Talk:John McCain/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Major reworking/expansion of article

I realize that I never made note here that I began a major reworking and improvement of the article starting on 8 November 2007. I added a lot of biographical detail that had previously been missing, from early life all the way through his recovery from the Keating Five scandal (and aim to keep going). I merged the 'Personal life' section into the flow of the article's mainline sections, as McCain is a figure whose personal life changes are inextricably woven into his military and political life. I merged the 'Controversies' section into the article's mainline sections, as is currently being done for many political figures; in this case the Keating Five material clearly belonged in the Senate sections, while the various controversial remarks clearly belonged in a new section dealing with his temperment, public image and persona. I merged the 'Political positions' material into the subarticle that already deals with that, and I moved excessive detail in the 2008 campaign section to the subarticle that deals with that. I've tried to improve the consistency of the citing in the article, but more remains to be done with that and more ... Wasted Time R (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article's in pretty good shape. Good work. I'll try to make minor fixups here and there. I'm sure that there are other articles that could also greatly benefit from your experience with this one, Wasted Time R.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo and "Maverick"

A couple quick comments about recent reversions. This photo from the Library of Congress seems to unequivocally identify McCain being pulled from a Lake.

Thanks for the L of C cite. I don't know why User:Turtlescrubber thinks the photo's id is in doubt. The text in the Wikipedia Image:Vietcapturejm01.jpg file is confusing (says it's both McCain and unidentified), but that's what User:Ldingley wrote, not anything authoritative. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune article says the photo was provided by McCain's office, so maybe that's why Turtlescrubber was skeptical.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding being a "maverick", the present Wikipedia article says, “Reason and Los Angeles Times writer Matt Welch, author of McCain: The Myth of a Maverick, sees political pundits as projecting their own ideological fantasies upon McCain,” so there apparently is a school of thought that him being a maverick is a myth. On the other hand, how does McCain self-identify? Here's a quote from McCain:

“ All my life I've stood a little apart from institutions I willingly joined. It just felt natural to me. But in a life that shared no common purpose, my so-called maverick nature, if that is what it truly is, wouldn't have amounted to much beyond eccentricity. There is no honor or happiness in just being strong enough to be left alone. ”

Anyway, those are my quick comments. Longer version available on request.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "maverick", there is no doubt this is the common media label for McCain, and it seems appropriate to frame the sectioning here using that term in places. (The big Arizona Republic bio series on McCain uses it in 4 different article titles, see the ToC on the right.) Now as to whether McCain really is a maverick depends upon the analytical perspective being used. From the viewpoint of Republican party discipline or movement conservatism orthordoxy, he clearly is, especially on a few hot button topics. The Matt Welch thesis is, I think, that from the viewpoint of a philosophy of statist solutions to benefit the common purpose of a nation, McCain is very consistent (and the quote you give echoes that). Anyway, the article will explore this question more as it gets further developed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But I don't have a problem with Turtlescrubber's suggestion to put "maverick" in quotes for the section header; the Arizona Republic did the same. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WaPo article on K Street ties

McCain' active and successful fund raising among the K Street lobbying community and his tit for tat deliverance of legislative outcomes for donations was covered extensively by the Washington Post this December 31, 2007. The article is titled "McCain's Unlikely Ties to K Street" and it surveys the contradictions in McCain's political persona and the actual record. This difference surely seems to be a grand theme of his political life and deserves inclusion in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.159.213 (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful about with tying legislative outcomes to donations. The article says that his actions have "occasionally raised questions". There have never been allegations of criminal activity, which is what "tit for tat deliverance" would constitute. I won't do anyhthing now though, because I trust that Wasted Time will take care of it, plus I'm about to be glued to MSNBC for a couple hours. Paisan30 (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to work this in somewhere; there isn't much here regarding ethical wrongdoing, but parts of the story do illustrate how McCain's approach to the political/Republican establishment changed between his 2000 and 2008 campaigns, something that the article needs to describe a bit more. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added mentions of the lobbyist use for fundraisers to both this article and the campaign article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wife Family Section

there should be added a section on his wife/wives and family in the main article

/s willy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.5.90 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All such information is in the mainline biographical narrative of the article, in chronological place. That's because his family is intertwined with his career (first wife with military, Vietnam, POW; second wife with jumpstarting his political career; adopted daughter with South Carolina 2000; etc.). Wasted Time R (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I did augment one section header, though, so that by looking at the Table of Contents you can see where each wife and set of children enter the narrative. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have info on the nature of his first wife's illness? The article mentions that when he divorced Carol, he provided money for her medical expenses. Jstohler (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was for ongoing treatment resulting from her 1969 auto accident, described earlier in the article. I've added a clarification. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Walk through the market in Baghdad

Why don't you guys write the story of his "walk through the market in Baghdad"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.29.76 (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Claims about Iraq safety. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Election Map

The map shows Bush winning Arizona and McCain winning New Mexico, but McCain won Arizona, as stated in the article. Therefore I'm deleting the map. Hopefully someone can find one that's public domain and contains the corrext information.--Antodav2007 (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of party switch in 2001/2004?

I just read http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html

It seems that this should be mentioned in the article. However, the problem is of course that we only have a he said-he said story. Still, it was a big story in 2001 (and again in the New York Times in 2004) and I think it should be mentioned. Additionally, John Kerry claimed that he was approached by people working for McCain "to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President". http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033

While the source MyDD will perhaps not be acceptable as a trusted source, they provide an audio tape which has Kerry's statements, so it is clear that he did say this, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlFrei (talk • contribs) 10:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Kerry 2004 veep proposal is already in the article, but from the 'Kerry approached McCain' angle. Will have to look at this reverse claim. The 2001 party switch is on my list of things that need to be added to the "2001-2007" section, I hope to get to them shortly. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added material on the 2001 leaving-the-GOP speculation, and I've expanded the material on the Kerry-McCain VP offer in 2004. For the latter I've stuck with the conventional 'Kerry approached McCain' reporting. Regarding this MyDD report, McCain's aid Salter strongly denies it; see this NY Sun account and this RCP account of the whole matter. I'd like to see some more development of it before including it in the article; one audio tape of Kerry saying something quickly before answering a phone call isn't too satisfying. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Smears in South Carolina

As some of you may know there have been flyers found around South Carolina which make "claims" that John McCain was a "songbird" who turned on other POWs while imprisoned in North Vietnam supposedly in order to get better treatment. Following the smears that happened in the 2000 campaign against McCain he set up a "truth squad" in South Carolina and quickly disavowed these "claims". The following are the front and back of these flyers both in pdf format:

• Front of flyer (pdf)
• Back of flyer (pdf)

In the bottom-right of the back of the flyer there are two links which take you to the following sites:

• http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
• http://www.usveterandispatch.com/

The first is run by Jerry Kiley and the second is run by Ted Sampley. Here is an AP piece on CBS News that talks about the Kiley connection to this incident and also here is the Sourcewatch article on Ted Sampley. I don't regularly edit the John McCain article but I thought I might as well leave this information here so that other regulars on this article could consider how to add this information on the article. Thanks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Belongs in the campaign article if anywhere, for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Smears? These allegations have been endorsed by Congressman Bob Dornan. They have been brought up on Inside Edition and Fox News. Sampley has offered a full retraction if McCain can prove any of it untruthful. Senator Robert C. Smith claims McCain and Kerry did everything they could to sink the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIAs. Take a look at the video it's disgusting. Why are we not noting this controversy? Hutcher (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We do note it several times:

• During his time on the committee and afterward, McCain was vilified as a fraud,[108] traitor,[105] or "Manchurian Candidate"[109] by some POW/MIA activists who believed that there were large numbers of American servicemen still being held against their will in Southeast Asia.[108]
• Bush allied himself on stage with a marginal and controversial veterans activist named J. Thomas Burch, who accused McCain of having "abandoned the veterans" on POW/MIA and Agent Orange issues: "He came home from Vietnam and forgot us."[124][137]
• that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.[124][134]

We also have a whole article, United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, on the committee, that covers the agreements and disagreements between McCain/Kerry and Bob Smith. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Length

I am going to start making an effort with the length of this article. It seems to me that much of the information is quite detailed and at times overbearing. I am just looking for feedback on things to cut if you want to share. Yialanliu (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is long, but you certainly can't cut out the background of his father and grandfather — it's an essential part of McCain's life and persona. Read Faith of My Fathers if you don't believe me. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

His lineage may be important, but not necessary. If you want information about his parents, I think, you should goto their own pages. Readers want information on Senator McCain, not his parents. Naming their rank should be enough. Yialanliu (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The other thing to realize is that McCain has had a long career; he's been a nationally visible figure since 1967. If you look at the Arizona Republic multi-part series that this article somewhat uses as a guidepost, it's quite long too. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My goal is not to delete everything, but rather, make it more concise. I recognize McCain's long history, and I will not just delete random sections. I also explain some of my deletions in notes. Yialanliu (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yialanliu, I strongly oppose your actions out the background of his father and grandfather, this article is not too long and more conciseness is not needed. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please explain why it is needed. This is an article on Senator McCain, if you want to know about his parents and grandparents, they have their own pages. I recognize their importance as admirals, but their achievements have no bearing with Senator McCain. If you take a look at George W. Bush's page, you see almost no mention of his father's achievements. President George H. Bush made significant contributions to the world but it is not written on his sons's page because the main point of the article is about the person the article is written for, not the achievements of parents. Yialanliu (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We all know who W.Bush's father ism, the same cannot be said fro McCain, lets assume our readers are ignorant foreigners like myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You make it seem that the goal of this article is to explain the world. We supply them of every fact that "ignorant foreigners" need to know. That is not the goal of an encyclopedia entry.Yialanliu (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

McCain was walking in their shoes. Really, I'd suggest you read some other works about McCain, to get a sense of how every other biography has treated his life, before you start taking an axe to this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the career arc of McCain's father directly affected McCain's educational problems and his time as POW. In those cases the father's bio information is directly relevant. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, your other edits have been trying to take out information about McCain's own character — his demerits, his conflicts, his wild side, etc. These are all essential aspects to who he is today and who he has always been. McCain is an American archetype of sorts, larger than life, and this article tries to describe that character, from the heroic to the stupid, from the maverick to the compromised, from the successes to the failures. Robbing this texture to just list "major facts" would McCain look like anyone other political figure, when clearly for better or for worse he is not. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove all references to demerits. I just removed the excess details with demerits. I acknowledged his demerits, but I don't believe you need to quote him on everything. McCain is an unique person but I do not believe his demerits makes him look even more unique. What he did back in school is not a major factor of who he is. His wild side was another period of the past. Can you please show me how all these minor details are important? As a maverick, people don't associate his political leanings with his demerits or choice in a wife. The goal of wikipedia is to give UNBIASED facts. He may not be similar to most political figures, but that does not mean every thing about his life is important to everyone. When people read this article, they want to learn about his life and impact on the world, not his parent's impact nor his impact on insignificant issues. Yialanliu (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If you read the "Cultural and political image" section at the end, you'll see that all these traits have been with him his whole life. The wiseass remarks get him into controversies every now and then, and the refusal to submit to blind authority captures his relationship to the Republican establishment. None of this is biased; it is the story of his life. Again, please read some biographies of McCain and develop some expertise on how other biographers have treated him. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I have noticed is that this is a biography and wikipedia has a strict standard on a biography. "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." I believe the exposure of every detial of McCain's life is turning this article into a tabloid and this article makes little details seem important. Yialanliu (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got 29,000 edits on WP and you have less than 50. I can pretty much assure you that I have a better understanding of WP:BLP than you do, with all respect. All of the personal life material in here is well cited from other McCain biographies, and none of it is contentious; McCain readily concedes any of the faults described here. Again, please develop some expertise in the subject area. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we keep this out of personal attacks? I would much rather discuss this article than about me or your experience. I have never mentioned your poor citing. I actually applaud your citations being quite detailed with various books and references. However, I do not enjoy being questioned of my editing ability or expertise. This is not a discussion on my accolades or yours but rather an attempt to make this article better. Yialanliu (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I said "with all respect". I was not making a personal attack, but your comment seemed to suggest I was unaware of WP:BLP considerations, which is most definitely not the case. I've worked on many biographical articles, political and otherwise, and have thrown out more BLP violations that I can remember. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider that, along with NPOV, BLP is our most important policy and have a record here to equal Wasted's, if there are genuine BLP problems they will be sorted, I read the whole article a few days back and didn't flag any real or major problems, and I dont see we are doing any harm, please bring specific examples here. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't too long, McCains life has just been that incredible.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Submit for GA?

Another question. Would it be possible to get this reviews for GA status as in if it does not acquire it, a list of suggestions would be helpful. Yialanliu (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Potentially a good idea, but needs to fall off WP:BLPN first. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairness of "maverick" portrayal

Yialanliu, the thing you said in your comments at WP:BLPN that most bothered me was this: "The goal of this article is trying to portray someone as a maverick. Every thing about McCain is his actions that differ from the norm. This characterizes McCain as someone who is not normal and leads to an impression that he is deranged which is against NPOV." Do we perhaps have some kind of cultural misunderstanding here? In America, being thought of as a "maverick" is usually a good thing, and in this particular case, it is responsible for much of McCain's popularity. He's a "straight talker", he doesn't blindly obey stupid authority, he doesn't always follow the party line, he thinks for himself and says what he thinks, he doesn't always care about political correctness, and so forth. These departures from the norm do not make him "deranged", as you seem to think; rather, the American people often thinks it's what makes you a genuine individual. For other examples of popular cultural "mavericks" see Maverick (TV series) or Top Gun (film) (the Tom Cruise lead character was named "Maverick") or Ford Maverick (Car) or Dallas Mavericks. The article is not trying to say that McCain is "not normal", rather that he is a normal human being in a classic American sense. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was trying to say that you took it too far with the maverick point. It's great that you say McCain is unique. But there is a point where once they are too far from the norm leads to a negative portrayal. For example, Timothy McVeigh, some would say he's different, sometimes referred to an extremist. What I am trying to say that saying McCain thinking for himself is good. And maybe use 3-5 example, but you protray McCain as someone who differs from the norm on every issue which is not the case, he just does what he feels is right. Yialanliu (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no way that this article reads like McCain is a mass murderer! You could pick a better comparison. I agree though that the article probably should emphasize more areas where he agrees with conservative/Republican orthodoxy. This is a fault of most media profiles of him too, though; in journalism slang, where he agrees is a "dog bites man" story while where he disagrees is a "man bites dog" story. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean that he's a mass murderer, but I was trying to say that too much of being an individual leads you to being an extremist and that is bias. Yes, there probably is a better example, but that was what I came up with. With regards to media, I believe that it is their fault. But I don't beleive you do the same thing they do. For example, wikipedia does not want to be a tabloid, and we should be careful with some information we provide that seem to sensationalize people's value. I woudl say lets keep the maverick to his voting record and other major issues, not so much his personal life unless it's major. Yialanliu (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree completely that "too much of being an individual leads you to being an extremist." And many Americans disagree; perhaps this is a cultural misunderstanding again, you can read Individualism#Individualism and society where it talks about "'Rugged Individualism' is a cultural imprint of being the essence of Americanism." Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As for his personal life, this is a biography. Biographies describe the personal lives of their subjects, and every other biography of McCain covers the same ground as this one. Nothing "tabloid" about it. And in McCain's case, his personal life is interwined with his political life; his father and Vietnam, his first wife and post-Vietnam, his second wife and his entrée into a political career, his adopting a Bangladeshi girl and the smear campaign against him in S.C. in 2000; it's all interrelated. And the fact that he's still on good terms with both wives and all seven children, whom he's only biologically related to four of, speaks pretty highly of his character, wouldn't you say? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/01/mccain_problems/print.html talks about mainstream media favoritising McCain who is not maverick anymore. From article: - would he vote for his own McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill if it came to the Senate floor tomorrow? No answer - Bush tax cuts, which he opposed on principle in 2001 and which he currently seems to support retroactively - He dropped his opposition to the religious right years ago, and has since walked away from the campaign finance reform crusade that once defined him - Reform Institute, Created after his failed presidential run in 2000, is a hybrid between a domestic issues think tank and a tasty sugar teat for campaign staffers. its own financing is not subject to the regulations and disclosures of federal election law. corporate donors with issues before the Commerce Committee could chip in a few bucks (with examples). Soft money loophole, by maverick reformer?

I agree, the Straight Talk Express had gone off on the double talk branch line the last couple of weeks of the campaign. Both the campaign article and this one need some work in this regard, will put it on the to-do list. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tens of millions of illegal immigrants?

Every major news media is saying 12 million...--Paleofreak (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole "Political positions" section currently has an anti-McCain slant and needs to be reworked, but feel free to change this in the meantime. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, have | has any of you heard the "more wars" tape that seems to have become available either today or yesterday? That deserves a paragraph.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 12:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, not here. A prediction that the United States will be involved in more wars in the future is a pretty safe bet. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

McCain in Vietnam

The article claims: "On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying as part of a 20-plane attack against a thermal power plant in central Hanoi, a heavily defended target area that had previously been off-limits to U.S. raids.[34][35] McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile[35] while pulling up after dropping its bombs.[36]"

This is NOT uncontroverted. Here is the text of an article (not online except via Lexis-Nexis, but it can be accessed here: http://lefti.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_archive.html#111746161273835959 ) that appeared in Knight-Ridder papers, e.g., the Philadelphia Inquirer on Feb. 5, 2000. McCain and the other planes were not bombing a "thermal power plant," they were bombing...a light-bulb factory. A war crime. This article is based on an interview with the man who saved him, who happened to be a security guard at that factory.

---

On that gray morning more than 32 years ago, McCain was knocked unconscious briefly when he ejected from his damaged bomber. Both his arms were broken, his right knee was shattered, and when he splashed into the middle of Truc Bach (White Silk) Lake, his 50 pounds of flight gear kept him from reaching the surface.

When [Mai Van] On finally got to him, about 200 yards out, all the older man could see was a bit of white silk, the top of the American's parachute.

With U.S. planes still bombing and strafing their target of the day - a nearby light-bulb factory where On worked as a security guard - On used a stout bamboo pole to hoist McCain off the bottom of the lake.

"If I had hesitated even one more minute, I'm sure he would have died," said On, still vigorous at 83 and still living in the same spot on the southern edge of the lake in the heart of downtown Hanoi.

"John McCain was lucky that morning," On said. "It was about 11 a.m. I had just come home for lunch and put my bicycle into the house. Then the air-raid siren went off, and 60 or 70 of us ran to a tunnel to avoid the bombs. I was at the entrance to the tunnel when I saw the pilot go into the water.

"The tunnel was still shaking from the bombing when I ran to the lake."

The two men differ on some small details of the rescue, but what is not in dispute is that On managed to drag McCain ashore, where a crowd of about 40 people had gathered. Unaware that their injured prisoner was the son of a high-ranking American admiral, they stripped McCain to his underwear, then began kicking him, spitting on him, screaming for him to be killed.

"One of them slammed a rifle butt down on my shoulder and smashed it pretty badly," McCain later wrote. "Another stuck a bayonet in my foot."

Then some young men approached with bricks in their hands.

"They tried to beat him in the head with the bricks, but I covered him," On said. "They surely would have beaten him to death. I said I wanted to rescue this man and return him to his family."

A nurse arrived and put bamboo splints on McCain's broken arms and leg, but when she tried to give him some sort of pill, he spit it out. A military ambulance appeared and carted him off to Hoa Lo prison in downtown Hanoi. Hoa Lo, which means "fiery oven" in Vietnamese, came to be known to many Americans as the "Hanoi Hilton." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftionthenews (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several points here. One, the Vietnamese man may be wrong about what was hit by the raid, either by honest eyewitness mistake (war is Rashomon effect on steroids) or by deliberated misstatement (North Vietnamese not being all that fond of Americans) or by the North Vietnamese government having disguised a strategic plant as a non-strategic plant (done all the time by countries under aerial assault). Two, even if a light bulb factory was hit, it may have been a building other than the one being targeted, and was hit by mistake — 1967 was before the smart-bomb era and targets were missed all the time. Three, a light bulb factory is not necessarily a civilian target — it could be considered part of the economic infrastructure (targeted for example in WWII). Four, calling this a war crime is hyperbole. If the U.S. wanted to commit war crimes with its air strikes, it could have done a lot more hideous things than this (consider the U.S. fire bombing attacks against Japanese cities in WWII); indeed the great potential war crime controversy at the time was bombing of Vietnam's dikes, not light bulb factories. Five, the article doesn't say the thermal power plant was hit, just that it was the target of the raid. I don't see any change merited here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A minor correction here. There actually were some first-generation smart bombs in use in 1967, the AGM-62 Walleye, and four of the twenty planes on this raid were armed with them (but not McCain's). I added a footnote a few days ago to reflect this. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanity fair magazine (http://www.vanityfair.com./politics/features/2007/02/mccain200702?currentPage=5) claims "Because his broken arms were allowed to heal without ever being properly set, to this day McCain cannot raise his arms above his shoulders." This photo (http://johnmccain.com/images/hp/012908_flwin1a_01.jpg) is obviously recent, and his arm is above his shoulders. Is the photo manipulated, or is Vanity Fair wrong? Jcc1 (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misled by the camera angle, which is from a bit below McCain. I think he's extending his arm outward, not upward. That Vanity Fair article has descriptions of how when McCain thinks his hair needs to be combed or flattened down, he has to ask somebody in the room to do it, because he can't reach it with his own arms and hands. I don't think the author (Todd Purdum, a respected writer) made that up. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Offices in the infobox

I've removed 'Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services', 'Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs' and 'Chairman of the Senate Committee of Commerce' from the infobox as McCain is the only holder of any of these positions who has it included. Also, it makes the infobox overly long. --Hera1187 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Leading candidate

Can we at least wait until February 5th, before adding leading?? GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead section already describes the current status of his campaign, there's no reason to add "leading" to the first paragraph. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

John "Reverse Ace" McCain

The post in this section that says that McCain is not a war here is sociopathic in it's disregard for McCain's experience of torture during his 5 years as a Prisoner of War-- Yes McCain is without question a hero for enduring torture and war imprisonment no matter what kind of pilot he was. And the person who wrote the post underneath this one may in fact be a sociopath working as a paid political hitman to try to smear McCain.

Also there is a factual innacuracy (lie might be a better word) in the post as well-- my own father was an Air Force pilot-- and a Court Martial does not automatically follow a loss of an aircraft-- a review board always follows, which is not a court martial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean7phil (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Expect more of these anti-McCain smear tactics as the campaign grinds on. Not everyone has a conscience and not everyone has a heart.

(Statistically, 1 in 25 people is a sociopath-- read the post in this section claiming that mcCain is not a war here for an example of a live sociopath or at the very least a bitter misanthrope at work).

Sean7phil (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily a "paid political hitman". There has been an obscure but very bitter anti-McCain element going back 15 years or more, ever since his role on the Kerry POW/MIA committee and in normalizing relations with Vietnam. It's all about the POW/MIA issue, and the attacks on his flying and his actions in captivity are all aimed at impeaching his character relative to his refusal to go along with the POW/MIA activists' narrative of a 35-year government conspiracy to leave men behind. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and you could be right-- but the effect is the same-- smearing character and out of proportion thinking.

However one additional point-- I grew up intimately close to the POW / MIA movement (and some of it's original leadership) and Government Conspiracy was never the narrative for the whole movement-- it was / is the narrative for a small but vocal minority within that movement. Most of it's activists never had government conspiracy as a primary orientation. There were concerns about the government not making POWs a strong enough priority in relation to many competing wartime and post-war priorities, but for most "National League of Families" members this perception never rose to the level of outright conspiracy.

Sean7phil (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand there was a split; I was using, perhaps unfairly, "POW/MIA activists" as a shorthand for the minority you describe. Wikipedia badly needs an article covering the whole Vietnam POW/MIA issue ... we have Missing in action, which has to be broad, and United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, which covers the Kerry committee specifically, but nothing that focuses on the whole history of MIA relative to Vietnam and Southeast Asia. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a great idea! There should be a wikipedia article on the history of the POW / MIA movement and the Nationial League of Familes. Would you be interested in contributing to such an article?

Sean7phil (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   All this talk about McCain being a war hero is utter nonsense.

His nickname in the Navy was "Ace" and "Reverse Ace" McCain. He piloted 5 Navy planes to their destruction and managed not to get court marshalled even once. Those who have served in the military know that when you are involved in the destruction of an expensive piece of military equipment a court marshall will follow. His first crash occurred in 1958 when he crashed a jet into Corpus Christi Bay. He claimed it was engine failure but when the engine was flush of salt water, then engine started up on the first try. The author of McCain's biography, Robert Timberg, cited several sources that only McCain's daddy the admiral kept him from being cashiered out of the Navy for his poor piloting skills.

He lost his 5th plane over Vietnam when it was shot down. It has been well noted that mCCain was tortured by his Vietnamese captures. Being tortured does NOT make you a hero. When he was offered early release because his father was an admiral, he was SUPPOSE to turn it down. American POWs are NOT suppose to accept special privilidges from their captures. If he accepted the early release, he would have violated military policy. You are NOT a hero when you do what your are suppose to do....

I have several sources but Robert Timberg's biography of McCain is my main source....... Here is a quote from one of McCain's flight instructors. "(McCain was) positively one of the weakest students to pass our way, and received consistently poor marks and a number of Dangerous Down grades assigned by more than one instructor. He had no real ability and was clearly out of his element in an airplane, and way over his head even as a junior naval officer." McCain owed his military career to his daddy the admiral. And speaking of McCain's father, he was a below average sub captain with regard to Japanese tonage sunk. BUT.....lucky for McCain's father, he was an admiral as well he got his son promotions. The only McCain of real ability was the grandfather......the son and the grandson are stories of nepotism and unearned promotions.... Felixnietzsche (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has four losses ... Corpus Christi splash, Spain power lines collision, Forrestal, Hanoi ... what was the fifth? And note that he was a victim not a cause of the Forrestal accident and that Hanoi was one of the most heavily defended airspaces in history, so those two clearly aren't on him. Also note that some other POWs did accept early release. In any case, the article never uses the word "hero" at all; readers can access for themselves. Though I suspect if they read McCain's 1973 U.S. News & World Report account that we link to, few will agree with your perspective on heroism. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've now looked through both Timberg books. The fifth incident was a flameout, ejection and crash near Norfolk in 1965; I've added that to the article. However, the Spain power lines collision only damaged the plane, it wasn't a loss. So he's only been in four planes that were lost, not five. Regarding his flying skills, Timberg says he started out below par, only adequate to get by, but got at least somewhat better as he went along. I've added that to the article too. The stuff you wrote above about engine flush, and about McCain's father keeping him from being bounced after the crashes, does not appear in the Timberg books. Nor does that flight instructor quote. You must have gotten all that from somewhere else. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think doing what you are supposed to do does in fact make you a hero. Withstanding torture and doing your best to be honorable is heroic by my definition, if not yours. My father is actually an Air Force Cross recipient and was there during the time McCain was there. I don't know about McCain's flying ability, but the US had actually lost air superiority because of the SAM threat. We developed new tactics (Wild Weasels) to combat the threat, but many "good sticks" were lost before we cracked the code.

Regardless, unlike Clinton and even Bush, McCain did his duty (like Kerry) and it irks me highly when people try to take away from him on this basis. Based on my impression of POWs who were there with him (I know two), he was not the most nor the least honorable of them. He obviously was not the best pilot either, but he went and tried. There is something called situation awareness that you either have or you don't. He apparently didn't. He still did his duty, and he had a big chunk of his life robbed. As an American, I feel grateful to him. If you don't, OK, but please attack his politics based on his politics. Don't be so annoyed because some of us feel a sense of debt to him for his service and his lost health and youth.

I believe I have heard a story about a massive rescue mission being mounted to get McCain which was called off by McCain's father because of the futility of it. Not sure if I have this story completely correct. Has anyone else heard it? --72.47.157.252 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No ... there were a number of rescue missions for POWs undertaken during the war, of which I think Operation Ivory Coast is the most famous, but none of them really succeeded. No doubt there were others that were planned but called off, and McCain's father as CINCPAC may have had the operational decision on whether to scrub them. But I highly doubt there were any rescue missions undertaken to specifically rescue McCain himself; missions were intended to rescue all the POWs in a given camp. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what I meant. When a pilot was down, there was almost always a rescue operation immediately organized to extract the pilot before captured. I am talking about the day he was downed, not some operation undertaken to free a pilot already in North Vietnamese custody way after the fact. Anyhow, the story I heard had to do with his father calling of this rescue operation. --Hhoblit (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I don't think so in this case either. He went down in central Hanoi, hardly condusive to a pickup. And according to Timberg, his father was informed that no pilots were seen getting out of the two planes that went down on that mission, and then later the Admiral who was Chief of Naval Operations told the family that they didn't think there were any survivors. They didn't know McCain was alive until the North Vietnamese announced his capture. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

More discussion of Iraq policy?

I'm quite surprised that there is not more discussion, particularly in his political views, on the long-term US commitment to Iraq. Iraq is mentioned, but not discussed in terms of forward looking policy. Is there an objection to coverage of this issue?84.84.77.16 (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of this material is in Political positions of John McCain#Iraq War. Feel free to add more. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

McCain's opposition to Bush Tax Cuts

The article cited about McCain's opposition to the tax cuts (politifact.com) has been updated. It now notes that the opposition was not based on fiscal responsibly. Further, in every interview in 2001 and 2003 about the tax cuts (even 2004 - Meet the Press), McCain cites that he did not like the distribution of the tax cuts.

Thus, I think this line, at the very least, should be removed "arguing that he would support the tax cut plan if they were tied to subsequent decreases in spending" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.224.15 (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. I've changed it, and have included a direct quote from McCain's floor statement/press release at the time regarding his reason for opposing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Length, pt 2

At 157K, this article is entirely too long. I'm on a cable modem and it takes too long to load. Maybe the 2000 Presidential election section (which is covered in another article) or the 2001-07 section (which probably goes into more detail than is necessary) could be trimmed. --B (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

An experiment is needed. Try copying the article to a sandbox, then deleting whole sections until the response time is good for you. Then tell us how many K the article is at that point. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo from the eighties?

What happened to the old photo. This one was made before digital cameras. I can hardly recognize him with black eyebrows. 71.178.155.155 (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This photo was at his website in 2006.[1] It includes a flag and a smile, and I like it better than the other image. However, I am bracing myself to be outvoted.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely from the late eighties early nineties. I like other picture better. Please change it back. 71.178.155.155 (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look here and say which ones would be acceptable.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This one is probably the best: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:John_McCain_official_photo_portrait.JPG

71.178.155.155 (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Paisan30 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Image:JohnMcCain.JPG, which was being used, is that it is extremely low resolution and chops off the top of his head. Having a current photo is better, but it needs to be high-resolution and well-cropped. --B (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mocking

I am failing to understand how the phrase "mocking Governor Hull's opposition in the former" is supported by the footnoted article John McCain Report: The 'maverick' runs", The Arizona Republic, 2007-03-01.

I have read the article and don't see any mocking by McCain in it. Nightkey (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

McCain's large winning margin in Arizona served to mock Hull's actions and spinnings, not McCain himself. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

McCain graduation in the bottom of his class in 1958

Where is this cited and how do we know this? I think it is not a neutral statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.184.205 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

more importantly -- "though he showed himself to be intelligent and did well in subjects that interested him..." outright bias, a "Weasel phrase" if i've ever seen one Rextalionis (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See the "Naval training, early assignments, first marriage and children" section of the article: "Dropping out was unthinkable and so he successfully completed his training and graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958; he was fifth from the bottom in class rank.[17]" Footnote 17 is this profile from the Des Moines Register newspaper. You can also read it in this article from the Arizona Republic, or page 45 of the Robert Timberg biography John McCain: An American Odyssey. The actual rank was 894 out of 899. This is a well-known fact that is part of McCain lore. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That exact language ("bottom of his class") is also used in the recent Time Magazine cover story,[2] which states, "He was also, at his core, still the rowdy, runty, red-tempered plebe who finished near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy despite an IQ of 133." (pp. 3 of 4) — Satori Son 00:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but how is it relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't see how a Senetor who partied in college and ranked near the bottom of his class is relevent?Reinoe (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, unless you can cite that it has hampered or affected his career in some way, otherwise it is just non-notable trivia about the man.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely not trivia and belongs in the article, because it's part-and-parcel of his rebellious, defiant personality then and now that he couldn't be bothered to do better. It's the same part of him that delights in ticking off orthodox conservatives, for example. However, this whole theme of his personality isn't really established in the lead section, so to include this in the lead without the relevant context (including that his poor performance was not due to poor intellect) is unfair. As I am the guilty party who put it in the lead, I'm removing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest "graduated 894th out of 899" or "graduated 894th out of 899, due in part to his rebellious attitude" which is accurate, verified subsequently, and provides relevant context. I salute your mea culpa, but I actually think it's misplaced. Jensiverson (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary to change the quote, just put it in quotation marks and directly attribute it to the various sources. — Satori Son 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I certainly belongs in the article. I was reading the article the other day to find more about McCain, and I found it useful. The way we say it is not really relevant, IMO ("near the bottom of this class" is a fairly undeniable statement for 6th to last out of 899), but is should be included in the Early life and military career section. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is, and will continue to be, in the main body of the article, in the "Early life and military service" section. The only question is whether it should also be in the lead section at the top. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not hearing any argument of my suggestion, I'm restoring and clarifying the lead. Jensiverson (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I agree with most of the people here that this info belongs in the article. However, I also agree with those who say it shoulod not be in the lead. The reason why it shouldn't be in the lead is because the body of the article includes the following sentence: "Possessed of a strong intelligence,[17] he did well in a few subjects that interested him, such as English literature, history and government." Without this context in the lead, the mere class rank is misleading.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's current edit: "graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he was intelligent and had done well in subjects that interested him" seems like a good formulation that takes into account the concerns expressed.Jensiverson (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair formulation, but I still think the whole thing doesn't belong in the lead section. Or if it does, then we should add more about the nature of his character to other parts of the lead. Right now, it's looks like something that got dumped into the lead and then argued over. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Wasted Time R. Lots of Wikipedia biographies cover people who were in the bottom 10% in college, but that fact is rarely mentioned in their lead paragraphs. My favorite formulation (which applies to my law school perfomance as well) is that we "enabled the top 10%."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be in the lead in some manner, otherwise his pre-political life is essentially reduced to "POW." If you wanted to trim the pre-politicial lead paragraph it could go from

Both McCain's grandfather and father were Admirals in the United States Navy. McCain attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he was intelligent and had done well in subjects that interested him. He became a naval aviator, flying attack aircraft from carriers. During the Vietnam War in 1967, he narrowly escaped death in the Forrestal fire. On his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam later in 1967, he was shot down and badly injured. He then endured five and a half years as a prisoner of war, including periods of torture, before he was released following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.

to

Both McCain's grandfather and father were Admirals in the United States Navy. McCain attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he did well in subjects that interested him. During the Vietnam War in 1967, he narrowly escaped death in the Forrestal fire. On his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam later in 1967, he was shot down and badly injured. He then endured five and a half years as a prisoner of war, including periods of torture, before he was released following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.Jensiverson (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

John McCain's picture

Why is his picture a tulip?

Florian

203.128.81.26 (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

just another vandal doing their vandalism. i've reverted it, but i suspect more tulip fun is inevitable. Anastrophe (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He did have —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.199.124 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Vietnamese response

I modified the claim that many Vietnamese Americans supported his use of gook and didn't find it offensive [3]. If you read the source carefully, it's quite clear that while many people understood why he felt the way he felt and some felt it was not offensive, others did find it offensive. The source specifically says the response was mixed not that many supported him. It quotes 2 or 3 people, I presume there are more but obviously no scientific poll was conducted of the Vietnamese-American community so it's impossible to know what proportion of the population supported his use of the term. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article makes it clear that objection to his use of "gook" is a minority opinion among the Vietnamese American community ("Not everyone in the community agrees", "Members of the émigré community...still carry an affection for politicians like McCain", "for the most part, first-generation Vietnamese Americans... admitted that they are likely to support the candidate"). You changed it to imply that support for him is a minority opinion ("some..."). Perhaps this source did not make it clear that he enjoyed extremely high support among Vietnamese Americans, but I can find other sources that make it clear: [4] and an article about a protest against him - if you read between the lines, it's pretty clear that they're a tiny minority(he's also getting a lot of support from Vietnamese this year too). DHN (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the assertion, and added two articles from the LA Times and OC Register about Vietnamese support for him despite the terminology. DHN (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the US president have to be born inside the USA?

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Isn't it a requirement for the US president to have been born inside the US (or to be more correct: to be a "natural born citizen") (thus Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't become the US president because he was born in Austria, even though he is a "naturalized citizen"). However, the Panama Canal Zone was kind of USA (organized incorporated territory) when McCain was born, so does that rule (not) apply?

Wouldn't it be interesting to address this question in the article? If only to clear up things? Or is it safe to assume that McCain and his supporters assume that he is in fact eligible to become president if only because no one would risk so much money and power and then be denied eligibility for office?--Soylentyellow (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's addressed in the very first footnote in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Excellent article btw. --Soylentyellow (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been hotly debated since 1790 so I'm not sure why it's reduced to a footnote. "A person can be considered to be a citizen-at-birth either due to place of birth within that country's territorial jurisdiction jus soli or through descent from a citizen of that country jus sanguinis, or through some combination of those two elements. A person who is a citizen-at-birth and was also born within that country would be additionally considered a native-born citizen"[5]. A citzen-at-birth, like John McCain, is not necessarily a native-born citizen or a Natural-born citizen as explicitly stated in the Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution.

The Rudin article noted the Naturalization Act of 1790, with the term "Natural born", but it was repealed and replaced by Naturalization Act of 1795 without such a note. Both of these, plus the much maligned Dred Scott v. Sandford case, addressed naturalization which grants rights of citizenship but does not ammend Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, although not truly ratified, overturned Dred Scott and is considered the authority on citizenship but, again, does not ammend Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution.

So is the Panama Canal Zone considered to by "within that country (USA)"? That's also debatable because it was not an organized incorporated territory. Being controlled by the "Panama Canal Company" and organized by a United States territorial court outside the jurisdiction of Article Three of the United States Constitution what are it's rights under the Constitution?

McCain may need a Constituational Ammendment[6]. It would be a shame if McCain would break his oath to uphold the Constitution while taking the oath of office. Hutcher (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so write a separate article on who can be president, that covers all the possible cases including this one, and we can link to that. But to include a full discussion of this in the main McCain bio article would be a huge diversion. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right so I've added a note referring to the most appropriate existing article: Natural-born citizen. In addition I removed the existing footnote since it's assertions are debatable if not incorrect Hutcher (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more importantly, if he was born in a military hospital under a Status of Forces Agreement that so provided, that would be considered US soil. There are several specialized exceptions, one of which being that if the parent(s) are in the service of the government (e.g., diplomats or military), the child is presumed to be American, although the child might later choose dual citizenship -- which, I would think, would be a practical bar to becoming President. Also, an aircraft or ship registered in a given country is considered to be under the jurisdiction of that country -- including birth, which is more common on ships -- even if in international waters. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, that would make McCain a citizen-at-birth which is different from Natural-Born Citizen. Again, the Ken Rudin article's only source is a law that was repealed and replaced. Your reference to SOFA further bolsters my claim "SOFA is an agreement between a country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country" and does not address naturalization. As far as I know McCain was not born at sea so your second point is also invalid. That footnote is in error and, again, does not do this subject justice. The only reason for shoehorning this debate into a footnote is to hide it from visitors who do not ready the Talk page or re-research the article by following the references. A proper mention to Natural-born citizen belongs in this article. Hutcher (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether McCain is qualified due to his place of birth is now in the first footnote of the entire article. If it's going to be bumped up into the main article text, then you'd need to provide a reliable source discussing the issue, plus get consensus that it's notable and neutral to include in the main text. And even then, it would belong in the section on his presidential campaign, unless the issue was raised in 1936.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jillions of words have been written about McCain by WP:RS during this campaign and his 2000 campaign, and just about none of them have questioned his eligibility to become president (the WaPo article is from before even his first campaign). If there was any mainstream thought that he wasn't eligible, the press (not to mention his competitors!) would have brought it up. They haven't. By consideration of WP:Undue weight, that means we need barely mention this issue in this article; the footnote reference we have is enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia:Footnotes? This is not a proper use of footnote as per Wikipedia:Footnotes. Footnotes should only be used to add additional info to a point not replace the point all together.

2) Notable? The US Constitution is notable.

3) WP:RS? I have made a dozen references to the US Consititution and current US law vs. the footnote's 1 reference to an op-ed column and 2 misused latin phrases.

4) WP:Undue weight? This is my argument ... all significant viewpoints are not being permitted.

5) Campaign? The campaign article is about events in the campaign not about it's validity.

6) Consensus? This is an open-source encyclopedia not a partisan website. You can not make false claims and then label them the will of the people -- you need to invalidate my sources and support the footnote's ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutcher (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You won't like hearing this, but your arguments about what the Constitution means are ruled out by WP:NOR. And read the first sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." What this means here is that even if the mainstream, famous people say McCain is eligible and are wrong, and if you the non-famous person says McCain is ineligible and are right, your view here still means squat. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for moving the footnote anywhere; I'm only asking if "may have been assured" is weasel wording? I mean, it seems to be putting a spin on an unknown -- would it be better to remove the implied bias/weasel words?

Clutter at top of article

The top of the article currently includes this:

"McCain" redirects here. For other uses, see McCain (disambiguation).

For McCain's grandfather and father, see John S. McCain, Sr. and John S. McCain, Jr.,

respectively

For McCain's Presidential Campaign, see John McCain presidential campaign, 2008.

This seems like massive overkill. McCain's 2008 campaign is already linked at the top of the corresponding section of this article. Also, his father and grandfather are already linked at the disambiguation page. How about if we just say at the top of this article:

"McCain" redirects here. For other uses, including family members, see McCain (disambiguation).

That should be sufficient, shouldn't it?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A user has been doing this to most of the presidential candidates. I started a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Main article top xrefs to campaign article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

the redirects for his grandfather and father though still aren't necessary, since they're on the main dab page, right? Anastrophe (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we add the following to the first paragraph of the article: "The John McCain presidential campaign officially began on February 28, 2007." The aforementioned clutter could be replaced by: "McCain" redirects here. For other uses, including family members, see McCain (disambiguation).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The exact official starting date of a presidential campaign is not the kind of detail you want cluttering up the first paragraph of the main bio article. If you're trying to work in the campaign article wlink right away, "... a candidate for the Republican Party nomination in the 2008 presidential election" would be better, although still not great. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about: "McCain is now the Republican front-runner, although McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign does not yet include a vice-presidential candidate"? I think the wikilink to his campaign, in the first paragraph, should clearly refer to his campaign. And the matter of a vice-presidential pick is typically a leading question for a front-runner. If we can settle on a sentence like this for the first paragraph, then I would replace the clutter at the top of the article with "McCain" redirects here. For other uses, including family members, see McCain (disambiguation).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're horribly distorting the first paragraph just to try to work an unvarnished wlink in. This article should have as little "now" and "yet" and "currently" in it as possible; it's a biographical article, not a web site offering up-to-the-minute status on his campaign. The clutter above the article, as ugly as it is, is less damaging than this kind of approach. Once Huckabee drops out, we should change the first sentence from "a candidate for the Republican Party nomination in the 2008 presidential election" to "the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election", but that's it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there must be a simple and straightforward way to mention his 2008 campaign in the first paragraph, in order to remove what we all agree is ugliness at the top of the article. "McCain also ran for president in 2000, but his 2008 presidential campaign has thus far been more successful." Isn't the fact that he previously ran for president a suitable thing to mention briefly in the first paragraph?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The scheme of this lead section is, the first paragraph gives the most fundamental bio information (name, DOB, most important office(s), is a candidate for president). Then the second through fourth paragraphs give, in chrono order, a summary of the person's life and of the article to come. Hillary Clinton uses the same scheme, as does Barack Obama with the addition of a first paragraph detour re African American senators. To do what you propose would just jump the mini-chronology badly. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The simplest solution here is just to go back to status quo ante, no deliberate up-top mention of the campaign article at all. WP:SUMMARY doesn't call for any such thing, after all; the pointers to the subarticles are supposed to come in the relevant sections that summarize them, which we already do. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Plus, I expanded the list at the dab page.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

More Vietnam issues and a question on why the main page can't be edited

Why is the main page locked out from edits? There are some historical details that are in the process of being verified right now that are very pertinent to the whole POW issue.

The material being verified is as follows:

The fact is, in exchange for better medical treatment, McCain violated this code four days after being captured on Oct. 26, 1967. In a U.S. News and World Report interview dated May 14, 1973, two months after he was released, McCain admitted that he exchanged military information in exchange for spending six weeks in a hospital normally reserve for North Vietnamese Military officers.

U.S. government records show that less than two weeks after he was taken to the hospital, Hanoi's press began quoting specific military information, including the name of the aircraft carrier on which McCain had been based, information about the location of rescue ships and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place.

The records demonstrate, according to the Dispatch article that McCain continued to collaborate with the Communists after he recovered from his injuries. He did a number of propaganda broadcasts that were aimed at destroying the moral of American servicemen fighting in the jungles of South Vietnam, On June 4, 1969, a U.S. Wire Service story reported one of McCain's broadcasts. The service reported "Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of the U.S. Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praised medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner."

McCain committed other breaches of the Code of Conduct by meeting with and giving interviews to foreign news reporters and anti American delegations.

McCain admits to talking with numerous high-ranking North Vietnamese leaders, including General Vo Nguyen Giap, their Minister of Defense.

He also did a cozy interview over coffee, oranges, and cake with a Cuban psychiatrist, which took place in the Hanoi office of the Committee for Foreign Cultural Relations.

He failed to "evade answering questions to the utmost of his ability;" by actually conversing with his interviewer in Spanish.

If this is backed up by the original articles, and I might add I have further information that the Washington Post carried that the wire service story mentioned on or about June 6, 1969, I think it is seriously important to add this information. The government sources mentioned are also being verified.

For any foreigners here, if this pans out and is verifiable, we here in the United States would consider John McCain to be the lowest of all Traitors, a POW who sold out to the enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Call this what you want, but if factual, it's fair play, and I might add, much more fair than what the Republicans did to Kerry.

Oh, and based on what I'm seeing here, does wikipedia have the campaign itself vetting the page? That's unethical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, isn't it interesting the rapport he had with the psychiatric-trained Cuban intelligence officer? Has anyone seen "The Manchurian Candidate"? (of course I will leave that comment out of the article, and only state the known facts, as verified, and sourced). 66.41.19.246 (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What are the verification requirements? would a full bittorrent of all relevant documents scanned at 600dpi released to every bittorrent site in the world suffice for proper proof of verification (I've had experiences with the mods here before, and in cases dissing a republican this is what I think may be required to get the material into a wikipedia article).. US News and World Report should be archived at most major universities and libraries. The Washington Post. Maybe even the Vietnamese Government might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should find funding for a TV commercial if this pans out. Would that count as verification? Wikipedia took the words of the swift boat liars as fact at face value four years ago, and sanctioned anyone who posted information to the contrary, iirc. 66.41.19.246 (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll make several general responses to what you say.

1. I don't know how WP handled the Kerry swift-boating four years ago (I didn't start editing until January 2005) and I don't care. If it was done unfairly, that's no reason for McCain's POW time to be handled unfairly now.
2. As you probably already know, you can't edit the article because it's semi-protected and you're not a registered user.
3. As far as I know, WP does not have the McCain campaign vetting this page. From my perspective, it doesn't really matter; edits have to stand on their own merits, regardless of who makes them or what their motivation is. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
4. WP:V tells you all you need to know about verification requirements. "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." The Washington Post and U.S. News and World Report are both considered reliable sources. Random websites, such as namvets.com, from whence you got the above material, is not considered one.
5. You don't have to go to a library to find the U.S. News and World Report McCain POW story; it's now online, it's cited over 20 times in the article (as of today, it's footnote 44) and is also linked to from the "Writings" section. Did you actually read the article?
6. Old Washington Post stories are available online from their web archives, but you have to shell out a few bucks to actually read them. This here is the June 6, 1969 story you're interested in.
7. The "Manchurian Candidate" meme is mentioned twice in the article, once in the part where it discusses charges by some POW/MIA activists during the 1991-93 Kerry committee, and once where it discusses the smear campaign against him during the 2000 South Carolina primary. Did you actually read the article?

More to follow on the specifics. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On the specifics of the namvets.com material:

1. "Exchanging military information to get hospital treatment". This comes up a lot on the anti-McCain websites. McCain's original USN&WR account left one part of this a bit unclear. In the Timberg books (The Nightingale's Song, 1995, An American Odyssey, 1999), where he interviews McCain, the sequence is clearer; see Nightingale pp. 116-117 or Odyssey pp. 79-80. McCain offers military info to get hospital treatment, "hoping he could put him [the interrogator] off once his wounds were treated." North Vietnamese send in a doctor who says don't bother, McCain's going to die before he can talk anyway. So no military info is given. Then North Vietnamese discover McCain's father is a big admiral; they realize McCain is a valuable prisoner, so take him to the hospital without conditions. I've adjusted the article to reflect this sequence. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
   1. I've further amended the article to add that under initial duress McCain did reveal the name of his ship, the name of his squadron, and the intended target of the air raid. This was in violation of the Code, although of no practical military use to the North Vietnamese, and McCain expresses regret for doing so. McCain gave ficticious answers when pressed about the names of members of his squadron and future planned targets. See Faith of My Fathers pp. 193-194. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      1. I further further amended the article to minor tweak the above sequence ... the ship/squadron/target names were given after he was taken to the hospital, not before. Doesn't really change anything, but wanted to clarify. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
2. "A hospital normally reserved for North Vietnamese Military officers". Sounds swank! Its main features were mosquitos, roaches, and rats. (Odyssey p. 80.) Its treatment was so good that by the time McCain was "discharged" into a prison cell, his two cellmates (Day and Overly) "didn't think he was going to live out the day." (Odyssey p. 84.) Wasted Time R (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
3. "U.S. government records show that less than two weeks after he was taken to the hospital, Hanoi's press began quoting specific military information ..." Cite for these gov't records?
4. "The records demonstrate, according to the Dispatch article that McCain continued to collaborate with the Communists ..." What is this 'Dispatch'? Cite?
5. "On June 4, 1969, a U.S. Wire Service story reported one of McCain's broadcasts. The service reported "Hanoi has aired a broadcast ..." "Washington Post carried that the wire service story on or about June 6, 1969" OK, I've gotten that WaPo story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasted Time R (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC) And I've now added it to the article. It wasn't a broadcast of McCain speaking, but rather Radio Hanoi reading a statement attributed to McCain, the gist of which is in the article (there's additional stuff in the statement about how the NV doctors were good). Is this the same statement that McCain acknowledges was tortured out of him in July 1968? Or something different? Can't say for sure, not having seen a full version of his 1968 statement. It could have been held until needed, since it wasn't until May 1969 that the U.S. really started questioning POW treatment. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
6. "meeting with and giving interviews to foreign news reporters and anti American delegations". As the USN&WR piece indicates, most of the time McCain either refused to meet with them, or was non-communicative with them, or outwardly hostile.
7. "McCain admits to talking with numerous high-ranking North Vietnamese leaders, including General Vo Nguyen Giap". McCain's actual "admission", from the USN&WR piece: "After that, many visitors came to talk to me. Not all of it was for interrogation. Once a famous North Vietnamese writer—an old man with a Ho Chi Minh beard—came to my room, wanting to know all about Ernest Hemingway. I told him that Ernest Hemingway was violently anti-Communist. It gave him something to think about. Others came in to find out about life in the United States. They figured because my father had such high military rank that I was of the royalty or the governing circle. They have no idea of the way our democracy functions. One of the men who came to see me, whose picture I recognized later, was Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, the hero of Dienbienphu. He came to see what I looked like, saying nothing."
8. "He also did a cozy interview over coffee, oranges, and cake with a Cuban psychiatrist, which took place in the Hanoi office of the Committee for Foreign Cultural Relations. He failed to 'evade answering questions...'" From the USN&WR piece: "So I went to see this visitor who said he was from Spain, but who I later heard was from Cuba. He never asked me any questions about controversial subjects or my treatment or my feelings about the war. I told him I had no remorse about what I did, and that I would do it over again if the same opportunity presented itself. That seemed to make him angry, because he was a sympathizer of the North Vietnamese. At the time this happened, a photographer came in and took a couple of pictures. I had told 'The Cat' that I didn't want any such publicity. So when I came back—the interview lasted about 15, 20 minutes—I told him I wasn't going to see another visitor because he had broken his word. Also at that time Capt. Jeremiah Denton, who was running our camp at that time, established a policy that we should not see any delegations."

So all in all, unless some new reliable sources come forward here, there isn't anything that can be added to the article other than the two changes I've already indicated. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Screwy sentence?

This sentence has me confused: "He returned to Pensacola station, where he served as a flight instructor at Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi, where McCain Field was named for his grandfather." Pensacola is in Florida, right? So, how could he serve as a flight instructor in Pensacola if he was in Mississippi?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to say, "He returned to shore duty, serving as a flight instructor at Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi, where McCain Field was named for his grandfather."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Burner0718 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno what I was thinking when I wrote that originally ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Generally, it's a good job of research and writing. I see you've reverted a few of the stylistic changes I made, which is fine with me. I hope you don't mind if I proofread further sections when I get around to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, proofreading and tightening are great, there were only a few places where I tried to restore or modify what you had done. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Politics as a second choice

I'm having difficulty now with this sentence: "By now it was clear that McCain's naval career was stalled; he would never be promoted to admiral as his grandfather and father had been.[7]" I'm not sure where this is in the cited NYT article. On the contrary, the NYT article says he had political (and presidential) aspirations while visiting the Hanoi Hilton. Where does the cited source say that he despaired of becoming an admiral? It may well say it, and I just missed it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, I see now. The second paragraph of the NYT article says, "It was 1979, and it was becoming clear that he would never make admiral like his father and grandfather."Ferrylodge (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit from Timberg as to the specifics of his career stalling. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture at Truc Bach Lake

Nowadays there is a memorial at Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi that commemorates John McCain's capture. Can we use this free image instead of the unfree one that we currently use for his capture? DHN (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The actual photo of the capture looks very dramatic. The memorial is nice too, but it seems like a picture of the event memorialized would be better than a picture of the memorial.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ferrylodge on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Punk and McNasty

I've lightened up the sentence about his nicknames.[8] It seems pretty clear from the cited source that this was all in good fun. Here's a quote from the cited source:

“ At Episcopal, students called McCain the “Punk,” a moniker he relished. From his senior yearbook entry, McCain is pictured in a trench coat, collar up, cigarette dangling from his lips. His classmates wrote: “It was three fateful years ago that the ‘Punk’ first crossed the threshold of the high school. His magnetic personality has won for him many life-long friends. John is remarkable for the amount of gray hair he has; this may come from his cramming for Annapolis or from his nocturnal perambulations.” ”

Ferrylodge (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know about your high school yearbook, but in general their senior year captions aren't always the most balanced portrayals. I'd suggest you read all of Timberg's "The Punk" chapter, then see what you think. This might be the key depiction:

Rives Richey, one of his closest friends back then, remembered McCain as rambunctious and combative, at times "just repelling," the type of kid who had a few good pals within a student body that either actively disliked him or gave him a wide berth. "He was considered kind of a punk," said Richey.

Now Timberg gives a three-dimensional, full-colored painting of McCain back then, which is hard for us to capture briefly in this article. But I don't think your "lightening up" is correct; when you say,

Playfully known as "Punk" and "McNasty", his magnetic personality won him many friends

I think you're wrong about the "playful" and you're wrong about the "many". Wasted Time R (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I read one of the cited sources, but not Timberg. When I clicked on Timberg, I saw the NY Times portal and wrongly assumed it required a fee. Sorry about that. Anyway, I've looked over Timberg now. Here's the full quote:

"Rives Richey, one of his closest friends back then, remembered McCain as rambunctious and combative, at times 'just repelling,' the type of kid who had a few good pals within a student body that either actively disliked him or gave him a wide berth. 'He was considered kind of a punk,' said Richey. In fact, he was known as Punk, alternatively as Nasty, in another variation, McNasty. He cultivated the image. The Episcopal yearbook pictures him in a trench coat, collar up, cigarette dangling Bogey-style from his lips. That pose, if hardly the impression Episcopal sought to project, at least had a fashionable world-weary style to it. Generally, though, he mocked the school's dress code by wearing blue jeans with his coat and tie and otherwise affecting a screw-you raffishness."

Generally speaking, just because some people may refer to a boy in high school as "stinkpot" or "sleazebag", that doesn't mean a Wikipedia biography 55 years later ought to join in the namecalling. There are ways to phrase things without doing that. The only reason why I don't object to including labels like "punk" and "McNasty" in the present article is because they were often used playfully (see yearbook that I quoted in my initial comment), and McCain kind of enjoyed the joke and cultivated the image. If we don't get that info across to readers, then it makes it sound like he really was nasty to everyone, and loathed by everyone, and Wikipedia feels the same way about him.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased regarding "playful" and "many".[9]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your current description is "Known as 'Punk' and 'McNasty', he playfully cultivated the image of a raff, and his magnetic personality won him friends;[8][13] he had a fiery personality ..." How does this "playfully" that you still use square with this part in Timberg:

One of his few friends, Malcolm Matheson, remembered him fondly as "a hard rock kind of guy, a tough, mean little fucker." Not everyone was so charmed by those qualities. Said another schoolmate, "He prided himself on being a tough guy. He was seemingly ready to fight at the drop of a hat. He was easily provoked, ready to be provoked."

I've read through Timberg several times, and I still don't get the feeling of "playful". Timberg alludes to McCain's cultivated image coming from James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause and Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye. Neither of these archetypes is usually viewed as "playful". And please understand, the point here is not "namecalling" at all! It's to establish a biographical character base. 'Cause the McCain back then is what grew into all the other McCain's, the one who survived injuries that everyone thought he would die from and the one withstood his captors and the one who keeps trying when his bill gets shelved and the one who curses at and annoys his fellow senators and the one who doesn't give a damn if he offends conservative orthodoxy and the one who keeps on going after his campaign implodes ... it's all the same guy. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that you weren't trying to engage in namecalling, and I admit that these nicknames can be appropriately included here. Posing "in a trench coat, collar up, cigarette dangling Bogey-style from his lips" certainly was playful, but you're right that he apparently might have had those nicknmaes even if he hadn't playfully cultivated the image.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time R, please let me know if this will be satisfactory:

"Gaining the nicknames 'Punk' and 'McNasty' due to his combative and fiery disposition, he enjoyed and cultivated that tough guy image; he also made some good friends, and graduated from high school in 1954.[8][13][12]"

Here's the old version before I touched it:

"Gaining the nicknames 'Punk' and 'McNasty',[8][13] he was known as a fiery and contentious personality[12] and he graduated from high school in 1954."

I think it's important to mention that he enjoyed and cultivated this image, and that he made some good friends. All true, correct? Without this info, it seems like "Punk" and "McNasty" were garden-variety insults that he may have resented, and it seems like no one liked him.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're having to put clauses such as "he also made some good friends" into the article, we've failed miserably ... I can't image there's another bio in all of Wikipedia that says this. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to say that he was called "Punk" and "McNasty", isn't there some way that we can indicate he was not universally hated? The info about making friends is straight out of the biographical sources that you cited.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Timberg says, "One of his few friends, Malcolm Matheson, remembered him fondly as "a hard rock kind of guy, a tough, mean little fucker." I'll adjust the article accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We Should be Extra Careful

With the elections coming up, I'm sure there are people adding to wikipedia from within the campaign offices of each candidate. We should be extra vigialent in watching out for weasal words and try to remain neutral as possible, not only on the Mccain article but also the people he may be running against. If you read the article on Mike Huckabee, there seems to be a more neutral tone. The Huckabee article doesn't seem to be presenting useless information.

I find sentences like this "but suffered a near-collapse of his campaign in mid-2007 due to financial issues, and due to his support for comprehensive immigration reform." rather biased don't you think? Ok, his campaign may have suffered a near collapse, but really due to immigration reform? This obviously needs a citation also but at the same time adds useless information? Do some people feel this way too?

And this sentence also, "And graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he was intelligent and had done well in subjects that interested him." OK, doesn't this also seem like it adds useless information?Hqduong (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Campaign staff people aren't working on this article; the primary recent contributors are all long-time WP editors who have a masochistic desire to have their integrity questioned.

The style of this article is that assertions in the lead section are not footnoted, but instead repeat material that is introduced in the body of the article, with proper sourcing and citation. As it happened the cites for the corresponding statement in the body were missing; I have now restored them. Yes, immigration reform was a huge issue of the summer, and McCain's stance on it badly damaged his campaign at the time, although it's been less of an issue during this primary season (partly due to his altering his stance on it). I do not see how the story of McCain's campaign near-failure and rise again is "useless information".

Regarding the "bottom of the class" bit, this is not useless information, but as I state above I do not believe it should be in the lead section. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "And graduated near the bottom of his class in 1958, though he was intelligent and had done well in subjects that interested him" has been removed. I will remove the "weasel" tag that Hqduong inserted.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I find it extremely important to note that his campaign nearly dropped off the map around September/October. This is maybe the most unusual presidential nomination process we've ever seen. Never before have we had so many viable candidates so late. We've never had a national leader (Guiliani) up by 20 points in December then even get third place in the primaries until Florida. McCain's comeback is also unprecedented. History may remember this year as being very strange. It not only gives good information on McCain's comeback, but it also gives valuable information on the primaries for 2008. Kgj08 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Information

Perhaps someone with editing privileges can make use of some of this material:

http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=display&webtag=bc-politics&tid=1854

<cut-and-paste of board's long anti-McCain rant deleted>

Fatswaller (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't make any use of this material. It's the same anti-McCain rant from the POW/MIA conspiracy activists that you see everywhere else on the web. It has no WP:RS other than referring to the U.S. News & World Report account, which we already reference extensively. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fix please

he published a long cover story describing his ordeal and his support for the Nixon administration's handling of the war in U.S. News & World Report

He didn't "publish" it. He may have written it, but publishing it is different. kthxbai. :-) --198.185.18.207 (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

'Publish' is sometimes used in this sense, but in any case Ferrylodge changed it to 'authored'. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Frontrunner

I suggest expanding the first line to "frontrunner candidate", since its pretty obvious, right? I can't, someone blocked the page.

• Ben* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.53.181 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

See the last sentence before the table of contents.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)