example of a live sociopath or at the very least a bitter misanthrope at work).
Sean7phil ( talk) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point and you could be right-- but the effect is the same-- smearing character and out of proportion thinking.
However one additional point-- I grew up intimately close to the POW / MIA movement (and some of it's original leadership) and Government Conspiracy was never the narrative for the whole movement-- it was / is the narrative for a small but vocal minority within that movement. Most of it's activists never had government conspiracy as a primary orientation. There were concerns about the government not making POWs a strong enough priority in relation to many competing wartime and post-war priorities, but for most "National League of Families" members this perception never rose to the level of outright conspiracy.
Sean7phil ( talk) 13:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a great idea! There should be a wikipedia article on the history of the POW / MIA movement and the Nationial League of Familes. Would you be interested in contributing to such an article?
Sean7phil ( talk) 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
All this talk about McCain being a war hero is utter nonsense.
His nickname in the Navy was "Ace" and "Reverse Ace" McCain. He piloted 5 Navy planes to their destruction and managed not to get court marshalled even once. Those who have served in the military know that when you are involved in the destruction of an expensive piece of military equipment a court marshall will follow. His first crash occurred in 1958 when he crashed a jet into Corpus Christi Bay. He claimed it was engine failure but when the engine was flush of salt water, then engine started up on the first try. The author of McCain's biography, Robert Timberg, cited several sources that only McCain's daddy the admiral kept him from being cashiered out of the Navy for his poor piloting skills.
He lost his 5th plane over Vietnam when it was shot down. It has been well noted that mCCain was tortured by his Vietnamese captures. Being tortured does NOT make you a hero. When he was offered early release because his father was an admiral, he was SUPPOSE to turn it down. American POWs are NOT suppose to accept special privilidges from their captures. If he accepted the early release, he would have violated military policy. You are NOT a hero when you do what your are suppose to do....
I have several sources but Robert Timberg's biography of McCain is my main source....... Here is a quote from one of McCain's flight instructors. "(McCain was) positively one of the weakest students to pass our way, and received consistently poor marks and a number of Dangerous Down grades assigned by more than one instructor. He had no real ability and was clearly out of his element in an airplane, and way over his head even as a junior naval officer." McCain owed his military career to his daddy the admiral. And speaking of McCain's father, he was a below average sub captain with regard to Japanese tonage sunk. BUT.....lucky for McCain's father, he was an admiral as well he got his son promotions. The only McCain of real ability was the grandfather......the son and the grandson are stories of nepotism and unearned promotions.... Felixnietzsche ( talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think doing what you are supposed to do does in fact make you a hero. Withstanding torture and doing your best to be honorable is heroic by my definition, if not yours. My father is actually an Air Force Cross recipient and was there during the time McCain was there. I don't know about McCain's flying ability, but the US had actually lost air superiority because of the SAM threat. We developed new tactics (Wild Weasels) to combat the threat, but many "good sticks" were lost before we cracked the code.
Regardless, unlike Clinton and even Bush, McCain did his duty (like Kerry) and it irks me highly when people try to take away from him on this basis. Based on my impression of POWs who were there with him (I know two), he was not the most nor the least honorable of them. He obviously was not the best pilot either, but he went and tried. There is something called situation awareness that you either have or you don't. He apparently didn't. He still did his duty, and he had a big chunk of his life robbed. As an American, I feel grateful to him. If you don't, OK, but please attack his politics based on his politics. Don't be so annoyed because some of us feel a sense of debt to him for his service and his lost health and youth.
I believe I have heard a story about a massive rescue mission being mounted to get McCain which was called off by McCain's father because of the futility of it. Not sure if I have this story completely correct. Has anyone else heard it? -- 72.47.157.252 ( talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That isn't what I meant. When a pilot was down, there was almost always a rescue operation immediately organized to extract the pilot before captured. I am talking about the day he was downed, not some operation undertaken to free a pilot already in North Vietnamese custody way after the fact. Anyhow, the story I heard had to do with his father calling of this rescue operation. -- Hhoblit ( talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised that there is not more discussion, particularly in his political views, on the long-term US commitment to Iraq. Iraq is mentioned, but not discussed in terms of forward looking policy. Is there an objection to coverage of this issue? 84.84.77.16 ( talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The article cited about McCain's opposition to the tax cuts (politifact.com) has been updated. It now notes that the opposition was not based on fiscal responsibly. Further, in every interview in 2001 and 2003 about the tax cuts (even 2004 - Meet the Press), McCain cites that he did not like the distribution of the tax cuts.
Thus, I think this line, at the very least, should be removed "arguing that he would support the tax cut plan if they were tied to subsequent decreases in spending" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.224.15 ( talk) 07:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
At 157K, this article is entirely too long. I'm on a cable modem and it takes too long to load. Maybe the 2000 Presidential election section (which is covered in another article) or the 2001-07 section (which probably goes into more detail than is necessary) could be trimmed. -- B ( talk) 20:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the old photo. This one was made before digital cameras. I can hardly recognize him with black eyebrows. 71.178.155.155 ( talk) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
71.178.155.155 ( talk) 07:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I am failing to understand how the phrase "mocking Governor Hull's opposition in the former" is supported by the footnoted article John McCain Report: The 'maverick' runs", The Arizona Republic, 2007-03-01.
I have read the article and don't see any mocking by McCain in it. Nightkey ( talk) 03:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Where is this cited and how do we know this? I think it is not a neutral statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.184.205 ( talk) 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but how is it relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 ( talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't see how a Senetor who partied in college and ranked near the bottom of his class is relevent? Reinoe ( talk) 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely not trivia and belongs in the article, because it's part-and-parcel of his rebellious, defiant personality then and now that he couldn't be bothered to do better. It's the same part of him that delights in ticking off orthodox conservatives, for example. However, this whole theme of his personality isn't really established in the lead section, so to include this in the lead without the relevant context (including that his poor performance was not due to poor intellect) is unfair. As I am the guilty party who put it in the lead, I'm removing it. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I agree with most of the people here that this info belongs in the article. However, I also agree with those who say it shoulod not be in the lead. The reason why it shouldn't be in the lead is because the body of the article includes the following sentence: "Possessed of a strong intelligence,[17] he did well in a few subjects that interested him, such as English literature, history and government." Without this context in the lead, the mere class rank is misleading. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Both McCain's grandfather and father were Admirals in the United States Navy. McCain attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he was intelligent and had done well in subjects that interested him. He became a naval aviator, flying attack aircraft from carriers. During the Vietnam War in 1967, he narrowly escaped death in the Forrestal fire. On his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam later in 1967, he was shot down and badly injured. He then endured five and a half years as a prisoner of war, including periods of torture, before he was released following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.
to
Both McCain's grandfather and father were Admirals in the United States Navy. McCain attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he did well in subjects that interested him. During the Vietnam War in 1967, he narrowly escaped death in the Forrestal fire. On his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam later in 1967, he was shot down and badly injured. He then endured five and a half years as a prisoner of war, including periods of torture, before he was released following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. Jensiverson ( talk) 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is his picture a tulip?
Florian
203.128.81.26 ( talk) 07:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
He did have —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.199.124 ( talk) 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I modified the claim that many Vietnamese Americans supported his use of gook and didn't find it offensive [3]. If you read the source carefully, it's quite clear that while many people understood why he felt the way he felt and some felt it was not offensive, others did find it offensive. The source specifically says the response was mixed not that many supported him. It quotes 2 or 3 people, I presume there are more but obviously no scientific poll was conducted of the Vietnamese-American community so it's impossible to know what proportion of the population supported his use of the term. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Isn't it a requirement for the US president to have been born inside the US (or to be more correct: to be a "natural born citizen") (thus Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't become the US president because he was born in Austria, even though he is a "naturalized citizen"). However, the Panama Canal Zone was kind of USA (organized incorporated territory) when McCain was born, so does that rule (not) apply?
Wouldn't it be interesting to address this question in the article? If only to clear up things? Or is it safe to assume that McCain and his supporters assume that he is in fact eligible to become president if only because no one would risk so much money and power and then be denied eligibility for office?-- Soylentyellow ( talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The top of the article currently includes this:
This seems like massive overkill. McCain's 2008 campaign is already linked at the top of the corresponding section of this article. Also, his father and grandfather are already linked at the disambiguation page. How about if we just say at the top of this article:
That should be sufficient, shouldn't it? Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The simplest solution here is just to go back to status quo ante, no deliberate up-top mention of the campaign article at all. WP:SUMMARY doesn't call for any such thing, after all; the pointers to the subarticles are supposed to come in the relevant sections that summarize them, which we already do. Wasted Time R ( talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is the main page locked out from edits? There are some historical details that are in the process of being verified right now that are very pertinent to the whole POW issue.
The material being verified is as follows:
The fact is, in exchange for better medical treatment, McCain violated this code four days after being captured on Oct. 26, 1967. In a U.S. News and World Report interview dated May 14, 1973, two months after he was released, McCain admitted that he exchanged military information in exchange for spending six weeks in a hospital normally reserve for North Vietnamese Military officers.
U.S. government records show that less than two weeks after he was taken to the hospital, Hanoi's press began quoting specific military information, including the name of the aircraft carrier on which McCain had been based, information about the location of rescue ships and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place.
The records demonstrate, according to the Dispatch article that McCain continued to collaborate with the Communists after he recovered from his injuries. He did a number of propaganda broadcasts that were aimed at destroying the moral of American servicemen fighting in the jungles of South Vietnam, On June 4, 1969, a U.S. Wire Service story reported one of McCain's broadcasts. The service reported "Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of the U.S. Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praised medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner."
McCain committed other breaches of the Code of Conduct by meeting with and giving interviews to foreign news reporters and anti American delegations.
McCain admits to talking with numerous high-ranking North Vietnamese leaders, including General Vo Nguyen Giap, their Minister of Defense.
He also did a cozy interview over coffee, oranges, and cake with a Cuban psychiatrist, which took place in the Hanoi office of the Committee for Foreign Cultural Relations.
He failed to "evade answering questions to the utmost of his ability;" by actually conversing with his interviewer in Spanish.
If this is backed up by the original articles, and I might add I have further information that the Washington Post carried that the wire service story mentioned on or about June 6, 1969, I think it is seriously important to add this information. The government sources mentioned are also being verified.
For any foreigners here, if this pans out and is verifiable, we here in the United States would consider John McCain to be the lowest of all Traitors, a POW who sold out to the enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 ( talk) 12:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Call this what you want, but if factual, it's fair play, and I might add, much more fair than what the Republicans did to Kerry.
Oh, and based on what I'm seeing here, does wikipedia have the campaign itself vetting the page? That's unethical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 ( talk) 12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, isn't it interesting the rapport he had with the psychiatric-trained Cuban intelligence officer? Has anyone seen "The Manchurian Candidate"? (of course I will leave that comment out of the article, and only state the known facts, as verified, and sourced). 66.41.19.246 ( talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What are the verification requirements? would a full bittorrent of all relevant documents scanned at 600dpi released to every bittorrent site in the world suffice for proper proof of verification (I've had experiences with the mods here before, and in cases dissing a republican this is what I think may be required to get the material into a wikipedia article).. US News and World Report should be archived at most major universities and libraries. The Washington Post. Maybe even the Vietnamese Government might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 ( talk) 12:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should find funding for a TV commercial if this pans out. Would that count as verification? Wikipedia took the words of the swift boat liars as fact at face value four years ago, and sanctioned anyone who posted information to the contrary, iirc. 66.41.19.246 ( talk) 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'll make several general responses to what you say.
More to follow on the specifics. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
On the specifics of the namvets.com material:
So all in all, unless some new reliable sources come forward here, there isn't anything that can be added to the article other than the two changes I've already indicated. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This sentence has me confused: "He returned to Pensacola station, where he served as a flight instructor at Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi, where McCain Field was named for his grandfather." Pensacola is in Florida, right? So, how could he serve as a flight instructor in Pensacola if he was in Mississippi? Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty now with this sentence: "By now it was clear that McCain's naval career was stalled; he would never be promoted to admiral as his grandfather and father had been. [7]" I'm not sure where this is in the cited NYT article. On the contrary, the NYT article says he had political (and presidential) aspirations while visiting the Hanoi Hilton. Where does the cited source say that he despaired of becoming an admiral? It may well say it, and I just missed it. Ferrylodge ( talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Nowadays there is a memorial at Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi that commemorates John McCain's capture. Can we use this free image instead of the unfree one that we currently use for his capture? DHN ( talk) 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've lightened up the sentence about his nicknames. [8] It seems pretty clear from the cited source that this was all in good fun. Here's a quote from the cited source:
“ | At Episcopal, students called McCain the “Punk,” a moniker he relished. From his senior yearbook entry, McCain is pictured in a trench coat, collar up, cigarette dangling from his lips. His classmates wrote: “It was three fateful years ago that the ‘Punk’ first crossed the threshold of the high school. His magnetic personality has won for him many life-long friends. John is remarkable for the amount of gray hair he has; this may come from his cramming for Annapolis or from his nocturnal perambulations.” | ” |
Ferrylodge ( talk) 10:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I don't know about your high school yearbook, but in general their senior year captions aren't always the most balanced portrayals. I'd suggest you read all of Timberg's "The Punk" chapter, then see what you think. This might be the key depiction:
Now Timberg gives a three-dimensional, full-colored painting of McCain back then, which is hard for us to capture briefly in this article. But I don't think your "lightening up" is correct; when you say,
I think you're wrong about the "playful" and you're wrong about the "many". Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Your current description is "Known as 'Punk' and 'McNasty', he playfully cultivated the image of a raff, and his magnetic personality won him friends;[8][13] he had a fiery personality ..." How does this "playfully" that you still use square with this part in Timberg:
I've read through Timberg several times, and I still don't get the feeling of "playful". Timberg alludes to McCain's cultivated image coming from James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause and Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye. Neither of these archetypes is usually viewed as "playful". And please understand, the point here is not "namecalling" at all! It's to establish a biographical character base. 'Cause the McCain back then is what grew into all the other McCain's, the one who survived injuries that everyone thought he would die from and the one withstood his captors and the one who keeps trying when his bill gets shelved and the one who curses at and annoys his fellow senators and the one who doesn't give a damn if he offends conservative orthodoxy and the one who keeps on going after his campaign implodes ... it's all the same guy. Wasted Time R ( talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
With the elections coming up, I'm sure there are people adding to wikipedia from within the campaign offices of each candidate. We should be extra vigialent in watching out for weasal words and try to remain neutral as possible, not only on the Mccain article but also the people he may be running against. If you read the article on Mike Huckabee, there seems to be a more neutral tone. The Huckabee article doesn't seem to be presenting useless information.
I find sentences like this "but suffered a near-collapse of his campaign in mid-2007 due to financial issues, and due to his support for comprehensive immigration reform." rather biased don't you think? Ok, his campaign may have suffered a near collapse, but really due to immigration reform? This obviously needs a citation also but at the same time adds useless information? Do some people feel this way too?
And this sentence also, "And graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he was intelligent and had done well in subjects that interested him." OK, doesn't this also seem like it adds useless information? Hqduong ( talk) 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone with editing privileges can make use of some of this material:
http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=display&webtag=bc-politics&tid=1854
<cut-and-paste of board's long anti-McCain rant deleted>
Fatswaller ( talk) 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
He didn't "publish" it. He may have written it, but publishing it is different. kthxbai. :-) -- 198.185.18.207 ( talk) 14:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest expanding the first line to "frontrunner candidate", since its pretty obvious, right? I can't, someone blocked the page.