Talk:John McCain/Archive 11

New material about McCain's medical issues

The current Wiki page for McCain very lightly treats the issue of the Senator's medical history under the category "2008 presidential campaign". However, his most recent 1,173 page personal medical report (covering his medical history from 2000-2008) has been the subject of contemporary discussion in the mainstream media, various blogs, and (likely) many water cooler discussions. The Senator's medical history (particularly with regards to both his diagnosis of melanoma and any possible long-term effects of his Vietnam-era status as a tortured POW) predates his current run for the presidency.

The issue of the senator's medical history should be addressed outside the scope of his current candidacy and commentary regarding the published medical records should be linked, such as that of Dr. David Katz of the Yale Prevention Research Center. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/05/23/DI2008052301043.html

This is especially relevant as the current Wikipedia entry only indicates the one opinion that McCain is cancer-free and in good health while in July of 2008 he had a small patch of skin removed for a biopsy to help his medical team gain some insight as to whether he remains cancer-free or not and other health concerns. See: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aeAySpQnSkak&refer=home

McCain's additional medical issues made public over the years include:

• removal of early-stage melanomas from McCain's left shoulder in 1993, left arm and left temple in 2000, and from his nose in 2002;
• removal of early-stage squamous cell cancer and benign growths in his colon in 2008;
• previous treatment for an enlarged prostate and underwent cataract surgery;
• currently suffers from arthritis;
• currently takes medication for high cholesterol;
• attemped suicide while in captivity as a P.O.W.; and,
• smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years (relevant given his status as a self-described 'cancer-survivor').

Other medical-related issues stem from his time as a POW in Vietnam War 5 1/2 years, including limited motion in both shoulders and arms, and possibly long-term mental health deterioration from this trauma. Relevance here is the following report according to www.archgenpsychiatry.com at Weill Cornell Medical College, on February 8, 2006:

"War is particularly traumatic for soldiers because it often involves intimate violence, including witnessing death through direct combat, viewing the enemy before or after killing him, and watching friends and comrades die. Heavy combat exposure, seeing comrades injured, witnessing death, and prisoner-of-war (POW) experience are traumatic beyond the time spent in military service or other military events." See: http://www.cpe.uchicago.edu/publication/lib/pizarro_combatstress.pdf

Relevancy here is to help contextualize the reference to McCain's suicide attempt as listed on the current Wikipedia page under the heading "Prisoner of war".

Clearly the Senator's public medical history should be addressed outside the scope of this current campaign for higher public office. Dacoach76 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)DaCoach76 in AZ

This article discusses his war wounds and the resulting physical limitations in the lead paragraphs, and in the prisoner of war section, and also in the cultural and political image section. Likewise, melanoma is discussed in the cultural and political image section, plus in the 2008 campaign section.

So, there's already quite a bit of coverage in this article, and we should be wary about WP:Undue weight. If you want to include more info, then I'd recommend that you think about doing so in the sub-articles, since this article merely summarizes what's in the sub-articles. See WP:SS. Additionally, some of the material you mention is probably not going to be significant enough for the sub-articles. That McCain takes meds for high cholestoral is not very notable, since a high percentage of people his age have high cholesterol.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your comments on smoking and cholesteral, I would not characterize two mentions of melanoma as "quite a bit of coverage", or a discussion of this condition.

The article includes more discussion regarding his temper issues than his past decade of battling ongoing melanoma. Dacoach76 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The article says: "McCain’s prognosis appears favorable, according to independent experts, especially because he has already survived without a recurrence for more than seven years." That seems accurate. Unfortunately, there are space limitations in this main article, and there's a lot of material to cover, so not every detail can be shoehorned in here.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New material about torture

This bolded material was recently inserted: "McCain was subjected to repeated beatings every two hours and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery. After four days, McCain reached what he called the lowest point during his time in North Vietnam. Still suffering from the injuries sustained during his initial crash, a guard yanked him up and threw him down, his left arm smashing against a bucket and breaking again. Following this episode, McCain rolled his prison shirt into a rope and looped it through louvers of his cell window in an attempt to hang himself. A guard caught him and spent the next few days on suicide watch. Unable to endure any more, McCain gave into his captors and made an anti-American propaganda "confession", writing: 'I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors.'"

Also, this bolded material was deleted: "He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements. Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract 'confessions' and propaganda statements, with many enduring even worse treatment than McCain."

Seeing as how it was a forced confession, and seeing as how it is already in the sub-article, I don't see the point of quoting McCain here. It's obviously something he didn't say by choice, so why quote it? This description also leaves out that "He used stilted Communist jargon and ungrammatical language to signal that the statement was forced" as described in the sub-article, so this is a non-neutral summary that's been recently put into this main article.

JOHN MCCAIN adore to DaLai Lama so he is worship of lie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.22.176.50 (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, this new material in the main article gives the impression that the precipitating event for a suicide attempt was that a guard broke his arm; actually that was only part of it, as the sub-article describes ("His right leg was reinjured, he was given cracked ribs, some teeth were broken at the gumline, and his left arm was re-fractured.[117][25] Lying in his own waste...."). So this does not seem like a neutral summary.

Also, why delete that other POWs broke down and gave forced confessions even though McCain continued to endure harsher treatment while refusing to make any further forced confession?

I'll therefore revert some of these new changes, which do not seem neutral. The sub-article covers it well, I think.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit first off that I hadn't read the sub-article. I'll also admit that I am not familiar with the subject matter. Rather, while reading the main McCain article and looking a little at his history and reading (for the first time) about his POW experience, one of the first questions I thought was: What was the text of the confession (even though it was forced). I clicked on the footnote, read the cited article, and inserted the text. It seemed to be to be a natural question that flowed from the reading of the text--which is why I inserted it. Perhaps since you are so immersed in the McCain material, you may no longer recognize some of the gaps that would immediately pop into the head of a reader unfamiliar with the subject matter? But I understand your point, and I'm not going to undo your edit. But I ask that you reconsider inserting that text again.

I agree that the new material gave poor impressions as to the precipitating event for the suicide attempt. I only cited what was in the one reference that I opened up. I do think, however, that a suicide attempt during his time as a POW is a significant event which should be noted in the main article. I truly urge you to re-work/replace the text to reflect this.

I made a partial deletion where I personally felt that the entire sentence ought to have been deleted. While in legal doctrine, you have the concept of "the dog didn't bark", it is often looked upon as a place of last resort. That is, why mention what did or did not happen to other POWs? Are you going to go ahead and mention what did or did not happen to the other Keating 5? Or are you going to mention what did or didn't happen to other candidates for the presidency during campaign 2008? That is to say, it isn't necessary to include that information and if anything at all, it affects the neutrality of the article by insinuating that McCain torture was "run-of-the-mill torture" (whatever that is) by comparison to others. I think that it ought to be deleted.

Finally, you did a great job voicing your concerns about my contributions on this talk page, but then you make a blanket statement at the end which questions the neutrality of them. I honestly do not see how the additions were biased; rather, they were an attempt at making the article more neutral. Let me know what you think. LegalFiction (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind comments. I'll think it over carefully (can't right this minute). Unfortunately, this main article has pretty strict size limitations, and so we often reference stuff without including full quotes. But you have a good point that a suicide attempt is probably something that should at least be mentioned briefly here, if we can provide enough context. You also raise other interesting poiunts (e.g. about referencing torture of other people) that I and I'm sure others will consider carefully as soon as we can. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

LegalFiction, the first thing to say is that Early life and military career of John McCain is really the go-to place if you are interested in McCain's time in Vietnam and as a POW. (And it's a Featured Article! Shameless plug.) Once upon a time, all of that was in this main article, but then it had to be cut down for size and a lot of important setting and event material had to be moved out. Regarding things like the suicide attempt and the "confession" text, it's important that everything be presented in proper context, since there are people out there who twist everything McCain did as a POW into an incorrect meaning. As for the treatment of other POWs, again it's important to establish the full context; McCain himself has always stressed that as bad as things got for him, it got worse, and worse longer, for a number of others (see Hubbell's P.O.W. or Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound for corroboration). Since McCain is now the most famous of the POWs, and this is where many people will read of the American POW experience there, it's important to state this. In no way is it meant to belittle what McCain experienced. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to work in the suicide attempt. It's a very momentous thing in a person's life, and I agree we should try really hard to include it here. Regarding the idea of saying that some other POWs were treated worse, I'm not sure of the need to do that here, or what it says about McCain. Was he the least tortured person who ever tried to kill himself? Did POWs who were tortured more refuse to make confessions? I think it's enough to just say that others were tortured similarly, without raising all kinds of questions about how many were treated worse, and what their reactions were.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm leery about what you said about the suicide attempt ... this isn't like a manic depressive or a the stockbroker who loses a million and his girlfriend dumps him and he ends up on the office ledge ... this is more like a forced suicide, parallel to the forced confession ... it's not a sign he was ever mentally unstable or self-destructive, but rather had hit the bottom point of physical well-being doubled with incipient loss of (what he perceived as) his honor. I just hope there's enough context here where people will understand that. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the other bit, neither of you are getting it. I inserted it as a tribute to the other POWs, the same as McCain does. Somewhere there's an interview with Salter where he says, the whole time they were writing up the book, McCain kept telling him, 'I didn't have it as bad as a lot of them, say that, make sure the readers know that.' McCain had two really bad stretches, one at the start, one after he refused release. Then he got moderate hammering a bunch of other times. Some of the guys that got there early, in '65 or '66, they had years and years of bad, bad stretches. Over and over. And they virtually all broke, had to, that wasn't the point either. I just didn't want readers to think that this was as bad as it got with the North Vietnamese. But since you're misinterpreting it, so will others, so it's better out. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what people think about the suicide stuff. I could go either way. It might help to mention that other similarly situated POWs did likewise, but I think it's okay as-is. It might become problematic, though, if someone tries to wikilink suicide, thus drawing extra attention to it. I could go either way on this, as I said. And, of course, I understand it was a perfectly normal reaction given the situation.

Regarding a tribute to other POWs, maybe we could quote McCain offering the tribute, instead of us doing it?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. And thank you for considering all my other suggestions. LegalFiction (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The epitome of patriotism

I see this article is protected. Could anyone add a section to it about how McCain is a living personification of all the values that make America great? He is almost metaphysically profound in this sense. His whole life has been devoted to his country and he has always refused to surrender! McCain Landslide! (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do it. We're just providing neutral facts here. But maybe people will draw those conclusions from the facts.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this page is for discussion of improvement of the article's encyclopedic content, not a forum on the subject or a soapbox. Editors of the article must be mindful of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thank you. --JayJasper (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was suggesting a new section to be added, based on a popular perception of John McCain as a hero embodying everything that makes America great, someone who cares more about his nation than about any political parties or special interests. I'm discussing how the article can be improved, but can accept if you respectfully disagree with my suggestions. I'm aware that Wikipedia is noted for having a liberal and pro-Democrat bias, but will do my best to improve articles towards neutrality. McCain Landslide! (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As JayJasper indicated, we respectfully disagree with your suggestions. We're just trying to present a neutral point of view here, supported by verifiable facts that can be found in reliable sources. If you detect any bias in this article, please let us know.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Landslide, there is an article that covers some of the territory you are interested in: Cultural and political image of John McCain, which incorporates conclusions reached by academics, serious writers, and the like. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will be working on improving that article in coming days. McCain Landslide! (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should describe first on Talk:Cultural and political image of John McCain what it is about that article that you think needs improvement. To be honest, you already have two strikes against you, the first your username and your fannish statements regarding McCain above, the second your claim that "Wikipedia is noted for having a liberal and pro-Democrat bias". My experience has been that Wikipedia does have some articles about political figures that are a bit too pro- or anti- a particular figure, but that it tends to vary greatly depending upon the happenstance of which particular editors work a lot on which particular articles. During much of last year I believe the McCain article was slanted against him, but I do not believe that has been the case from November 2007 on. The good news is, as long as your edits are well cited and represent aspects of McCain accurately and fairly, neither of these strikes will matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a specific example of how McCain is "a hero embodying everything that makes America great, someone who cares more about his nation than about any political parties or special interests" then im sure we could add that, otherwise its facts anf figures only, no opinion (popular or otherwise) allowed :)

CaptinJohn (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure McCain Landslide! is an attempt at satire, and not an actual McCain supporter.Worldruler20 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope the same can be said of your username!Ferrylodge (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See also

Why are people removing links to Cultural and political image of John McCain. It is not cited elsewhere in the article, it should therefor be cited here.Dogru144 (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it the main article link right below the "Cultural and political image" section header? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is already linked to three different times in the article: By the "Life of John McCain" nav template at the top of the article (underneath the infoboxes), by the "Main article: Cultural and political image of John McCain" link at the start of the "Cultural and political image" section, and by the general "John McCain" nav template at the bottom of the article. Per WP:ALSO, "See also" links are generally to articles that haven't been linked already, but concern related topics, and are often used in underdeveloped articles where eventually the "See also" entries go away. None of this is the case here. I'm not trying to hide the existence of this or any of the other bio subarticles, since I'm the main author of all of them. But "See also" entries for them don't seem to be appropriate, and it certainly makes no sense to just list this one and not all the others. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain's religion

Why is his religion listed as "Baptist" in the infobox? Yes, there's a footnote noting the fact that he was raised as an Episcopalian. Yes, he married a Baptist and raised his children in that faith, even attending a Baptist church the past several decades. Yet, as far as I know, he hasn't actually been baptized into that faith. Hence, he should still be considered an Episcopalian. I thought about changing it, but I don't want to make an edit war out of something this minor, in light of the fact that one's religion is immaterial as far as being an elected official. Specifically, that the Constitution doesn't require one to be a specific religion in order to be an elected official. —MicahBrwn (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well for starters, McCain identifies himself as a Baptist. [1] [2] It appears, according to the Fox article, that McCain has not been bapized into the Baptist Church, but identifies himself as a Baptist. Happyme22 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Happy, this is a matter of self-identification. The end of the Cultural and political image of John McCain article goes into a little more detail: "By September 2007, McCain's denominational migration was complete, and he was identifying himself as a Baptist.[90] More broadly, he identifies himself as a Christian rather than an evangelical Christian.[30]" Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain considered himself Episcopalian until some time between June 2007 (when he identified himself as Episcopalian to McClatchy) and September 2007 (when he identified himself as Baptist to Fox).[3] I think simply saying "raised Episcopalian" in the footnote is a little misleading for a man who was Episcopalian into his 70's.Crust (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the footnote a bit.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection of Talk:Barack Obama

I'm putting this comment here b/c I notice that the Obama talk page is semiprotected, and because Mac is the other presumptive nominee this election cycle. Question: if someone wants a protected page edited when a talk page is semiprotected, and wants to be an anon, where does he/she go? 204.52.215.14 (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't get near the editing traffic and disputes that the Obama one does, so I don't think it will be an issue here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is where an anon can ask for changes to be made to the Obama article (since the page and the talk page are both semi-protected). I think the answer is either:

1. wait for the talk page to be unprotected (it shouldn't stay protected very long)
2. find another place to ask for the change to be made - I'd suggest either the talk page any of the users editing the article or some place like Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

You can leave a message on my talk page if you'd like. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and Political Image

I know the editors are probably bored to death of hearing about this... but I still find the section to be, not neccessarily biased, but still flawed. It does a great job of posting both pros and cons to his political image, but seems to also excuse him from the cons with hilarious statements like "Having a temper is not unusual for U.S. leaders, nor is it unusual for leaders to be passionate and engaged." How did that sentence get in there? Is that considered a shift in voice? Duh?

If credibility is taken away from criticism of McCain in this section, should it also be taken from praise? Would it then be acceptable for an Obama supporter to take credibility away from his military image by writing that he refused to sign the new GI bill, or that more donations from soldiers go to the Obama and Paul camps? I don't believe so. 71.204.234.28 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Ryan 7/25/0871.204.234.28 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the cited sources for the statement you quote ("Having a temper is not unusual for U.S. leaders, nor is it unusual for leaders to be passionate and engaged")? The cited sources are relevant and neutral. This section of our article would not have a neutral point of view if it only talked about McCain's temper again and again, without also mentioning what is stated by those cited sources: that various presidents have had tempers, and that being passionate and having convictions are not necessarily bad things. We could try to paint McCain as a grumpy old man, but then this wouldn't be a neutral article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: read the actual Cultural and political image of John McCain article, bypass the summary of it here. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: every facet of a wikipedia page should be perfect, regardless of whether a section is just a summary or if there is another article more accurately expands upon the subject. Perhaps my argument is not so much with the POV, but rather the shift in voice. If you read the entire section, I think you'll also see why the sentence is odd. A better approach would be to say that "Feldman and Valinty argue that blah blah blah." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.175.166 (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfection, huh? That's a tall order! You better register yourself a username and come help.... Anyway, this whole section (and the subarticle beneath it) intentionally has a different voice. It shifts into the present tense from the past, and instead of the historical narrative voice of the bio sections and subarticles, it assumes sort of the voice of an omniscient observer. While at times that voice becomes like an academic survey article, at other times it doesn't. So yes, it could say "Renshon and Keller argue ...", but I think the current phrasing is okay too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much a factual statement that other leaders have had tempers. If the truthfulness of the assertion were controversial or disputed or questionable, then I'd support "Renshon and Keller argue ..." but it seems okay the way it is. Inserting such language would require us to insert similar language before lots of other statements too (e.g. "John Doe argues that McCain has a temper" and "Sally Knowitall contends that McCain likes hiking...." and "Walter Wisdom opines that McCain is a Senator....").Ferrylodge (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaaah, come on! Mao and Stalin had tempers too and see what it did for them. The sentence is biased and should go. It's like saying: "McCain likes to torture kittens in the weekends, although assertiveness to furry animals is a common trait among war heroes" - That's not a matter of fact, but of opinion. And even then it's not about whether his temper excludes him from leadership, just the public perception that he has one.VeryGimpy (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The cited sources compare McCain's temper to that of other U.S. leaders. McCain is not running for politburo or kuomintang, so it would not be pertinent to discuss Mao and Stalin in the present Wikipedia article. Temper is always a relative trait, everyone has a temper to some extent, and therefore it's useful to compare McCain's to those of other people who have occupied the office he seeks, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:American prisoners of war

Here's yet another category that McCain could be added to: Category:American prisoners of war.68.167.248.181 (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

He's already in Category:Recipients of the Prisoner of War Medal, which is a child cat of what you suggest. We don't add redundant parent cats. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

John McCain is not featured like Obama

Why is McCain not a featured article like Obama?

Doesn't Wikipedia take a stance that it is unbiased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.148.2 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This article can be nominated as a featured article at any time by any one. Some of us have been reluctant to do so because of the time that this would demand. However, if you think that this article is worthy of featured status, then I agree with you. But really, is a tiny star at the upper-right corner such a big deal?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's featured article process has nothing to do with bias. All this means is that editors of the Obama page nominated that article and responded to concerns relating to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:featured article criteria (actually, this happened quite a while ago and the article has been through 3 featured article reviews since then as well). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's very difficult to get an article featured while the subject is in the middle of a political campaign. Many reviewers will object to it on WP:FACR criteria 1e grounds: "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." Even if the article doesn't have edit wars (and this one is pretty good on that score), reviewers will say the article will have to undergo massive change if McCain wins the election in the fall (true) and thus cannot be considered stable (debatable). The Hillary Clinton article was defeated twice at FAC for this reason, the second time fairly recently when it was clear to most observers she no longer had a chance to winning the nomination. So based on that experience, it would seem unlikely that this article could get through. The Obama article is an exception because it got its FA years ago, before the campaign began. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama has cleared FAR more recently, though, despite its great instability, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although if I remember right, the last FAR broke down in acrimony. I think there was sentiment not to strip the FA on such a high-profile article just due to aggressive edit warring. If someone wants to take this article to FAC, and make the argument that the 1e objections should be ignored, they certainly can try. For a while I thought the 1e objections would be dismissed by the FA directors on the last HRC FAC, but that's not the way it worked out. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that this article would undergo massive change if McCain wins the election. This article is written primarily in chronological format, so the new stuff would primarily just be appended after the 2008 campaign section. Additionally, doesn't 1e apply to FARs too (e.g. the Obama FARs)? Also, we don't have a crystal ball; any FAC may undergo great change if there are revelations or developments in the future about the subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also have pointed out to the original query, that Early life and military career of John McCain, which covers the first 45 years of his life, is a featured article. So that's evidence that this is not a matter of Wikipedia bias. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Though technically not conclusive evidence, since that article gets relatively few hits, alas.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As others have stated, due to the upcomming presidential election it is probably not a good idea to have this or any of the candidates as featured articles until after the elections. BO's FA was quite some time ago, sufficiently so that it should not appear to have any specific bias for him. If any candidate becomes a FA prior to the election you would have serious questions of bias within WP. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in process of giving this article a thorough proofread today, just in case it gets nominated. Doesn't hurt to improve it a bit anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A common viewpoint, but one I disagree with. FA status is a measure of the quality of an article, not an endorsement of the article's subject. If the appearance on the main page is the worry, that could certainly be postponed until after the election. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm through with my proofread. And postponing appearance on the main page would be fine by me.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just say be careful of what you wish for. The FA process is sometimes not pretty, and if someone decides to nominate it, that person has to be willing and able to reply to the dozens upon dozens of comments - major, minor, insignificant, meaningful, utterly contradictory, and often mean-spirited - and defend the text or amend it in ways that the editors here will not object to, as well as satisfy the reviewers. Other editors of course can chime in and help out, but some one or two editors have to take the lead so it doesn't descend into chaos. I'm not saying don't consider going for it, but I am recommending you look at some of the closed actions whether voted up or down and be sure you're ready for it. And if you go for it, I do hope you get it, because I actually think we're all best served by high quality, fair articles. Tvoz/talk 06:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a significant portion of the community is misinterpreting the "1e problem," but the past few FA noms of this and Hillary's article show that they remain as convinced of their opinion as we do of ours. Perhaps after the election, the concerns might subside a bit. It would be nice to have the winner's article featured in time for Inauguration Day in January. Coemgenus 12:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This article was nominated for FA only once, and it was a much different article then. The primary objection was its excessive length, not instability. See the closing rationale. Additionally, that was merely a drive-by nomination. Another important consideration here is that, at the time of the drive-by nom, the article had not been through any content review process. Subsequently, it became a "Good Article", then went through "Peer Review", and then went through "Good Article Review" (and one of its sub-articles became featured). Ferrylodge (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Writings section

The Writings section was something of a mess, with full books co-authored by McCain mixed in with articles he wrote, forewords he wrote, etc. Worse, some forewords were incorrectly labelled as books co-written (you can't always believe the top line on Amazon or Google Books, you often have to look at the actual cover). I separated the books from the rest, normalized the formatting, and put both in standard chrono order. I added two more forewords that I knew about. Then I did this Amazon search and realized he's written a bunch more forewords. Do we want to include all of these here? How significant are forewords? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good going. I wouldn't worry about being comprehensive about the Forwards. It seems okay for people to just pick out the ones that they think are most significant.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Furious

No, I'm not furious. Who wants to be characterized as furious? But I do disagree with this phrasing in the article:

In June 2007, President Bush, McCain, and others made the strongest push yet for such a bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, but it aroused furious grassroots opposition among talk radio listeners and others as an "amnesty" program,[159] and twice failed to gain cloture in the Senate.[160]

I'd like to change the word "furious" to "intense" or "strong" which are both supported by the new reference. The word "furious" is also supported by the new reference (which appears to be why the new reference was chosen), but I think using the word "furious" is not as neutral as we could be. Here are the pertinent excerpts from the new reference:

But the legislation sparked a furious rebellion among many Republican and even some Democratic voters, who were linked by the Internet and encouraged by radio talk show hosts. Their outrage and activism surged to full force after Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who was an author of the bill, suggested early this week that support for the measure seemed to be growing. The assault on lawmakers in Washington was relentless.

.... “The opposition to the amnesty plan is so much more intense than the intensity of the supporters,” said Mr. Hanna, speaking of the bill’s provisions to grant legal status to qualifying illegal immigrants, which the authors of the legislation insisted was not amnesty. ....

Mr. Murphy said he felt strongly about the bill because he believed it would degrade the value of American citizenship.

The first paragraph of this blockquote is where "furious" comes from. The problem is that there were a lot of concerned citizens who were not frothing at the mouth about this, and who are described in the latter parts of this blockquote. So, can we please change "furious" to "strong" or "intense"? I'll tentatively do so.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Furious" does not imply "frothing at the mouth". It accurately depicts an anger at what was seen as the political elites of both parties trying to push through something against the sentiments of the citizens. But, like most of my attempts to add some zest to these articles, I guess it has to be watered down. Never mind ... Wasted Time R (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind zest, WTR. There were a lot of opponents who were not "furious". Instead they just thought it was a really bad idea, and they were strongly opposed. I put "furiously" back, but not in a way that implies all the opponents were furious.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't McCain's entry include any information regarding his involvement in the Keating 5?

Wikipedia has an entry regarding the Keating 5, which begins:

The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).

Shoeempress (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look more carefully in this article:

McCain became enmeshed in a scandal during the 1980s as one of five United States Senators comprising the so-called "Keating Five".[85] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful[86] political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, along with trips on Keating's jets[85] that McCain belatedly repayed two years later.[87] In 1987, McCain was one of the five senators whom Keating contacted in order to prevent the government’s seizure of Lincoln, and McCain met twice with federal regulators to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[85] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[88] In the end, McCain was cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee of acting improperly or violating any law or Senate rule, but was mildly rebuked for exercising "poor judgment".[88][86] In his 1992 re-election bid, the Keating Five affair was not a major issue,[89][90] and he won handily, gaining 56 percent of the vote to defeat Democratic community and civil rights activist Claire Sargent and independent former Governor Evan Mecham.

Ferrylodge (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The article does mention the Keating 5 in the header:

After being investigated in a political influence scandal of the 1980s, as a member of the "Keating Five", he made campaign finance reform one of his signature concerns, which eventually led to the passage of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002.

This entry is incorrect, campaign finance reform has nothing to do with corruption and a savings and loan scandal. This entry need to be rewritten as two separate events. Something about him surviving the Keating 5 corruption scandal, and not linking it to some random other act by McCain. [13:06, August 8, 2008 64.91.198.20]

McCain's push for campaign finance reform was in direct response to his experience in the Keating Five scandal. See the cite given, [4], in the article body text. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pilots not wanting to fly attack aircraft

I can share some general insight into this-- my father was a career fighter pilot and flew ground attack aircraft in Korea. He also flew in a different capacity in Vietnam.

The reasons why the 'ground attack' role for fighter jets is generally less popular are twofold:

1) Dog-fighting involves more advanced flying skills and carries more prestige in the military.

2) Ground attack fighter aircraft have a much higher casualty rate than air-to-air combat (even higher than infantry in Vietnam).

This is because ground attack fighters (during the Vietnam era and also prior to that) were exposed to far more enemy fire, and at much closer range, and on a much more frequent basis; resulting in some of the highest American casualty rates in modern warfare.

The division between ground attack and air to air combat roles in the military can be blurred, depending on the needs of the immediate situation.

Generally there were planes assigened to different roles, but these roles could be lurred and heavy casualties were possible for all roles, although ground attack figher jets suffered the highest losses over all. Reconnassaince was a third role for fighers and also was dangerous/

Hope that is helpful.

Sean7phil (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The user User:Epischedda insists on adding something about pilots not wanting to fly ground attack aircraft. This was reverted by User:Wasted Time R on July 26 for being unsourced and incoherent. I've just reverted the same text but he has resubmitted it. It's a bit better but still badly worded and I think not worth keeping. I'm not going to get into an edit war but other may have opinions. Brettr (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the text in question reads just fine to readers for whom English is their first language, who are capable of thinking in terms of greater complexity than a sound-bite and who do not have a pre-existing bias in favor of John McCain, the article's subject.Epischedda (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Epischedda

The addition is "[...], not usually the first choice of top Naval Acadamy graduates, the vast mejority of whom seek to fly high performance fighter aircraft due in part to the lesser potential for confronting less-capable ground troops and inflicting collateral damage." First, it confuses all Naval Academy graduates with those going into naval aviation. Second, it's true that fighter jock positions are the most prestigious/desirable ones (Top Gun etc.) but the reason given is incoherent, wrong, and uncited. One of Epischedda's edit summaries said "Restored clarifying material obtained from unpub. interviews, removed by individual apparently opposed to context, clarity and accuracy. It is not necessary for every sentence to be footnoted." Well, if it's an unpublished interview (with whom?) it's WP:OR and can't be used, and in an article like this, yes, pretty much every sentence has to be footnoted. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

[User:Wasted Time R] alleges incoherence without substantiating his accusation; somehow another poster - [User talk:129.19.1.10] - understood the original text well enough to submit a response that further substantiated it. Secondly, if it's incoherent, how could it be wrong, as the reverter disingenuously asserts? If it's incoherent, it isn't right or wrong - it simply isn't anything at all. That [User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R] makes such a contradictory assertion so vehemently is further demonstration of the disingenuousness of his efforts to remove irrefutable information he seeks to quash.Epischedda (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Epischedda

Furthermore, there is no confusion between "all Naval Academy graduates" and "those going into naval aviation"; all that was ever at issue were naval acacemy graduates like John McCain i.e. those going into naval aviation (which, in any case, at the height of the advent of the nuclear carrier task force, was most naval academy graduates). Reverter [User:Wasted Time R] alleges confusion in order to obfuscate an issue he seeks to keep from becoming publicized. In general the reverter [User:Wasted Time R] confuses his own disingenuousness with the general worldiness and intelligence of a tyically-informed reader of this article, who can be expected to distinguish reasonable, readily-verifiable information obtained from numerous sources over a number of years - even if not overtly sourced - from wildly inaccurate accusation.Epischedda (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Epischedda

As substantiated by another recent poster, the deleted material is simply incapable of being reliably refuted due to its ready acknowledgement by the members of McCain's chosen profession; it therefore deserves to remain. It's relevant because it speaks to the "heroic" aura McCain's supporters like [User:Wasted Time R] seek to project for him when, in reality, McCain graduated near the bottom of his class, has been a participant in the destruction of a number of multi-million-dollar aircraft for which he was responsible (which, in times other than ones in which the military was desparate for pilots, would have gotten him forcibly retired early), and has pursued with apparent gusto a specialty that many of his peers eschew on account of its moral distastefulness - all hardly demonstrative of his possession of the "right stuff".Epischedda (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Epischedda

I agree with Brettr and Wasted Time R that this reversion was appropriate, for the reasons they explained. We could likewise mention that most undergraduates chose not to go to a military institution for college, or that most young people McCain's age did not want to go to Vietnam during that War, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know what the ratio of fighetr pilots to ground-attack pilots was during the Vietnam War (I kind of doubt that the North Vietnam had a whole lot of fighter pilots), and I don't know if McCain would have preferred to be a fighetr pilot. The main thing is, all the stuff in this Wikipedia article has to include footnotes that discuss McCain, not just general background footnotes, and certainly no footnote at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Duyet

On 29 July, User:Maxwellcoffee made some edits without any edit summary or talk page discussion. The disputed material is in bold italics as follows:

Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information. Footnote: Hubbell, P.O.W., 364. (however this is disputed by Tran Duyet, in charge of the prison at the time, who said McCain had friendly informal chats with him).[5]

I reverted later on 29 July with the following edit summary: “Please seek change in sub-article first. See WP:SS. Also see WP:RS. Tran Duyet says 'We never tortured any prisoners' but he is not a reliable source.”

On 31 July, MaxwellCoffee then reverted back, with the following edit summary: “Tran Duyet is as reliable of a source as any, he has no motive not to be anymore.”

None of the material that MaxwellCoffee wants to insert into the present Wikipedia article has ever been inserted into the sub-article Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain. So, this is clearly against Wikipedia Summary Style policy (see WP:SS).

Additionally, the cited BBC article[6] quotes Tran Duyet as saying that “We never tortured any prisoners” at Hoa Loa Prison (i.e. the Hanoi Hilton). The BBC article does not confirm or endorse what Duyet said, and a torturer obviously would have a strong motivation to, shall we say, shade the truth. No reliable source confirms what Duyet said. Please see WP:RS.

Please also see the Wikipedia article about the Hanoi Hilton, which cites numerous reliable suorces contrary to Duyet:

The Hanoi Hilton was merely one site used by the North Vietnamese Army to torture and interrogate captured servicemen, mostly American pilots shot down during bombing raids.[11] Although North Vietnam had signed on to the Geneva Convention of 1949,[11] which demanded "decent and humane treatment" of prisoners of war, the North Vietnamese saw U.S. bombing attacks against them as "crimes against humanity".[11] As a consequence, severe torture methods were employed, such as rope bindings, irons, beatings, and prolonged solitary confinement.[11][7][12] The aim of the torture was usually not acquiring military information.[7] Rather, it was to break the will of the prisoners, both individually and as a group.[7][13]

So, I’ll revert the edit by MaxwellCoffee again, and request discussion here at the talk page before it’s reinserted again. Please see WP:Consensus. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The official North Vietnamese (now Vietnamese) line all along has been that no American POWs were tortured. This newspaper story is just one more person echoing that line. The evidence that this is not true is overwhelming, and thus statements like this have nothing useful to say about McCain's treatment. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PNAC?

Why don't I see any mention of McCain's involvement with PNAC? He is a signatory and has several other PNAC members working with his campaign. Source: http://www.freedomcentralusa.com/PNAC_Signatories.html

The source you cite (Freedom Central USA) also says:

Freedom Central USA is dedicated to the destruction of domestic fascism -- also known as neoconservatism -- using truth and the Internet as WMDs.

So, if your cited source is accusing McCain of being a neofascist, then this source is probably not neutral and reliable. See WP:RS. If you would like to provide further sources that are neutral and reliable, then we can take a fresh look at this. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, indeed. Doing a little googling, I don't think McCain was ever a formal member or signatory of PNAC. Possibly the misconception may come about because -- according to SourceWatch anyway -- McCain has been a president of the New Citizenship Project. (SourceWatch links to a press release on McCain's website that is no longer there.) According to their website (now defunct), "The Project [for a New American Century] is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project". Crust (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but why don't I see any mention of McCain's NCP membership anyways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraetorianGuard2004 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Hagee?

I notice this article has zero mention of John "Catholicism is the Great Whore" Hagee, a man who McCain praised (and sought, and received, an endorsement from). The main Obama article, by contrast, includes detailed info about his controversial preacher, Jeremiah Wright. I hope this isn't going to be indicative of a trend of Wikipedia sanitizing McCain's record in the lead-up to the election (the same way George W. Bush's article has been sanitized).

Wright was Obama's pastor. Hagee is just some pastor who endorsed McCain. Besides, there's a whole section about Hagee in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Coemgenus 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama attended a church where Wright spoke, but Obama NEVER sought Wright's endorsement. McCain, on the other hand, SOUGHT the endorsement of Hagee. If detailed info on Wright is going to be included in the main Obama article, then at least least a mention of Hagee should be included in the main McCain article. The way it is, it's clear that Wikipedia is heavily slanted against Obama and is intent on sanitizing McCain's record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This was previously discussed quite a bit at this talk page. See Archive 9. The consensus was that Hagee is covered adequately in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Hagee gets a couple paragraphs in that article. The relationship (if one can call it that) between Hagee and McCain was much more remote and brief than that between Obama and Wright. Many elections nowadays feature guilt-by-association games, but Obama-Wright-TUCC is a bit different, because the coverage went on so long during the campaign, and the relationship went on so long in real life. If Hagee turns out to bedevil McCain as much as Wright and TUCC has affected Obama, it would merit inclusion here in this main McCain article. There are hundreds of other items in the sub-articles also. Picking out just Hagee to add to this main article, and not picking out those other hundreds of items, would cause undue weight. This article is about McCain's whole life, not just the current campaign, and in the context of his whole life Hagee is just not very significant. If a person is scratching their head wondering the name of some minister connected with this election, then the person can go to the article about McCain's 2008 campaign (which has a couple paragraphs about Hagee). In writing this article, dozens of decisions were made about what the most important things in his life are, and those that aren't quite as important don't make the cut. Right now, some of us think it would be more appropriate to add more about his Vietnam service before the shoot-down, or more on McCain-Feingold, or more on his relations with the Republican Party in the early 2000s, as compared to more about Hagee.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who supports neutrality in Wikipedia's articles ought to be troubled by the fact that Hagree isn't even mentioned ONCE in the main McCain article. Hagee made outrageous, bigoted, offensive and downright crazy statements (like saying Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath for gays). And McCain SOUGHT this nutcase's endorsement. What I see is a troubling trend on Wikipedia: the main Obama article rounds up every single fringe nutcase/HateWing radio allegation ever made against Obama. And meanwhile, the McCain article is carefully sanitized. We saw this same trend once before in the 2004 election. And the main article on Bill Clinton rounds up every nutcase allegation ever made against him, while the Bush article is sanitized (in fact, before I myself raised this issue, the Bush article incredibly omitted ANY mention of the Plame case). I see this sort of right-wing bias is being repeated here with the McCain article. It's sad how Wikipeda has allowed the right-wingers to inject their bias into what is supposed to be a neutral reference resource.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There’s nothing in the Obama article about his longstanding and close relationship with Bill Ayers. There’s nothing in the Obama article about Obama accepting the endorsement of NYC Councilman Charles Barron, who defended a staffer after the staffer threatened to kill another councilman; nor is there anything in the Obama article about his invitation to "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who has claimed that gays are "trying to kill our children", to perform at a gospel concert in South Carolina.[7] The only difference between all of those characters and Hagee is that McCain has repudiated Hagee, whereas Obama has not repudiated those characters. If we were to turn these Wikipedia articles into guilt-by-association games, then we might also have the Obama article mention Chesa Boudin, Bernadin Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Michael Phleger, Ali Abudimah, Shepard Fairey, et cetera, et cetera.[8]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In every campaign, politicians get endorsements from people who turn out to say rude or offensive or stupid things. The politician then throws the person under the bus when the heat gets too heavy. It's pretty routine, unless the person is very close to the politician, which Hagee was not. Coverage of Hagee in the campaign article is warranted, but coverage here in the main article is not. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

SHOULD CONTROVERSIES REGARDING TORTURE/ SONGBIRD BE ADDED?

There is a great number of material available by a great number of reliable sources that have another version of some of the events... in many ways it came from John McCain himself. I think this material should be mentioned or at least that there are some conflicting opinion in regards to what happened. Here are some links.. if someone want please read through it, I am not that familiar with wikipedia so someone more familiar maybe can go through the stuff and make a suggestion. I do understand that the main opinion should be predominant, but in the interest of presenting a complete picture that might surface in the election in the future, I think it is ok to mention conflicting opinions and contradictions. Here are a number of sources/links. Some links seem less believable others are very.. but I feel some mention of the very large number of materials should be made. Here are teh link, look forward to a discussion between people who've gone through it all... hopefully we can keep this non political.. nailed to the facts. www.infowarscom/?p=109 http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06132008.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513224/My-years-hell-John-McCain-recalls-life-prisoner-war-Vietnam.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/17/in-1992-pows-accused-mccain-of-collaborating-with-vietnamese/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542277/How-war-hero-John-McCain-betrayed-Vietnamese-peasant-saved-life.html www.prisonplanetcom/articles/february2008/020708_never_tortured.htm http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-03-25/news/is-john-mccain-a-war-hero/ http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html many more links to be found by googling "songbird mccain"

Lots of real people real sources.. including video interviews.. anyway I find it warrants a small mention on McCain that there are contradictions or that some of the events are questioned... obviously I believe it should be very small, since f.e. other military heroes like john kerry.. the controversies were mentioned there as well / still are, so in order to paint a full and neutral picture I would suggest to make a small mention as well maybe even provide a few links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SS. This article merely summarizes what's in other articles. You should probably go to Early life and military career of John McCain to discuss this.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Long discussion there, but the short answer is, no, none of this should be included either there or here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Told was going to make (rear) admiral

Ref. 63 says that Secretary of the Navy John Lehman told Captain John S. McCain III that Captain McCain would be promoted to admiral. I know enough about Navy protocol and procedures to where I doubt that the SecNav would ever call a captain into his office and give the officer advance information about the results of a selection board. It addition, the reasons adduced in ref. 62 why McCain would not make four-star (he had not had a sea-going command, in particular) would have applied in full measure to promotion from captain to rear admiral. I suggest that an additional source is required to support the story, preferably one that does not come from the office of Sen. McCain.

Peter.zimmerman (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The cited New York Times article says: "At a meeting in his Pentagon office in early 1981, Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman told Capt. John S. McCain III that he was about to attain his life ambition: becoming an admiral....With Mr. Tower’s encouragement, Mr. McCain declined the prospect of his first admiral’s star to make a run for Congress, saying that he could 'do more good there,' Mr. Lehman recalled."[9]

Maybe Lehman merely predicted the promotion, or maybe he purported to guarantee it. In any event, the main thing is that we accurately summarize what the reliable source says. Here's what this Wikipedia article says: "In early 1981, he was told that he would be promoted to rear admiral; he declined the prospect, as he had already made plans to run for Congress and said he could 'do more good there.'" This seems like an accurate summary of the cited source. Is there any reliable source that contradicts it? We're not saying that a selection board had already decided to promote McCain, and the New York Times didn't say that either, as far as I can tell.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point, I think. The story does not ring true, so even if it was in the NYT, I would like to see a second source given. The NYT article gives no source for the story of this meeting. Is this a story from Lehman, or is it from a third party? Is from McCain; or is it just hearsay? Peter.zimmerman (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the NYT article says "Lehman recalled". The NYT seems to have verified that John Tower encouraged McCain to decline the prospect. So, it seems like the NYT article had mutliple sourcing. I'm not saying it's 100% certain that the NYT article is 100% accurate, but rather that it's a reliable source that is being accurately characterized in this Wikipedia article. If there's another reliable source that independently reports the same thing, then of course we can cite it too. Likewise, if there's a reliable source that calls the NYT article into question, then we can cite it as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of dispute of this. See e.g. quotes of Rear Admirals Booth and Batzler in this Huffington Post piece.Crust (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See also this National Journal piece. According to Gary Hart (who was close to McCain and in fact a groomsman at his wedding) "It became clear that he was not going to receive a star and not going to become an admiral. I think that was the deciding point for him to retire from the Navy."Crust (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The National Journal article pre-dates the NYT article. I think we would want an article subsequent to the NYT article that either rebuts or confirms it. Also, the National Journal article is by Linda Douglass, but it was before she joined the Obama campaign, so that's probably not a problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited this Wikipedia article, to make it sound a little less unequivocal (e.g. inserted the word "reportedly").Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Academic Achievements

I think it should be listed that McCain graduated as 5th from the bottom of his class. Right now it written a bit too rosy, fact is academic performance is measured in a gpa or at what level in your class one graduates, not as what subjects he liked and disliked. Plenty of sources everywhere for 5th from the bottom of his class. Thats also a rather neutral way to write it, rather then mentioning how many were in his class (I belive over 800). Any thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This article currently says: "McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) that he did not aim to improve.[10][12][13] He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math.[5] McCain graduated in 1958.[10]"

Saying "894 of 899" seems okay to me. Saying instead that he was fifth from the bottom could mean a lot of different things. For example, if there were six people in his class, it could mean he was ranked number two.

It's important also to keep in mind that "class standing was not solely a function of academic performace" (Timberg, Americam Odyssey, 2007 printing, page 54). The class rank also reflects the number of demerits, among other things.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Refs

I just reverted an edit to the article. The article now says:

John McCain's personal character has been a dominant feature of his public image.[224] This image includes the military service of both himself and his family,[225] his maverick political persona,[99] his temper,[226] his admitted problem of occasional ill-considered remarks,[77] and his close ties to his children from both his marriages.[20]

Why is it better to say the following?

John McCain's personal character has been a dominant feature of his public image.[224] This image includes the military service of both himself and his family, his maverick political persona, his temper, his admitted problem of occasional ill-considered remarks, and his close ties to his children from both his marriages.[225][99][77][226][20]

A lot of time and effort went into matching up the footnotes with the material that each footnote supports. If they are all bunched together, then how will a reader know which footnote supports which statement?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to removing redundant footnotes, so that the same footnote will not appear twice in the same sentence. However, there is generally nothing wrong with mid-sentence footnotes. "Material may be referenced mid-sentence or at the end of a sentence or paragraph."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

i think bunching is the lesser of 2 evils. i understand your point regarding matching exactly every individual footnote to each fact but I think this is outweighed by the fact that readers will be turned-off by sentences that have got loads of references breaking them up. most recently promoted FAs are sensible in use of references e.g. Obama peer reviewer made reference to the 'sea of blue' the article had in over-referencing. It is not against wp:mos to have mid-sentence footnotes but there is a problem if there are so many of them it makes the article too hard to read. Tom (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you would have a stronger argument here if there were more than one footnote in a row in the middle of a sentence. That's the type of situation where things get hard to read. But that's not happening with the sentence in question, and additionally I think it looks horrible to have five footnotes in a row at the end of the sentence. Not to mention that it confuses which footnote applies to which statement. I really can't think of a better example of how to use footnotes in the middle of a sentence. I agree it can sometimes be a problem, but not here, IMHO. This article made good article then peer review, then good article review without this sentence being criticized; that doesn't mean you're wrong and I'm right, but I'm just mentioning that others didn't view it as a big problem. I have no objection to many of your other edits to this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If there were only one or two mid-sentence footnotes that you put at the end, then I'd have no big problem with it; the amount of footnotes at the end of the sentence wouldn't be huge, and a reader would only have to hunt through two references to find what he needs.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a bunch of redundant footnotes today. Also, there were several specific wiki-linked dates provided, which weren't really important, so I removed them.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence beginning, "A bipartisan legal review..." has two references in a row in the middle of it. In any case, even with just single refs in the middle of sentence, that still makes it hard to read. I agree it looks horrible to have many footnotes in a row and that is why it is normally good to combine several references into one footnote. I think there is a danger of looking at articles from the point of view of an editor rather than a general reader. Certainly this issue should not stop articles from becoming GA, so not a big problem in that context but it might stop it from becoming FA which is the kind of peer review I was referring to earlier re:Obama. when you go for FA this might be highlighted in peer review. Good work on the article and other Mccainery so far. i see you and someone else, 'wasted time' i think, have done the most edits on this article. Are you going for FA? What other things need to be done? would be nice to get it up to FA soon, so both candidates have equal high quality of article. I have worked a lot professionally on Excel charts and, at least to me, the default colours look bad including the grey background. text size is also too small, can talk with wasted time about sprucing them up a bit. Tom (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consecutive mid-sentence footnotes should be avoided if possible. I've separated the two footnotes you mention.

Wasted Time R is on vacation, but I'm sure that he'll appreciate your comments when he gets back.

As far as going for FA, I think it would be very good to have this article FA-quality regardless of whether we go for FA. One reason I have hesitated to nominate for FA is because the article has been gradually improving. Another bigger reason is that it seems like it might get mired in frivolous (perhaps politically motivated) objections during FA. For example, although this article has been very stable, there is a possibility that substantial new material will have to be added in November, and maybe in January, and some people may argue that that makes the article inherently unstable (a similar argument was used against the Hillary Clinton article).Ferrylodge (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I object to this change: "Also, there were several specific wiki-linked dates provided, which weren't really important, so I removed them." Two different issues: wikilinking dates, and giving precise dates rather than month and year. The former is going out of fashion, so that in the Elmc article FAC all the "March 10, 1981" instances were changed to just "March 10, 1981". That gets rid of the sea of blue problem. But to change these all to "March 1981" is unjustified in my opinion. Dates of major events such as his marriages, his shootdown and release, the Forrestal fire, etc. should be given precisely. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the charts, yes I can accept suggestions on how to improve them. Bear in mind that these are active charts that are periodically updated with the latest data, so improvements have to be in the basic chart settings and not in one-off post-processing. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice to have you back. I have no objection to leaving the specific dates as they are in the sub-articles. But doing the same thing in this main article raises a couple problems. If a full date is presented, then people will likely feel an urge to link it, so we'll get into a linking-then-unlinking cycle. It seems that linking a full date is allowed.[10] Also, even if full dates are never going to be linked in this article, still providing a full date suggests that the exact date is important for the reader to keep in mind, whereas it is often not important at all. To say, for example, that "Thomas Jefferson dined with John Adams later in January 1802" is fine, but I don't think we would need to say that "Thomas Jefferson dined with John Adams on 22 January 1802" unless we are also discussing other events of the same week. Giving a full date is sometimes fine, but it can often clutter up an article, espcially a summary article, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Layout and accessibility

Sorry for the bad news, but the WP:LAYOUT in the lead breaches WP:ACCESSIBILITY. (We want the visually impaired to be able to access the article, right?) The order of the items is off. Templates have to go *after* the text in the lead, but doing that in this case creates a mess, because the blooming infobox is so long, so a new home (in a later section) should be found for the template under the infobox.

Also, a WP:MOS#Images issue; the image of McCain as a cadet is looking off the page (the eyes are supposed to be looking in to the text). Again, I can't fix it because I can't just move the image to the right, because the infobox is there. Can it be moved to another section?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the cadet photo can't really go anywhere else, because the article's written chronologically. The best I could do would be to tamper with the photo by making a mirror image, but not sure that would really be kosher. What do you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not kosher. I'd just move it to the next section and put it on the right, and then find another place for the template in the lead, but no big deal. When you get time, ask Rick Block (talk · contribs) to remind you of the name of his editor friend who is visually impaired and uses one of those readers ... I forget the name ... he can look at the lead and tell you if that misplaced template is a big problem. I can't remember his name, too tired tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to rearrange things to conform with style requirements. The little box with wikilinks to other McCain articles is now in the footnotes section. The cadet photo is now under the infobox. I had to shorten the infobox, which I think needed shortening anyway. The military info that I removed from the infobox is already in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sophisticated vandalism

In case anyone's interested, this article was subjected to some sophisticated vandalism this evening. Details here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tortured or Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?

This line in the second paragraph reads...'He was held from 1967 to 1973, experiencing episodes of torture and ...'

I think it should read "He was held from 1967 to 1973, experiencing episodes of enhanced interrogation techniques and ..."

It sounds more proper and consistent with John McCain's stand on interrogation? What do other thinks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.194.16 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think McCain has pretty consistently said that the kind of treatment to which he was subjected is "torture." McCain’s left shoulder was crushed with the butt of a rifle and he was bayoneted in his left foot and abdominal area. His captors initially refused to give him medical care, and never provided treatment for his broken left arm. He was placed in a cell with George "Bud" Day and Norris Overly, who did not expect McCain to live another week. In late August 1968, the North Vietnamese used rope bindings to put him into prolonged, painful positions and severely beat him every two hours, all while he was suffering from dysentery. His right leg was reinjured, his ribs were cracked, some teeth were broken at the gumline, and his left arm was re-fractured. He was left lying in his own waste. His injuries left him incapable of raising his arms above his head to this day. He sometimes received two to three beatings per week because of his continued resistance; the sustained mistreatment went on for over a year.

I'm not aware that McCain has ever suggested that prisoners of the United States should be treated this way.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

At all times, we need to keep the description of what happened to McCain in the 1960s divorced from the issue debates of the 2000s. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether the word "torture" is an NPOV description. That's an issue of what happened in the 60's, but it's also an issue of how we use the word today. In US political debates today, many are arguing that stress positions and denying medical treatment -- techniques used against McCain -- are not torture (as well as e.g. waterboarding and inducing hypothermia, techniques not used against McCain). Crust (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Those were not the only methods used against McCain and the other POWs. The rope bindings were not just stress positions, but muscle- and socket- and bone-rending positions. And the primary method used against McCain was old-fashioned beatings, using fists and kicks, to the point where his bones and teeth were broken or re-broken and he was screaming in pain. That qualifies as torture in anybody's book. Every WP:RS account of the American POW experience, and McCain's, uses "torture". Wasted Time R (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor error

The word "repaid" is misspelled "repayed" in the section entitled "First Two Terms in the US Senate".

I'd fix it myself, but of course the article is locked (and hooray for that).

I know it's a minor thing, but those sorts of minor errors tickle the OCD centers in my brain.

Jimhutchins (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All fixed, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Panama City, No?

Senator McCain ws born in panama city, Panama. Hes not american, So therefore that should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.41.245 (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The WP:RS we have state that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, not Panama City. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Book covers

The book cover for McCain's book Worth the Fighting For was recently inserted into the article.[11] However, this same image was previously removed for "fair use" reasons.[12]

Even if there weren't fair use concerns, still the image would properly be placed in chronological order (the book was published in 2002 whereas his bestseller Faith of My Fathers was published in 1999). Note that Faith of My Fathers was a bigger seller, was made into a movie, and is discussed in the text of this Wikipedia article next to the image. Aesthetically too, I like a bigger image of Faith of My Fathers so you can get a clear look at the photos on the cover, whereas the gallery format shrunk/shrank/shrinked the image.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Meeting Cindy McCain

I recently reverted an edit that emphasized McCain was still married when he met and began a relationship with his second wife. This is already clear from the paragraph in this Wikipedia article. To emphasize by repetititon is no better than emphasizing by ALLCAPS or by bold italics.

Also, since this is a summary article, we should probably try to stick with what's in that article that's being summarized. See Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain. There is a legitimate question about whether McCain was separated when he met his second wife, and so we ought to be careful to not imply otherwise. For more info about all this, see the long discussion here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

The new nomination is indicated at the top of this talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A suggested source

I just read this article by Amy Silverman about her career covering John McCain, & it appears to have some useful information in it. While it may not be possible to integrate this source with this article at the moment, I'd like to suggest that it at least be added to the "Further reading/External links" section. (I'd do it myself, but there seems no obvious category to place it in.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Bibliography" section would be the place for something like this, except that it's not a book. We've been trying to limit the Bibliography to just books. If there's something particularly notable in the Silverman article that isn't already covered by this article or its sub-articles, then of course we could include the Silverman article in a footnote (either here or in the sub-article or both). It's pretty clear that Silverman dislikes McCain, but we've still included some of her stuff, e.g. at House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the article yesterday too. It doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know from a biographical perspective, although it might add to a character study somewhere. For all the favorable national press McCain has gotten (especially from the mid-1990s to mid-2000s), he's always had a rocky relationship with much of the Arizona press, Silverman and the Phoenix New Times included. And we can't feasibly put it in a bibliography section, because there are dozens and dozens of these magazine or long newspaper profiles or retrospectives on McCain. But I've put it in my url list of useful stuff, to go back to if warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Any problem with crating a "Further Reading" section? I've used this in other articles with the intent of providing places for other editors to start in performing further research -- either to improve the Wikipedia article, or for their own research. In any case, this article is useful at the least as a "one-stop" description of McCain from Silverman's POV, with links to her other articles. -- llywrch (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Her POV is already somewhat represented in the bibliography, e.g. by Schecter's book. And of course, the actual biographical material that she discusses is already covered in the article to the extent that it's notable material. The problem with creating a "further reading" section would be that it could well grow without limit; at least now we can say "books only" in the Bibliography. Thanks for the suggestion though. I hadn't been aware of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't conflate Schecter with Silverman. I haven't read Schecter, but by what I've seen from the title and a few excerpts, it isn't worth much. Silverman is sometimes worth something, if you adjust for her viewpoint a bit. That said, there are many more famous magazine and long newspaper pieces than hers, starting with the Michael Kelly NYT Magazine piece in 1997 or so. It just isn't practical to start listing them all. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink dates in infobox?

I've removed the wikilinking from the dates in the main text. I guess it's okay to leave them in the infobox and footnotes.

However, please go easy on restoring exact dates. Giving an exact date is often not necessary in this main summary article, and providing an exact date is often distracting to a reader, because the reader will be trying to figure out why the exact date is important, and will be trying to memorize the exact date. Just month and year is often sufficient.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe we had the correct balance of exact dates and general dates before. These are important. And who on earth would be trying to memorize them? There's no quiz that comes with reading a WP article! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When you give an exact date, presumably you're giving it because it will have some significance later in the article. Why give exact dates if they're not important to remember?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I see that some of the exact dates in the recent Senate sections were unnecessary, and should indeed go, such as this edit that you did. But exact dates are given for important milestones because they were very important days. Nobody ever wrote that Pearl Harbor was attacked in early December 1941, or that the U.S. was attacked in mid-September 2001, or that JFK was assassinated in late November 1963. Is it important to memorize those exact dates to understand WWII or JFK's presidency? No, but that's not the point. Look at the FA Ronald Reagan article for many, many uses of exact dates. Do you have to memorize them? No, but that's not the point. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The dates in your three examples are to be remembered, and never forgotten. I never suggested that this article should provide no exact dates at all. As for the Ronald Reagan article, I won't say anything disparaging, since Happyme22 is probably following this conversation.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ferrylodge :-) To me, it's a minor issue. I agree with both of you: Ferrylodge makes sense when he says that exact dates can have meanings, though not always; WTR is correct that political campaigns are important, thus the exact dates can be notable, though not always. To me, it depends on the event we are dating. I doubt that anyone reading through this will try to memorize each and every exact date, however.Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a very minor issue. All I ask is that we try to use exact dates a little less than before, and WTR seems to be doing that. To me, giving exact dates is kind of like giving full middle names for everyone...too much information!Ferrylodge (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

I am going to swap out the image at the top of the article. Wasted Time R didn't like the greenish background, because we used it to replace the black background in the original. Most people preferred the greenish background to the black background, for aesthetic reasons (e.g. you can see the guy has shoulders with the greenish background). Nevertheless, in order to address the concerns of WTR, a new image is now inserted, using a background that has been "vetted and approved" by the U.S. Government Printing Office. See here. This new image has been kindly provided by User:Navy_Blue at the Wikipedia Graphics Lab.[13]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of book cover

User:Calliopejen1 removed an image of a book cover,[14] with this comment: "rm unneeded non-free image - another free image could easily accompany this section of the article." Actually, I think this removal is mistaken, so I'll revert. The image accompanies the following text:

In August 1999, his memoir Faith of My Fathers, co-authored with Mark Salter, was published.[109] The most successful of his writings, it received positive reviews,[110] became a bestseller,[111] and was later made into a movie. The book traces McCain's family background and childhood, also covering his time at Annapolis, and his service as a naval aviator before and during the Vietnam War, concluding with his release from captivity in 1973. According to one reviewer, the book describes "the kind of challenges that most of us can barely imagine. It's a fascinating history of a remarkable military family."[112]

I think it's very normal, when the subject of a Wikipedia biography has authored a bestseller, to include an image of the book. For example, the Obama article was kept as a featured article on April 15, 2008[15] at which time an image of a book cover was included.[16] It's very typical for book cover images to be included in Wikipedia articles. For example, see Rachel Carson, Robert_A._Heinlein, Natalie_Clifford_Barney, et cetera.

I agree that book cover images should not be used frequently in a single Wikipedia biography, and I have deleted another McCain book cover image from this article.[17] We had a talk page discussion about it.[18] But in this case, the book is discussed at length in the article, it was a bestseller, subsequently made into a movie, and it is the only book cover included in this article.

It's also worth briefly noting that inclusion of the present image of the McCain book cover led to removal of another image like the one on the book cover.[19] So, removing this book cover image would lead to rearranging other parts of this article in order to re-include that other image.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that the issue of book cover images (and this image in particular) was discussed during peer review.[20]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it is "normal" to include such photos, their inclusion must be judged according to WP:NFCC. In this case, I strongly believe this fails #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't see how omitting the book cover is detrimental to readers' understanding of John McCain. There are a couple photos of McCain at book signings on flickr (though it's not entirely clear at least to me what book he's signing)--these would be fine photos in a similar vein assuming a photo related to the book is even necessary (which I don't think is the case). I am also going to be removing at least a couple other book covers that you pointed out as in violation of policy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Another couple thoughts in anticipation of rebuttals: just because the book is significant, doesn't mean the book cover is significant. Non-free images are not permitted for the reason of emphasizing or drawing attention to one section of an article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We've had frustratingly inconsistent decisions on this. During the Hillary Clinton FAC, the book cover images for It Takes a Village and Living History were removed on WP:NFCC grounds, both of which are arguably more famously associated with her public history and her popularity among her supporters than Faith of My Fathers is with McCain. But the McCain peer review reached the opposite conclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The best rationale for including the image is probably as follows. Including the image increases readers' understanding of how McCain is presenting himself through this key campaign autobiography. The cover is not simply decorative, but rather shows McCain advertising himself as a war hero and heir to a patriotic family, just as he was gearing up for the 2000 presidential race. As the NY Times has written: "The appearance of John McCain's Faith of My Fathers seems to have been timed to the unfolding Presidential campaign in which Senator McCain, an Arizona Republican, is a candidate. But this book is not your typical campaign autobiography, and this is because Mr. McCain has not had the experience of your typical candidate."[21] Would further explanation of this point in the text (and/or in the free use rationale) make the image more acceptable?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I went ahead and expanded the fair use rationale.[22]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article's quality is improved by inclusion of this cover. But whether that rationale is sufficient for the NFCC rules, I dunno. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Regardless of whether the fair use rationale is adequate (and I suspect it is), it is doubtful that this image of the cover of Faith of My Fathers is even protectable by copyright. In other words, it may be eligible for the {{PD-ineligible}} tag, being ineligible for copyright and in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. The image of McCain, as well as the image of his relatives, are both public domain. See here and here.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bitterness

I reverted this edit, because I don't think the cited source really attributes any of McCain's policy positions to bitterness. I could be wrong, but please point out where the source does that. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see, WTR, that you have revised the language so it now says: "The differences with Bush on ideological grounds were exacerbated by the considerable bitterness between the two remaining from the previous year's campaign." You cite the following sentence of the source, in your edit summary: "During Bush's first eight months in office, virtually every high-profile position McCain took seemed designed to antagonize the new President...."

WTR, this quote from the source is merely speculation on the part of the reporter ("seemed"), and it mentions nothing about McCain being a "bitter" old man. The source does speak about McCain being "bitter", but in completely different parts of the article:

"In a business of bitter rivalries and awkward alliances, few political relationships have been more bitter, awkward or downright tortured than John McCain's eight-year entanglement with George W. Bush....'Bush could beat him twice,' says a friend who knows McCain well. 'Imagine how bitter he feels.'"

So, I feel like you are turning a reporter's speculation into fact, and then importing words from another part of the article to characterize McCain as "bitter." And I don't think the two occurrences of the word "bitter" in the article are significant; both are undermined by the reporter's statement that Bush and McCain had a "rapprochement" in 2004, and the latter is based on the assumption that McCain thinks that he is going to lose this presidential election.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of sources for bitterness between McCain and Bush at the start of 2001. See the subarticle: "Following the 2000 presidential election, there was a large amount of lingering bitterness between George W. Bush and McCain and between their respective staffs.[2][3][4] McCain was also upset that the Bush administration hired few if any of his aides for White House positions;[5] an unofficial Bush policy blocked McCain staffers from thousands of administration jobs.[6]" The subarticle also covers the rapprochment later. I'm just trying to convey a little of that here, because it's an important part of McCain's political career in the 2000s. And where you get "bitter old man" from I don't know. This has got nothing to do with age. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether they had bitterness toward each other or not, you are trying to have the Wikipedia article say that the bitterness affected (or infected) McCain's policy positions. That may be true, but the cited source does not say so. I've modified the Wikipedia article accordingly. The cited source says "seemed."

I would prefer to just take it out of this article. Your edit summary says that you're relying on this in the cited source: "During Bush's first eight months in office, virtually every high-profile position McCain took seemed designed to antagonize the new President...." We can do much better than putting speculations into this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've decoupled the two. Implying causation wasn't my actual purpose, but rather to indicate the bad feelings between the two. Readers can decide how much that played in McCain's stances of the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. The subarticle has more space and can give the "John did what he thought was right. If it happened to be something that ticked off Bush, so much the better." quote, which captures it pretty well. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I find this new sentence in the article very confusing:

Despite initially being considered the front-runner for the nomination,[1] McCain began 2007 second in national polls to former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani.

[1]Claiborne, Ron. "Analysis: How McCain Could Still Win", ABC News (2007-12-10). Retrieved 2008-08-11.

If McCain was behind Giuliani in polls at the beginning of 2007, then why was Giuliani not considered the frontrunner at the beginning of 2007? That question would need to be addressed in order for this new sentence to be understandable. And I think the whole matter should therefore be left for the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to give a capsule description of the nomination race. It's easy to forget now, but Giuliani was the polls leader during most all of 2007. At the start of the year, pundits still thought McCain was the front-runner (because they didn't think Rudy would last, given his social views); I've clarified that. So it's important to mention Giuliani up front, to motivate mentioning his withdrawal after Florida and endorsement of McCain. McCain's comeback in this nomination race is really one of the most remarkable in recent American political history, and I'm trying to briefly do justice to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've really succeeded in clarifying this matter. The Wikipedia article now says, "Despite initially being considered the front-runner for the nomination by pundits, McCain began 2007 second in national polls to former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani." This is still confusing on a number of counts. When you say "initially", does that mean the beginning of 2007? Why bother discussing the beginning of 2007, if McCain didn't even announce until months later? Why stress the significance of an initial Giuliani lead in December 2006, when actually the lead was not much, and some polls did not have McCain behind at all (see Dec. 11-14 2006 poll by USA Today/Gallup showing tie, and Dec. 5-6 poll by Time showing a 3-point McCain lead). I will try to fix this.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to: "Despite being considered the front-runner for the nomination by pundits as of December 2006,[179] McCain at that time was very close to former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani in national G.O.P. polls."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I was getting at here. McCain was considered the front-runner as 2007 began, but Giuliani was already ahead in the polls. Rudy's lead widened (see Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2008 presidential candidates) as the year progressed. So McCain was already in trouble, even before the immigration and excessive spending stuff hit. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your new version[23] looks okay and is very understandable. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Staff turnover

Regarding the 2008 section, I'm not quite sure why this article is emphasizing staff turnover so much. Much of it is normal and to be expected. It seems to be undue weight to explain every change in top personnel, while excluding other important campaign info such as the fact that McCain invited Obama to participate in a series of joint town-hall style meetings.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Top staff turnover is generally not a good thing. Most successful campaigns don't see it (Obama 2008, Bush 2000 and 2004, McGovern 1972, Carter 1976, Clinton 1992, etc.) Plenty of unsuccessful campaigns do see it (Hillary 2008, for example). It's notable that McCain survived his mid-2007 implosion and turnover, and it will be additionally notable if he wins in November despite the mid-2008 turnover. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You may very well be correct, but beware of doing original research here. If you're focussing this Wikipedia article on staff turnover because you think it's a significant danger to McCain's chances of success, you have to cite sources that think so too. You can't just rattle off staff changes, assuming that everyone knows and agrees they are as important as you think they are. Some experts may think that fundraising is much more important, or polling, or the percentage of waking hours spent campaigning, or political positions, or whatever. Personally, I am a bit skeptical that McCain's staff turnover deserves the weight it's being given here in this Wikipedia article, and it's at the expense of other important info (e.g. McCain's rejected invitation to town-hall style debates). Even if you're correct about how important the staff turnover is, it's kind of inside baseball (wherein the baseball is made of crystal).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I condensed this material a bit, without removing any refs or other major info.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Debate debates are far more meaningless and inside baseball. Basic formula: The guy who's behind always wants more debates, the guy who's ahead always wants fewer. In 1996 Clinton was a much better debater than Dole, but after the planned debates were over, Dole still wanted another. A trailer always hope the front-runner will say something utterly stupid in a debate and change the dynamics of the race. As for original research, every sentence we put in this article is based on our knowledge and assessment that it's important. For example, you just added "Another reviewer observed that, "The appearance of John McCain's 'Faith of My Fathers' seems to have been timed to the unfolding Presidential campaign...."[113]" Is it original research on your part to assume that a best-selling book is at asset to a campaign? No, nor do I think you need to cite a source that says so. This is what we do here as editors, figure out what's important and what isn't. That's our value-add. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about debates. McCain wasn't merely urging debates. He wanted town-hall style meetings in order to cut out the MSM, with ordinary uncommitted independent citizens asking the questions. McCain also saw this as an opportunity to do what almost happened in 1964, had Kennedy lived: Pres. Kennedy and Arizona Senator Goldwater had arranged to travel the country together, much like Lincoln and Douglas did a hundred years before, in order to elevate the discussion away from paid adevrtisments to something more substantive. As far as I know, McCain hasn't asked for more than the three currently-planned debates, which will be MSM-controlled sound-bit sessions.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Your condensation lost some meaning; restored, but still more concise than before. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the town-hall aspect was potentially a new wrinkle (they too might have devolved into sound bite contests, but we'll never know). Since you feel strongly about it, I've restored them. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of McCain's top aides have not left, e.g. chief campaign adviser Charlie Black, and chief executive officer Rick Davis. I'm going to try to tweak the language so it doesn't give the impression of repeated exodus. Also, I'm not sure why it matters whether staff left to avoid coi, as compared to staff leaving in response to new coi rules, but I'll leave it since you seem to feel strongly about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It shows that the campaign was trying to fix the problem, rather than just dumping people under criticism. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And while Rick Davis hasn't left, his daily operational function was substantially reduced when Steve Schmidt took over. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The current language of the article on this subject looks okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)