This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
McCain's Office Response to Vietnam Issue - Do Not Archive
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
NOTE: I'm moving this up here since this *is* the source. Please respect the sourcing and do not archive this if the time comes where this talk page is archived. --badlydrawnjeff 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have emailed McCain's Senate office for clarification. Until this is resolved we should leave the contradiction tag up there... Here is the full text of the email I sent:
Greetings, I am trying to validate information concerning Senator McCain that is presented in the Senator's article in Wikipedia, the prominent online encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain). There are two conflicting paragraphs in the article concerning Senator McCain's service in Vietnam. I am hoping you can assist me in correcting this problem. Could you read the contradictory paragraphs (included below) and let me know via email which version of the facts is accurate? Here are the two paragraphs in question:
<snip>
If you have time, I would appreciate it if someone in your office could review the rest of the article for accuracy and bias as well. This information is read by millions of people, and I'd love to make certain that it's correct. Again, the article is located at: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) Killdevil 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
From Senator McCain's Office:"Thank you for taking the time to get your facts right! Both paragraphs have some truth to them.
McCain was first assigned to the USS Forrestal. He was in the cockpit of an A-4E Skyhawk on the deck of the Forrestal that was hit by an F-4 Zuni rocket to start the Forrestal fire on July 29, 1967.
He served with the Saints following the Forrestal incident. They were short on men after the Oriskany fire, and he volunteered to go serve there. It was not long after moving to the Saints on the Oriskany that he was shot down in Vietnam, on October 26, 1967.
So, while it would seem he would be in two places at once, he was just moving around. But to be clear, he was only in one of the fires, aboard the Forrestal. He came to the Oriskany after its fire. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
<removed name>
Executive Assistant
Office of Senator John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
<removed phone>
Based on this, and pending confirmation from third-party published sources, I have added "just before McCain's arrival" to the info on the Oriskany accident. -- Satori Son 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks,
Nick
[ 19:35, 19 July 2007 Zanimum ]
Election date
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
IT'S UNACCEPTABLE THAT IT SAYS "ELECTION DATE" UNDERNEATH MCCAIN'S BIO PICTURE. HE HAS NOT BEEN ELECTED AND, WHEN BROWSING THE PAGE OF OBAMA, THE SAME LANGUAGE IS NOT USED. "ELECTION DATE" APPEARS TO BE A BIASED STATEMENT, PERHAPS WISHFUL THINKING ON SOMEONE'S PART. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Strong words from someone unwilling to sign their post.Ratherthanlater (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Election date" assumes a future outcome that is in doubt and undetermined. Wikipedia is about facts, let's keep it to facts and not fortune-telling. -allister979 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allister979 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Lobbyist
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
An editor seems determined to insert a statement into the infobox that McCain was a lobbyist. This is wrong. McCain did many different things while he was in the Navy, and one of them was to serve as Navy liaison to the Senate. Another was serving as a trainee before combat duty, and then serving as a trainer after combat duty, and also serving as a POW during combat duty. There is no reason to list one but not other of those naval activities in the info box. Moreover, the liaison position required McCain to perform many functions having nothing to do with lobbying, such as providing constituent services and facilitating communication between legislators and DoD.[1] So, I'll revert the recent addition of "lobbyist" to the infobox.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the U.S. government's definition of lobbyist. I don't think it includes a government employee who discusses his department with Congressmen. Coemgenus 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Short paragraphs
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The article has a lot of (what seem to me) short paragraphs. Is this intentional, or an accidental by-product of the winnowing-down process? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It has some short paragraphs and some long paragraphs, which I think is fine. We do need to stay away from one-sentence paragraphs, which are bad form, but aside from that there's not any Wikipedia guideline I know of that discourages short paragraphs.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, just checking, doesn't bother me. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes there’s nothing wrong with short paragraphs as long as they aren’t one sentence paragraphs. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Condoleezza Rice
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I don't see anything about who McCain has selected for VP. I thought I had heard it was Condoleezza Rice. That would make an interesting ticket, although no one thinks that Obama will pick Hillary (she said she would pick him) it would mean a black man and a white woman on one side and a white man and a black woman on the other. Oakwillow (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
WTR, I didn't know about that article. Shouldn't it be wikilinked from the McCain 2008 article?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It used to be ... musta got lost along the way ... I see you've now added it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Nickname
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
I think on his info box there should be a spot for his nickname (I'm pretty sure other people have those spots), and the nickname I've heard him called the most is the Straight Talker.
His family nickname growing up was "Johnny", which we state in Early life and military career of John McCain. While he certainly likes to use the Straight Talk image in his campaigns, it's not a nickname; I don't think anyone walks down the corridors of the Capitol, sees McCain, and yells out, "Hey Straight Talker, what time does the subcommittee hearing begin this afternoon?" Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha, I actually laughed out loud! --Happyme22 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I meant a nickname in the same sense as Abraham Lincoln being called the Great Emancipator Dunnsworth (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if that is a common nickname. While he certainly uses Straight Talk Express/the "Straight Talk" motif/etc., I don't know (maybe I'm really that out of the loop) that I've ever heard him called "The Straight Talker". Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just as Lincoln was the Great Emancipator and Reagan was the Great Communicator, I too have never heard McCain reffered to as the Strait Talker. Happyme22 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Songbird was his nickname amongst his fellow POWs in Vietnem.74.73.11.102 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it was "Crip". See John G. Hubbell's P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964-1973Rochester and Kiley, Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973 page 371 and former POW Ernest C. Brace's A Code to Keep page 183. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Image placement
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The Manual of Stylesays: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." So, I'll move pics accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Humpelschmumpel has reverted. What part of the MOS is violated by having the pics arranged like I had it? And please note that one of Wikipedia's leading experts on the MOS has already weighed in on this.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
ANGER and TEMPER
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Not enough has been mentioned about Senator McCain's temper, even though many Republicans have spoken up about this issue. There is a new book coming out, and here is some information from that book:
The book is "The Real McCain" by Cliff Schecter. [elided] Cindy McCain has funded John McCain's lifestyle, as it is HER money. His comments were unforgivable. Mungemach (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Cultural and political image of John McCain is where McCain's temperment and temper are covered. Nowhere is where these very weakly sourced stories from the Schecter book are included.
Nonsense - everything in Schecter's book is documented, footnoted and sourced. This article is a disgrace from a neutrality perspective - it couldn't be any more pro-McCain if his campaign had written it themselves. Or did they? [18:26, 20 April 2008 68.183.79.169]
I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. But its objectivity is suspect to begin with from its subtitle: The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't. Not exactly neutral. I'm familiar with this type of book from working on the Hillary articles, where there's a whole cottage industry in books with similar subtitles, such as Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, and Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House. As reliable sources, they aren't worth anything.
Regarding the specific Schecter tale in question, it's not well sourced at all. It supposedly happened 16 years ago, witnessed by three reporters, yet none ever reported it in the years since. And even now, none of their reporters are willing to put their name to it; they all want anonymity. Reporters are supposed to put their names in front of their claims! That's their job. From a WP:RS perspective, this is junk. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And regarding your general "This article is a disgrace ..." comment, we need specific examples of what you think is wrong (other than this one Schecter tale). General allegations such as you make don't provide us with anything to go on. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea - we're all pawns of the John McCain campaign. I'm surprised it took you this long to figure it out! Paisan30 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And I'm often accused of being on the Hillary campaign too. I want double pay!! Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish I were with the McCain campaign. Then maybe I'd get something out of all this wasted time on Wikipedia besides aggravation. Percocet and Vicodin are nothing compared to Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure where to place ...
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
-not sure where to place the following, McCain faces many challenges in the upcoming 2008 election. Aside from embracing the unpopular War in Iraq, McCain carres the weight of carrying the torch on an incumbent party, that is presiding over a sliding economy. Further complicating matters is McCains appointing of Mr. Harris, as his chief economic advisor. Harris who authored a 200 page addendum to an exisiting 1000 page bill, is responsible for introducing legislation that led to the deregulation that has led to the current mortgage crisis. While the motivation of the bill is unclear. An economic plan steered by someone whose policy has affected the middle class, may be viewed as either favoring wealth over middle class citizens, or a major error in policy. Both of which, will look bad in face of the nations current economic downturn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.66.47 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the intention of wiki article to be timeless, is it appropriate to mention future challenges of a McCain candidacy? Maybe it is more appropriate to mention after the election that he won or loss because of a particular issue (if in fact his win or loss was viewed by noteworthy sources as having such an impact on the election results). It is me i think (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Both the campaign article referred to above, and the summary section of it in this article, will do some analysis of why he won or lost ("exit polls showed he captured a majority of independents and some blue-collar Democrats", or "outspent heavily both in television commercials and get-out-the-vote efforts, his campaign failed to be effective in key battleground states", or whatever). But to try to speculate as to what will happen ahead of time, not our role, and to quote others' speculations, well they're often wrong too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Question on lack of citations at the beginning of article
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is virtually no citations for the introduction of this article. The rest of the article has substantial citations. Given the potential for disagreements and in the spirit of wikipedia through the creation of outstanding article, should more citations be added. Wanted to get input before I start adding citations. Please advise It is me i think (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Same answer as for Hillary's article. The style here is to only summarize material in the introduction, that's presented later in the body of the article and with citations there. Thus no need to have citations in the introduction. Many FA-level articles are done this way. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain took Keating apart
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I disagree with this revert by WTR. The removed material is as follows:
“
Keating also asked McCain to block the investigation; McCain refused and threw Keating out of his office.[1]
WTR's edit summary says: "source suspect, disagrees with bios, request less stark and no throwing out." So, I gather there is no disagreement that the cited source says what I said it says. Here are some further supporting references:
[2] "Testimony Shows Rift Of Senators", St. Louis Post Dispatch (1990-11-21): "In testimony Tuesday, McCain administrative assistant Chris Koch said his enraged boss threw Keating out of his office at a meeting on March 24, 1987."
[4] Gibbs, Nancy; Dickerson, John. "The Power and The Story", Time (1999-12-13): "When Keating asked for a favor and McCain resisted, Keating told another Senator that McCain was a wimp. The next time Keating appeared in McCain's office, the Senator took him apart. 'I did not serve 5 1/2 years in a POW camp to have my integrity questioned,' Koch recalls him saying.”
My first objection was to the Washingtonian source — it's a collection of gossip items of uncertain provenance. The Time cite above is closest to what the Alexander, Timberg, and McCain memoirs all say — March 24 saw a confrontational meeting because of Keating having called McCain a wimp earlier. None of them say that he threw Keating out; they all say that Keating departed on his own, unhappy. Also, Keating wasn't exactly asking McCain to get the investigation of Lincoln S&L blocked ... that's too stark. It gets complicated, but Keating was asking that Lincoln be given a lenient judgment so that it could limit its high risk investments and get into the safe (back then, not now!) home mortgage business, thus allowing the business to survive (this is before the senators knew that Lincoln was under investigation for possibly criminal actions, not just heading to insolvency). And it's important to get the chrono right ... this meeting with Keating happened before the two meetings with Gray and the board, not after as our text had suggested. Anyway, I'm hoping to rewrite the subarticle section on this, to try to make it all clearer — not easy! But that's why I reverted what was there. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I'll be interested to see what you come up with. McCain, his administartive assistant Chris Koch, and the anti-McCain Harry Jaffe all say explicitly that McCain "threw out" keating. That doesn't necessarily mean that McCain physically touched Keating, but rather suggests that Keating was told emphatically to leave. Here are two more supporting references:
[5] Rasky, Susan. “Washington Talk; To Senator McCain, the Savings and Loan Affair Is Now a Personal Demon”, New York Times (1989-12-22): “When Mr. Keating asked Senator McCain to help him make a deal with savings and loan regulators to ease up on Lincoln, the request led to a thunderous argument between the two men outside the Senator's office on March 24, 1987, a week before the first of two meetings with the regulators.”
[6] “Excerpts From Counsel's Statement at Senate Ethics Hearing", New York Times (1990-11-16): “Following are excerpts from the opening statement by Robert S. Bennett, special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee…’Senator McCain's refusal to go along with Mr. Keating's agenda regarding the regulators caused Mr. Keating to call Senator McCain a wimp. Word of this remark reached Senator McCain through Senator DeConcini's office. As a result, when Senator McCain and Mr. Keating met on March 24, 1987 to discuss the upcoming meeting with Chairman Gray, they had a heated argument. . . . Mr. Keating left in an angry state. This argument ended Senator McCain's personal relationship with Charles Keating.’”
Anyway, I'll wait to see what you come up with. I only cited Jaffe's article because someone else had already inserted it into this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Those two "supporting" references agree with what I'm reading, but note neither of them say Keating was thrown out physically or ordered to leave. Anyway, the real problem wasn't this detail, but that after all the arguing, McCain went to the board meetings anyway. That's what landed him in the soup. As for the Jaffe article, you should have just junked it; its value on its own as a WP:RS is near nil. Some of those items might be true, but you'd have to find the original newspaper or magazine or whatever reports that it's recycling, and use those directly. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I take it that you don't want to accept everything that McCain has said at face value. :-)
Page 176 of Worth the Fighting For describes the end of this meeting, and in no way indicates he threw out or asked Keating to leave. If McCain made earlier statements to the contrary, they must have become inoperative, to use an old Nixon phrase. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyhow, I'll wait and see what you come up with. This incident on March 24, 1987 seems important. There was a thunderous argument at McCain's office when McCain refused to go along with Keating's agenda, and that marked the end of their personal relationship. All of the reliable sources support that. But you're right that McCain still did go meet the regulators.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems too detailed to belong here. It should belong in the Keating Five article. Arnabdas (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain, 25 pages into his 46-page chapter on his role in the Keating Five:
I have risked deluging the reader with numbing details and regulatory arcana involved in the Lincoln story, which many may not understand any better than I do.
He ain't kiddin', this is definitely at the dull end of the scandal scale ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I tweaked this article's treatment of K5 slightly, but I'm not going to include the March 24 meeting. The basic sequence seems to be (Alexander pp 108-111): Keating wants McCain to argue his case before the regulators. McCain refuses. Keating calls McCain a wimp. They meet on March 24, get into heated argument, ends badly. McCain then changes his mind and meets twice with regulators. Why? That's the big question. Alexander says it's some combination of McCain and Keating having been good friends for a number of years, McCain thinking were legitimate concerns about the length of the inquiry into Lincoln (borne out by a letter from Arthur Young to this effect), and McCain thinking that if he was very careful about what he said at the meetings with the regulators, he'd be okay (wrong!). In the very short treatment that this article is giving K5, we can't say all this, and so I don't think the March 24 meeting warrants inclusion; regardless of what may have happened in it, McCain did go to meet with the regulators. I will include it in the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 subarticle, however, although I'm not going to try to rewrite the whole K5 section there (too much work that I wouldn't enjoy), just adjust it in places. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I guess this article's current treatment of Keating Five is adequate, at least based on what I know now. I've inserted the word "legal" with reference to the $112,000 because otherwsie the implication is that it was illegal.
I seem to recall that McCain flatly refused DeConcini's request that they fly to the west coast to meet the regulators, and instead met them in DC to avoid the appearance of pressuring the regulators. Also, I seem to recall that McCain insisted on not representing Keating's interests in that meeting, as opposed to merely trying to make sure that Keating was getting fair treatment (a somewhat fine distinction). But I guess this article can do without those details.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
My GA Review for this article
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The requirements for a Good Article are as follows:
It is well written. In this respect:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
Is this statement needed in the Introduction? : "McCain's grandfather and father were the first pair of father/son Four-Star admirals in the United States Navy."
Specify that he was elected to U.S. Senate, not just a state senate.
Citation? : "As Forrestal headed for repairs, McCain volunteered for the USS Oriskany."
"...give him medical care and announced [should be announce] his capture.
"prisoner of war" should only be hyperlinked in the body the first time it appears
Only one period needed after Hensley & Co.
I suggest combining these two sentences so not so choppy: "McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980. McCain retired from the Navy on April 1, 1981, as a captain."
This introductory sentence to a section should be improved: "McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman." When? Since when? Why?
Not in chronological order: "He won re-election to the House easily in 1984. In 1983 McCain opposed...."
Remove potential POV word "handily"
Move period inside quotation marks: "...American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia".
May need to elaborate on "big money"
Remove sentence "McCain has long had a reputation as a maverick." He talks about him as a maverick in the subsequent paragraph (and more accurately) and has no value or relevancy beginning this paragraph.
Correct: "US [U.S.] Army Field Manual on Interrogation"
Remove potential POV "extensive" in "extensive fundraising abilities" — I actually worry about the entire statement, since the next paragraph says "McCain had fundraising problems in the first half of 2007"
Italicize "Straight Talk Express"
Briefly explain why: "...reported on McCain's connection with a lobbyist in 2000; the Times came under significant criticism for the report."
Briefly explain (re-state) why he can even run: "If he wins the presidency, John McCain’s birth (in Panama) would be the first presidential birth outside the current 50 states."
Article says "A number of organizations have attempted to scientifically measure..." but then only shares one measure—modification needed. Maybe just say, "For example..." Period also needed at end of paragraph.
Citation? "He favors private Social Security accounts, and opposes an expanded government role in health care. McCain also supports school vouchers, capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, and welfare reform."
In-text citation out of place? "This image includes [188]..."
It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[1]
Yes
(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[1] and
(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[2] and
Yes
(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
For the most part
It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
For the most part
It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
Some recent heated discussions but appear to be constructive
It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.[3] In this respect:
Article has 16 images, which all abide by respective copyright marks.
(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Placing an image to the left of a header ("McCain at Annapolis"), a list, or the Table of Contents is frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images.
Explain what "McCain's Voting Scores" is supposed to illustrate briefly in caption
I think the "John McCain Gallup Poll Ratings" figure is too small. Perhaps just link to it?
In conclusion, with the article as it now stands, I will put it on hold for 1 week until the above issues are addressed. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review. We'll be trying to address all of these concerns.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Martin Luther King
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Info about McCain's opposition to the 1983 King holiday was recently inserted into this article. I may support inclusion of this info, but not the way it's been presented.
The user Ronjohn seems to be in a habit of making edits without edit summaries. "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field…as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page."[2] Additionally, this article uses footnotes rather than external jumps as Ronjohn used.
Regarding this particular edit, the article now says: "In 1983 McCain opposed creating a federal holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. The House vote was 338-90 and President Reagan signed the bill into law later that year." This seems to be the only one of McCain's House votes that is now mentioned by this article. Was this his most significant vote? Also, this article now mentions nothing about his subsequent change of position, such as his later support for an MLK holiday in Arizona. Thus, we have an undue weight problem. I will revert the edit for the time being, until this is resolved.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain public statement about his voting against the MLK Holiday "We can be slow as well to give greatness its due, a mistake I made myself long ago when I voted against a federal holiday in memory of D. King. I was wrong and eventually realised that, in time to give full support for a state holiday in Arizona." according to the UK Independent UK Independent article]. I think it would be most appropriate to include at least a reference to McCain's own the statement confirming his vote against the amendment and possible link to the actual vote (if someone could find that). It is me i think (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
How about the fact that McCain was a prime mover behind the effort to get Arizona to recognize MLK day? Shouldn't that be included too? Since his statements and actions on this issue are spread over a great many years, I would think that the "Political positions" section would be the most appropriate place to put this stuff, although maybe it would be sufficient to cover it in the "Political positions" article and not in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I may have misread your comment "It is me i think."Ferrylodge (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not covered in Political positions of John McCain. I think it should be, including his recent speech in Memphis regretting not having supported the holiday in 1983.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain's statements about this matter during his presidential campaigns don't reflect very well upon him — they are at variance with what he said at the time in the 1980s and early 1990s, and indicate a baffling past ignorance of MLK's importance (regardless of the holiday issue per se). As I tried to show in the House and Senate article, this was a bigger issue in Arizona than anywhere else, and his "conversion" in 1989 was more forced and grudging than he now might acknowledge. What I need however is a better source for his position during 1992, when it was both a ballot initiative and he was running against ex-Gov Mecham, the leader of the anti-MLK-holiday movement. I don't know how enthusiastically or on what grounds he supported the initiative. Oh for the Arizona Republic archives to be fully accessible ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Ronjohn has reinserted the MLK material exactly as he did before, without addressing any of the concerns expressed in this section, and evidently without even reading this section. The first time around, my edit summary said: "Please see talk page. We may include info about MLK Day in this article, but I hope not this way." Would others please suggest what might be the best way to proceed here? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I spoke too soon. It appears that SarcasticIdealist addressed this issue following RonJohn's most recent edit.[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with what we have now. Votes against it in House in 1983, gives a loving quote about it in 2008 in the next sentence. There's a lot of history in between those two points that's being skipped. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said, there's a lot of history here, and rather than chronologically sprinkling this article with MLK from beginning to end, it would be best to deal with this (if at all) in the political positions section where it can all be covered at once.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I SAID BEFORE THIS IS FACTUAL INFORMATION!!! I didn't make it up. You could've just moved it instead of deleting it. I HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT USE WIKI. You have your on agenda and idealogy that you want everyone to believe. FACTS ARE FACTS!!! Wikis is for facts not one way thinking!! I'll repost it but I'll move it to positions!! DO NOT DELETE If you delete I will report as vandalism. [07:25, 19 April 2008 Ronjohn]
Current policy states as follows: "Only make links that are relevant to the context. Do not create links for subsidiary topics that result in red links (links that go nowhere) to articles that will never be created, such as the titles of book chapters. Do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that need to be explained, or topics which should obviously have articles. Keep in mind there are various notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY), which exist for a number of subjects, including people (WP:BIO). These guidelines give helpful pointers on what subjects are appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia." Considering this policy, I agree to refine my suggestion; i.e., to remove all pertinent non-working links—some can stay, but please provide justification. I doubt all of the current red links would be notable of an independent article. I believe this would fit under GA Guideline 1b. Hope this is reasonable. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a fan of red links — that's how this work was built. Current-day major party general election senatorial candidates all get articles, no matter how big an underdog they are/were, and three of five of McCain's past opponents have them already, so I'd argue Sargent and Ranger should stay red. Publishers and magazines of this kind will all get articles in due time, so I'd argue for keeping those red. The two defeated House candidates, I dunno, maybe they should go black. Jonathan Shay the co-author has some real notability, witness a google search and this NYT profile, so I'd keep him red too. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's enough to have one redlink for Clair Sargent, and one for Ed Ranger. There's no need for two apiece. So, I've removed the first redlink for each of them. Generally speaking, redlinks may be confusing to people unfamiliar with what they signify, so I think we're better off relegating the redlinks to the electoral history section towards the end of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this statement needed in the Introduction? : "McCain's grandfather and father were the first pair of father/son Four-Star admirals in the United States Navy."
Specify that he was elected to U.S. Senate, not just a state senate.
Not sure this is applicable. The first sentence states he's the United States Senator, and the word Senate is wikilinked to United States Senate again. (Perhaps a better comment would be to remove the second wikilink?) --Ali'i 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've inserted "U.S." before "Senate". This seems harmless, and gives symmetry to the paragraph, which already talks about the "U.S. House."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Citation? : "As Forrestal headed for repairs, McCain volunteered for the USS Oriskany."
"prisoner of war" should only be hyperlinked in the body the first time it appears
The usual guideline is once per section; I've moved the wlink up to its first appearance in that section, where the acronym is also defined. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Only one period needed after Hensley & Co.
Ali'i did this.
I suggest combining these two sentences so not so choppy: "McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980. McCain retired from the Navy on April 1, 1981, as a captain."
I'm not so sure ... these two actions were not necessarily related, although some people (not his biographers Alexander and Timberg, though) accuse them of being so. I think it's better to avoid trouble and keep them apart. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the choppiness by adding a phrase to the latter sentence: "and headed west to Arizona."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This introductory sentence to a section should be improved: "McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman." When? Since when? Why?
This and another awkward construct below come from Ferrylodge's well-intentioned effort to promote readership of the biographical subarticles by wlinking to them underneath sentences like this. But it isn't working: House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999 is getting 100 hits a day, while John McCain gets 18,000 hits a day. It's time to give up and pull these out, I think. The only way the subarticles will get readership is if they show up higher on Google searches. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the criticism here is not so much that it's awkward, but that it is incomplete. I've expanded the sentence: "McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman upon moving to Arizona, because he was interested in current events, and was ready for a new challenge.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
"Interested in current events" sounds like a comment on a sixth-grader's report card. We need a little more sophisticated explanation of his desire to enter elective politics than this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Before your "sixth-grader" comment, I already expanded that sentence to read: "McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman upon moving to Arizona, because he was interested in current events, was ready for a new challenge, and had developed political ambitions during his time as Senate liaison." Whether we think it's sophisticated or not, the cited source discusses his interest in current events and his lack of interest in beer. Additionally, please note that the following sentence was already in the main article: "He had little interest in the beer business itself, instead preferring to talk about current events."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought of saying that at the time, but he was elected 10 years into the future, which is a long time; thought it better to stick with what he was then. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems worth mentioning at least in the footnote, so I did.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, but I changed it to not duplicate the cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Not in chronological order: "He won re-election to the House easily in 1984. In 1983 McCain opposed...."
Someone reinserted the MLK stuff, so I've put it in chronological order.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove potential POV word "handily"
Just short-hand for "easily", "wide margin", etc. (56-32-11 percentages). Important to indicate because observers thought he'd be in trouble from K5 fallout. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Move period inside quotation marks: "...American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia".
Agreed. I've changed it to explicitly list who was targeted. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove sentence "McCain has long had a reputation as a maverick." He talks about him as a maverick in the subsequent paragraph (and more accurately) and has no value or relevancy beginning this paragraph.
Same deal as "McCain set his sights on becoming a Congressman" above. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've clarified that McCain's work on Vietnam renormalization was an example of the "maverick" Senator, immediately after the statement that he's long had a reputation as a maverick.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't happy with this. What was now there jumped our narrative twice, talking about both normalization and maverick before we got to them later. Moreover, it tied maverick too closely physically to the POW/MIA committee (which wasn't about that at all) and Vietnam normalization, which isn't really the best maverick example. The WaPo Balz article is a good cite, so instead I pulled some other language out of it and made this its own paragraph. Sort of a topic paragraph for the rest of the section. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct: "US [U.S.] Army Field Manual on Interrogation"
Remove potential POV "extensive" in "extensive fundraising abilities" — I actually worry about the entire statement, since the next paragraph says "McCain had fundraising problems in the first half of 2007"
Agreed. I've changed this to an expectations that he would gain GWB's fundraising network, which is what the WaPo source is actually talking about. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Italicize "Straight Talk Express"
Actually, the large majority of uses I've seen just use it plain, no italics no quotes. It's not formal or big enough, like a ship's name, to merit italics. I've changed one use in quotes to remove them. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Briefly explain why: "...reported on McCain's connection with a lobbyist in 2000; the Times came under significant criticism for the report."
I've stayed away from this hot potato from the get-go; someone else can deal with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This story was a flash in the pan. It's completely faded away, and so I've removed it from this article. It remains in the sub-article about his 2008 campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
Briefly explain (re-state) why he can even run: "If he wins the presidency, John McCain’s birth (in Panama) would be the first presidential birth outside the current 50 states."
I've briefly expanded the sentence to indicate that bipartisan scholars say he's a natural-born citizen.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Might it be simply because he was born within the then-American-controlled Panama Canal Zone? I think this part could still be clarified. --Eustress (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've inserted this quote into the footnote: "Senator McCain's birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a 'natural born citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Article says "A number of organizations have attempted to scientifically measure..." but then only shares one measure—modification needed. Maybe just say, "For example..." Period also needed at end of paragraph.
Fixed, by chopping the prelude. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Citation? "He favors private Social Security accounts, and opposes an expanded government role in health care. McCain also supports school vouchers, capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, and welfare reform."
I've now added these cites. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In-text citation out of place? "This image includes [188]..."
I moved this slightly. However, I was going to move it to the end of the paragraph, extending the second sentence to note his image is one of "energy" and "dynamism" (using the Brooks piece as the cite), but I wasn't sure how neutral that would have been. Either way, the piece does a good job of noting McCain's personal character, and how it's perceived. --Ali'i 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Placing an image to the left of a header ("McCain at Annapolis"), a list, or the Table of Contents is frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images.
Hmm, I'm not sure this is a problem. The image is not to the left of the Table of Contents, nor is it to the left of a header. Is an infobox really considered to be a "list"?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It's to the left of the header "Military service and marriages". Please adjust accordingly. --Eustress (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This problem does not show up in my browser. Anyway, I've tried to fix it. I've added some text, and split a paragraph in two. This way, temperament has a paragraph of its own. Also, the image hopefully will not interfere with heading below. Is that okay now?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Explain what "McCain's Voting Scores" is supposed to illustrate briefly in caption
I expanded the caption a bit. In the past, attempts to give cited interpretations of graphs like these has met with disapproval from other editors. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can't update this table for 2007 yet because while the ADA put out its scores for the year a while ago (McCain got a 10), the ACU still hasn't. (What takes so long? Nobody there knows how to use a spreadsheet?) Wasted Time R (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the "John McCain Gallup Poll Ratings" figure is too small. Perhaps just link to it?
In my browsers it looks enticing enough that readers will do the one click necessary to make it much bigger. No different from any other thumbnail. Then once you see the legend, you can reduce it and still get the general import of it (favorables significantly outweigh unfavorables through most of his career). More importantly, I need to update both this table and the voting scores table, for the most recent data. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha... d'oh. <forehead slap> --Ali'i 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll be able to comment/work on some of these that I'm originally responsible for, in a couple of hours. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
WTR, I've chimed in regarding the items up to the one about his birth outside the current 50 states. Did you want to deal with any of the items after that?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I'll be tackling some of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The changes look great. There's still one citation needed, but you can look into that more later. I'll pass this on to GA status—great collaborative work to all of you! --Eustress (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much Eustress. We'll take care of that citation.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've now added these missing citations. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Eustress. Doing reviews is one of the most undervalued tasks in WP. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Mahalo for everything, Eustress. I guess I'll just be the hole in the middle of Ferrylodge's and Wasted Time R's barnstars. ;-) Oh well, they did much better work than I, anyway. Heh. --Ali'i 19:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
They were just half-barnstars, Ali'i. :-) Plus you'll get your chance for glory when we go for FAC.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I'm not editing Wikipedia for glory or awards. I'll take my hole-status and be happy. :-) --Ali'i 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Their names are all over the last 300 edits for this article...and while I like awarding barnstars, I seldom award them when acting as a reviewing do to a potential COI, but the collaboration they've rendered on this article over a long period of time is uncanny...but like Ferrylodge said, just keep up the good work during the FAC too! Best regards. --Eustress (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful job everyone! I'm truly sorry that I was not able to help out with this as much as I would have liked to, but I have been pretty busy in the real world and with some other articles. I'd be happy to help you in FAC, though. Happyme22 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Religion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I took off the word "Protestant" from the info box. In the USA the Episcopal Church is often considered catholic, although not a part of the Roman Catholic Church of course. Senator Clinton's United Methodist Church, which split off from the Episcopal Church long after the time of Luther, is also sometimes considered a catholic church. ("catholic" = "universal", as you probably know) The articles on the three candidates now match each other on this point, and I hope offend no one. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Category: intelligent design advocates?
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This article has the bio tag Category:Intelligent design advocates, but there's nothing in the article supporting that. Can someone give me a link to back this up? "Intelligent Design" is a specific argument, and not everyone who believes, say, that "God created the universe" or that "there are problems with Darwinism" is a proponent of ID. Not saying McCain isn't an ID proponent, just that I hadn't heard it. Can someone give me a link to an article? -- Narsil (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted it. Based on his stormy relationship with the religious right, I doubt he's an ID advocate. Even if he is, though, the presence of the category in the article without a citation is a clear BLP violation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain has indeed played footsie with ID. This 2005 statement to the Arizona Daily Star started it off, while this 2007 ABC News story gives a good recap of his various remarks on the subject. As you can see from the second one, he's all over the map. While his "there's nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought" line is indeed the kind of thing that drives scientists to despair, he's too inconsistent to belong in this "advocates" category. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments7 people in discussion
Seriously? McCain redirects HERE? Is this article really the best representation of the English speaking worlds usage of the word/name "McCain"? JayKeaton (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is the main John McCain article. I don't know how else to explain it... Happyme22 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And also, why was McCain moved to McCain (disambiguation)? Was it so McCain could just redirect to John McCain? That seems insane, shuffling around articles just to redirect the name to a different article. JayKeaton (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to have been some edit warring on this ... it doesn't matter to me either way ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The directing of McCain to here and the moving of McCain to the disembag was done by two American editors, one of whom is an admin. And looking at that admins edit history, she did no research into whether people wanted the move and redirect or not. All I can tell is that during that week she was creating a lot of redirects, and she probably was unhappy to see that McCain had a lot of other meanings besides an American politician. In fact she was contested at Talk:McCain (disambiguation), but no follow up had been taken. I think I'd better take care of this. JayKeaton (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Jay, what is the problem? People who are looking for "McCain" are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for this article. If not, there's a note at the top of this article pointing them to the disambiguation page. I don't see anyhting wrong with this arrangement.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why anyone outside of America would be looking for this "John McCain" person. And besides, his article name is "John McCain", not "McCain". Why would someone search for "McCain" when they are looking for John McCain? However is someone is looking for the McCain branded foods that operate globally (not just in America) they will almost certainly type in just "McCain". This isn't us.wikipedia.org, it's en.wikipedia.org JayKeaton (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of ethocentricism, it's a matter of convenience. This article has been viewed 311507 times this month, and McCain Foods Limited has been viewed 1929 times this month. Likewsie in January (before "McCain" redirected here) this article was viewed 929544 times, and McCain Foods Limited was viewed 2143 times.[4] So, someone who types "McCain" is redirected here, and informed how they can also find other uses. The same thing is occurring at the Barack Obama article; "Barack" as well as "Obama" redirect to that article. May I ask why you find this kind of thing inappropriate?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
For the same reason that Madonna the singer has 314,983 views this month and Madonna the Christian icon only has 12,739 views and the Madonna disembag is still maintained, and the Bush disembag is still maintained, and the Clinton disembag is still maintained, and Simpson. All of these stick to formal encyclopedia guidelines, why should McCain be any different? The Simpsons got over 200,000 views this month, but Simpson (surname) got less than 500. Should Simpson then redirect to The Simpsons? Should McDonald redirect to McDonald's? Why is McCain any different? JayKeaton (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
"Reagan" redirects to Ronald Reagan. If someone wanted to find, oh, say, Nancy Reagan, and just wasn't specific in their search, they can click on the Reagan (disambiguation) link at the top of the page. I really don't see the problem, there and here. Happyme22 (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Jay, what is the formal encyclopedia guideline to which you are referring? And why are you worked up about McCain and not Obama or Reagan?
The Simpsons gets about 50 times as many hits as Simpson, McDonald's gets around 60 times as many hits as McDonald (or Mcdonald, as it redirects to), George_W._Bush gets 13 times as many as Bush, Dalai Lama gets 13 times the hits as Lama does, Tom Cruise gets 48 times the hits of Cruise, yet they don't redirect. By your logic Bush should redirect to GWB, or Lost should redirect to Lost_(TV_series) just because it gets more hits. But it doesn't work like that. McCain is ambiguous, it doesn't just mean John McCain, no matter how many hits it gets. Jon McCain isn't ambiguous, either is John McKane, but McCain is. JayKeaton (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Also those examples you just gave above Ferrylodge, none of them are ambiguous. Laura Bush and George W. Bush are not at all ambiguous, you completely missed my point with my original examples such as McDonald and McDonald's.
All the examples I gave were suggested by yourself. You say, "By your logic Bush should redirect to GWB." Actually, as I mentioned, Laura Bush gets about 10% of the traffic that her husband gets. In contrast, McCain Foods Limited doesn't even get 1% of the traffic that John McCain gets. That is an order of magnitude difference.
Anyway, I asked above: "what is the formal encyclopedia guideline to which you are referring? And why are you worked up about McCain and not Obama or Reagan?"Ferrylodge (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about Laura Bush though, I meant just the Bush article (or disembag). As for why McCain, I don't know anything about Obamas, but I familiar with the different McCain subjects (which is what brought me to McCain to begin with). Oh, and wikipedia policy I don't think there is one, there aren't really a lot of policies in Wikipedia actually. Guidelines were more vague on this, I couldn't find anything for or against it. I will keep looking, but even still logic says that this John McCain person can't be official definition of McCain in an encyclopedia. John McCain is not "McCain". JayKeaton (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. Primary Usage only refers to an actual article name taking a disambiguation name, it does not refer to redirects. You would be right if his name was just "McCain", but it is not. Just to be clear so you understand, the Primary Usage guideline you are linking to does not apply because we are talking about a redirect, NOT an actual article needing McCain. "then that topic may be used for the title of the main article" = McCain is not John McCains "main article". You can use this rule, however, if you wish to actually move the article John McCain to McCain, however I think you would be shot down very quickly if you actually tried to do it. JayKeaton (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Still, 99% of the people who type "McCain" or "Obama" will want to read about John McCain or Barack Obama, at least in the next six months. And, unlike "Clinton" or "Bush", there are other no contemporary political figures with the same last name and the same level of notability. Seriously, how many people would type in "McCain" and be disappointed or confused when John McCain comes up? How many type "Obama" and mean someone other than Barack Obama? Coemgenus 17:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I can't speak for Obama because I don't know any corporations called "Obama" or any other people in history with the name "Obama", but McCain is different. And it shouldn't matter so much what people are looking for, because "McCain" is definitely NOT unique to John McCain. To redirect "McCain" to John McCain is as bad a choice as redirecting "Election" to "2008 United States Presidential Election" on the assumption that people looking to read about an election want to read about the American one (whether or not it is true doesn't matter). Just because he is John McCain doesn't make him the definition of "McCain". JayKeaton (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if what your saying is somewhat of an issue, there are consistency concerns to be raised here. McCain should redirect to John McCain as long as Obama redirects to Barack Obama. Clinton should be a disambig because of Bill and Hillary. Happyme22 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Happyme22. Anyway, there is no corporation named "McCain." In contrast, there is a corporation named "McCain Foods Limited." And incidentally, in March about ten times as many people visited election as visited 2008 United States Presidential Election, so it would make little sense to redirect from the former to the latter.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain Foods Limited is known just as McCain, just as Apple Inc. is known as Apple and Creative Technology Limited is known as just Creative. And anyway, is it fair to use to page count of John McCain if McCain is redirecting here? No matter what people are looking for when they type in McCain they will always contribute to the page count of John McCain. And aren't we creating a damaging precedent here, if a redirect is made to go not to the article that closets fits the name, but the article with the most page hits? George could end up redirecting to George W Bush, Galactic could end up redirecting to Battlestar Galactica and Hussein could end up redirecting to Barack Obama instead of Husayn, because Mr Barack Hussein Obama has over 700 times the hits as the Husayn article. JayKeaton (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Jay, as I said, "in January (before 'McCain' redirected here) this article was viewed 929544 times, and McCain Foods Limited was viewed 2143 times." What's unfair about that comparison? And there's no reason for you to be concerned about a precedent to redirect to the article with the most page hits. We're not talking here about most hits. We're talking here about more than a hundredfold number of hits.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering that he is going to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States, I think it's safe to say that the proportion of "McCain" page views coming to this page will be even more overwhelming in the next few months. Paisan30 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Y'all biased because you already have an invested interest in this John McCain person, because you were already here editing his article (plus most of you would be American too) :P Anyway, is there such thing as like a WP Guru or summat, someone that has a deep understanding of the rules and format of Wikipedia? We are down to talking about page hits and not much else, I think we need to get into the actual rules of a word or common surname redirecting straight to a person when in all other circumstances that ambiguous article name would be disambiguated. JayKeaton (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I am the guru. :-) And I suggest that we channel our psychic energies in a different direction.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The view count isn't biased, and it clearly shows that no other "McCain" page was getting close to the number of visitors as this one. Regardless of where you're from, being a major party candidate for President of the United States makes one pretty prominent. I don't know that there's been any international coverage of McCain Foods lately. Paisan30 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So just to be clear, I am allowed to move articles so I can use that articles old name to redirect to a different article that has a lot more page hits? The general guru approved rule is that articles are shuffled around based on how many hits they get at that particular month? I can redirect Hussein to the Obama article because Mr Barack Hussein Obama gets over 700 times the hits as the Hussein redirect is giving now? Regardless, I'll leave this talk page to do it's own thing and seek advice elsewhere about an article for a person taking precedence over a surname namespace just because they also happen to have that surname. JayKeaton (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The title of Obama's article is not "Barack Hussein Obama". It's Barack Obama. Common sense tells you that a person typing in "Hussein" would probably be looking for something other than the Barack Obama page, as that is not his commonly used name. Paisan30 (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So the issue here is not that this persons name is John McCain, but that it has "McCain" in the articles title? JayKeaton (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I made the point on Senator Obama's talk page that the sign of professional writing is that it puts the interest of the reader first, more than fairness to the subjects of the articles -- although that is a good thing too. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain's Claim of Torture and Songbird Moniker
Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
"I interviewed Col. Bui Tin in Hanoi, who was presented to me as their authority on POW/MIA issues. In the course of the interview Tin told me that during the war he was involved in the imprisonment of American POWs. When I questioned him further he said that John McCain was a `special prisoner.' Tin later told other POWs that McCain never was tortured. So when McCain embraced Tin during the hearings it seemed to some Vietnam vets to confirm the reports they had heard, and it really angered a lot of people. It was no secret that McCain had admitted to giving information to the enemy."
McCain made not one but 32, Thirty Two, Propaganda films for North Vietnam. Why is there no mention of this. Is he in the IMDB? Should he get a link... 32 Films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.174.12 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So McCain's claims of "Torture" should be noted to be "Claims of Torture" as opposed to being presented as facts. The North Vietnamese say they "Did not torture him". It is biased to put McCain's claims down as facts, they are disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.11.102 (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no WP:RS that support this viewpoint, just unsupported allegations by those who disagree with McCain's position on the POW/MIA live prisoners issue.
And Statements by the Government of Vietnam, who agree with and affirm McCain's position on the POW/MIA myth.74.73.11.102 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What statements where? Give us some references. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Bui Tin was not one of McCain's interrogators. The two definitive studies of all the American POWs in Vietnam, John G. Hubbell's P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964-1973 and Stuart I. Rochester and Frederick T. Kiley's Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961-1973, both support McCain's account of his time as a POW. As soon as I get out from under HRC FAC work, I will be updating both this article and the Early life and military career of John McCain article to re-base them around these sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are you only quoting American sources on an International issue? That is not impartial at all.74.73.11.102 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You aren't giving us any sources or references at all, just making claims here. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, these are the usual things you see on the web. They aren't WP:RS as to what happened in Vietnam. They are a factor in McCain's career, and the article does note them, in the "First two terms in U.S. Senate" section:
As a member of the 1991–1993 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, chaired by Democrat and fellow Vietnam War veteran John Kerry, McCain investigated the fate of U.S. service personnel listed as missing in action during the Vietnam War.[90] The committee's unanimous report stated there was "no compelling evidence that proves that any American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia."[91] Helped by McCain's efforts, in 1995 the U.S. normalized diplomatic relations with Vietnam.[92] During his time on the committee and afterward, McCain was vilified by some POW/MIA activists who believed there were still Americans held against their will in Southeast Asia.[93][94][92]
... During his time on the committee and afterward, McCain was vilified as a fraud,[60] traitor,[56] or "Manchurian Candidate"[61] by some POW/MIA activists who believed that there were large numbers of American servicemen still being held against their will in Southeast Asia.[60]
I would argue for including that language in the main article, because as it stands it's not clear how or why McCain is being vilified. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The main charge against McCain, by some POW/MIA activists, was that he was turning a blind eye toward large numbers of alleged POWs still in captivity in Vietnam. I've clarified that in the main article, and will go ahead and clarify it in this article too. That's the main point, and I don't think we have to digress here into all of the specific epithets that were hurled at McCain on this issue (it's enough that the main article does so).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tweaked this in both places. Per the cite (Alexander) and others, these activists objected to McCain on two main grounds: that he didn't share their view on the existence of live prisoners, and that he was pushing for normalization with Vietnam. They further objected to him because he was high profile on these issues and because he could be caustic towards the activists. But the last is best left for the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs article to deal with. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
THe POW/MIA myth was a Reagan Era re-invention of Vietnam. The facts are that John McCain may not have ever been tortured, and there is clear evidence, Radio Broadcasts, and Propaganda Films, made by the Vietnamese that show at the least his collaboration with the enemy. 74.73.11.102 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What Reagan invention?? That's one I haven't heard before. Under torture, McCain did make one forced "confession", which was featured in a radio broadcast the following year. This is well-known and is not collaboration; virtually all of the POWs who were tortured broke at some point. Read the two books I mentioned above; there were some POWs who really did collaborate with the North Vietnamese, who lived in special areas of the prison camps, who adopted anti-American political attitudes and who made frequent propaganda statements. The POW leaders tried to prosecute them after the war, but the DoD decided to let it all go. But McCain wasn't one of those; he was one of the noted resistors among the POWs. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
McCain's son, James (Jimmy)'s service in Iraq
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Re "U.S. Congressman and a growing family," I added a cite noting that McCain's son, James (Jimmy), recently completed service in Iraq. Although McCain says this isn't a talking point, I think Jimmy's service is important and noteworthy. I welcome your comments, thoughts, suggestions, etc., on the subject. My revisions: [5] --Robapalooza (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is covered in the Cultural and political image of John McCain subarticle. I don't think it should be in the main article where you put it (it's out of chrono). However, I agree that it should be in the main article. I personally think the summary section "Cultural and political image" is way too short, and does not adequately summarize the subarticle, and that this is one of the things that should be added to the summary (as well as son Jack's being at the Naval Academy). Wasted Time R (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Citation number 17
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The claim it supposedly substantiates is: "McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him..."
Nowhere in the article is any mention of subjects that McCain took or did well in while at the Naval Academy, nor is there any mention of which subjects he was interested in.
I suggest that the part of the sentence that reads "McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him" be removed as it is unsubstantiated by the citation. I'm a wikipedia novice, so I suggest someone else remove it. [15:18, April 27, 2008 150.212.40.38]
The citing on this part of the article has become a real mess, with all the cutdowns and whatnot. I recommended everyone read Early life and military career of John McCain instead, it'll all be much clearer to you there! Wasted Time R (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That article says, "McCain's grades were good in the subjects he enjoyed, such as literature and history. Gamboa said McCain would rather read a history book than do his math homework. He did just enough to pass the classes he didn't find stimulating."
- OP
McCain's adultery
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
McCain has admitted to having committed adultery, as is supported by reputable sources, such as this one. Is there a reason this information has been excised from the article? I didn't see anything in the talk page about it, but I haven't read every word. JamesMLanetc 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
During their time in Jacksonville, the McCains' marriage began to falter.[127] McCain had extramarital affairs,[127][128] ...
and
In April 1979,[109] while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met and began an extramarital relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, ...
Read the real deal! (Shameless promotion of under-read subarticle ...) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Putting such details into a daughter article is fine, provided that a summary remains in the main article. See Wikipedia:Summary style. I have no problem with your promoting under-read daughter articles but the policy wisely recognizes that not all such promotions will succeed. This fact is important enough to be in the main article. JamesMLanetc 16:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It is in this article. The John McCain article makes it very clear that he established a relationship with his second wife while still married to his first. More detail on the subject of affairs is in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This article says, "In 1979, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley....his wife Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980, effective in April of 1980." Do we really need to say that it was an "illicit extramarital" relationship? And do we really know the details about how far said relationship went?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Expanding section on image
Latest comment: 15 years ago37 comments3 people in discussion
WTR wrote the section in this article about McCain's cultural and political image,[6] and I think we all agree it's too short. Here's a draft:
John McCain's personal character has been a dominant feature of his public image.[1] This image includes the military service of both himself and his family,[2] his maverick political persona,[3] his well-known temper, his admitted problem of occasional ill-considered remarks,[4] and his devotion to maintaining his large blended family.[5]
McCain’s political appeal has been more nonpartisan and less ideological than that ofcompared to many other national politicians.[6][7] Part of his emphasis on personal character has been his ownHis stature and reputation stem partly from his service in the Vietnam War.[7.5] He also carries physical vestiges of his war wounds, as well as facial scarring from the successful treatment he has received for skin cancer.[8][9]
While considering himself to be an ambitious and straightforwarda straight-talking public servant, McCain acknowledges being too impatient.[10] Other negative traits and aspects of his life include a sense of humor that has sometimes backfired spectacularly, as when he made a joke in 1998 about the Clintons that was not fit to print in newspapers.[11] and McCain has not shied away from addressing his shortcomings, and apologizing for them.[12][13] He can be pricklyis known for sometimes being prickly[14] and hot-tempered[15] with Senate colleagues, but his relations with his own Senate staff have been more cordialreflected less tension, and have inspired loyalty towards him.[16][17]
Regarding his temper, or what might be viewed as passionate conviction,[17.1] McCain acknowledges it while also saying that the stories have been exaggerated.[17.2][17.3][17.4] Having a temper is not unusual for U.S. leaders,[17.5] and McCain has employed both profanity[17.6] and shouting[17.4] on occasion. Such incidents have become less frequent over the years.[17.7] Senator Joseph Lieberman (a McCain backer) makes this observation: "it is not the kind of anger that is a loss of control. He is a very controlled person."[17.4] Other senators, such as Mississippi’s Thad Cochran, have viewed McCain's temperament as possibly more problematic,[17.4] though Cochran ultimately decided to support McCain for president.[17.8]
All of hisJohn McCain's family members are on good terms with him,[18] and he has defended them against some of the negative consequences of his high-profile political lifestyle.[19][20] McCain’s father battled alcoholism, and his wife battled addiction to painkillers; their efforts at self-improvement have become part of McCain’s family tradition as well.[21] TheirHis family's military tradition extends to the latest generation: his son John Sidney IV ("Jack") is enrolled in the U.S. Naval Academy,[22] his son James has served with the Marines in Iraq,[23] and his son Doug flew jets in the Navy.[24]
[6] Jacobson, Gary (August 2006). "Partisan Differences in Job Approval Ratings of George W. Bush and U.S. Senators in the States: An Exploration". Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. {{cite journal}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
[7.5] Kennedy, Caroline. “Profiles in Courage for Our Time”, pages 256-257 (Hyperion 2003) via Google Books: “The hero is indispensible to the McCain persona.”
[17.1] Keller, Julia. “Me? A bad temper? Why, I oughta ...”, Chicago Tribune (2008-05-01): “we … want people in public life to be passionate and engaged. We want them to be fiery and feisty. We like them to care enough to blow their stacks every once in a while. Otherwise, we question the sincerity of their convictions.”
[17.2] “A Conversation About What’s Worth the Fight“, Newsweek (2008-03-29): “I have—although certainly not in recent years—lost my temper and said intemperate things….I feel passionately about issues, and the day that passion goes away is the day I will go down to the old soldiers' home and find my rocking chair.”
[17.3] “On The HUSTINGS - April 21, 2008“, New York Sun (2008-04-21): “I am very happy to be a passionate man….many times I deal passionately when I find things that are not in the best interests of the American people. And so, look, 20, 25 years ago, 15 years ago, that's fine, and those stories here are either totally untrue or grossly exaggerated."
[17.5] Renshon, Stanley. “The Comparative Psychoanalytic Study of Political Leaders: John McCain and the Limits of Trait Psychology” in Profiling Political Leaders: Cross-cultural Studies of Personality and Behavior, page 245 (Feldman and Valenty eds., Greenwood Publishing 2001): “McCain was not the only candidate or leader to have a temper.”
[17.7] Kane, Paul. “GOP Senators Reassess Views About McCain”, Washington Post (2008-02-04): “the past few years have seen fewer McCain outbursts, prompting some senators and aides to suggest privately that he is working to control his temper.”
Please comment. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Bold italicized text has been subsequently inserted in response to comments.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It's imbalanced in McCain's favor. The four long paragraphs of the "Temperament and controversial remarks" section in the separate article are not adequately represented here. The word "temper" is never mentioned here, when it's been the subject of many mainstream articles about McCain. "He can be prickly" just doesn't cover it! Some specific references to his anger blowing up in the Senate need to be included. His controversial remarks also need a couple of specific examples; I would mention "a joke about Chelsea Clinton so offensive that many newspapers would not print it" (without giving the joke itself here), and the "Barbara Ann"/"Bomb Iran" bit, as I think those are his two most well-known of these. (I know people want the "gook" bit included at this level, but I disagree; you get tortured by a government, you get a pass on slurs against that government's people.) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I tried to stay away from specific examples, to avoid endless battles about which quotes should be included here and which shouldn't. I like your solution of describing without quoting.
I'll modify the draft above, in a few minutes. Bold text will indicate new stuff, and obviously strikethroughs will indicate deletion. Of course, footnotes can be inserted later.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it is extremely inbalanced in McCain's favor (it does acknowledge his impatience and remarks made in poor taste) but WTR's views about the mention of his temper (specifically the word "temper") are also important. As for the Chelsea Clintion and bomb Iran comments, I don't think that they deserve inclusion here. Barack Obama's cultural and political image section on his page lauds him with praise and depicts him as being "different" (I've worked over on that page, so I do know) while Hillary Clinton's section on her page acknowledges many different views of her. I think that McCain's should be written without delving into all the details, but using a more general phrases when talking about his temper and remarks. Happyme22 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a kind of middle path, and hope that will be acceptable.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you've got to mention his blow-ups with other senators. In the subarticle, the "relations with his own senate staff" is in contrast to his problems with other senators; you've kept the part of that makes him look good, and ditched the part that makes him look bad. (To most people ... if I had to deal with the over-egoed, over-moneyed, under-informed characters that get elected to Congress these days, I might go volcanic myself.) Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The bit about being prickly comes straight from Elizabeth Drew. But I've now specified to whom he's known for being prickly toward. He's from Arizona, so why shouldn't he be prickly? :-) WTR, what about the over-egoed, under-informed characters that you have to deal with at Wikipedia? Do we make you go volcanic? I do try so hard. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Three different clever-but-telling responses all "Canceled" before "Save paged" ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) So, are we good to go now?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've updated Cultural and political image of John McCain with more info on the senatorial temperament issues (using two high-profile Boston Globe and Washington Post articles done this year). I still think this should be stressed a bit more. "colleagues" should be "other senators", and some indication of profanities, shoving, etc. (There's an earlier shoving thing that I need to dig out of one of the books.) There's been a lot of mainstream press attention to his temper both in the 2000 campaign and this one, we need to give weight to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just specified which colleagues. Yes, he pushed Strom Thurmond once, but I really don't think we need to get into so much detail here. This brief draft mentions his temper twice, plus prickliness, impatience, and foul jokes. My opinion is that this is more than adequate for a starting version in the article, and I don't want to see it skewed (or more skewed) against McCain. It's certainly a much better summary than the previous one.[7]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I've added an entire additional paragraph about temper. I thnk it gives too much weight to the matter, but I hope it will be an acceptable compromise. How about it, WTR?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You've got stuff in here now that isn't in the subarticle yet (like the Kerrey quote). It reads as defensive of McCain as well — "what might more charitably be called passionate conviction"!? You don't have to work so hard, McCain doesn't need our charity! I'd suggest making changes to the subarticle first, then come back to this. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Others have characterized it as passion and conviction. You're aware of that, right? There's no reason for us to exclusively use words like "angry" and "hot-tempered" without mentioning other notable characterizations of the same behavior. Anyway, if you want to drag this back to the subarticle, then we can, but please don't accuse me of skewing toward McCain every time I mention a fact that is not derogatory about him. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm cool with passion and conviction, I'd just like to see us quoting someone else saying it, rather than this defensive wording coming from us. And exploring his character in this respect from multiple perspectives is the right way to go, much better than than the "exaggeration" angle you were working on before. So yea on Kerrey and Lieberman quotes and the like in the subarticle. Once that's determined, doing the summary here will be easier. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've finished footnoting this draft section on "Cultural and Political Image". I feel like it's ready to be included in this article, and the new stuff can also be included in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks mostly good — I like this trait psychology paper! Put it in both places and we'll go from there ... it'll be easier to fine-tune once it's in place. One objection regarding neutrality is that a direct quote from Lieberman is used, but not the more notable direct quote from Cochran. Cochran's quote is very vivid, and has been watered down here ("possibly more problematic"!) and then watered down further by his supporting McCain for president. If the support only came once McCain was the presumptive nominee (i.e. he had no choice, unless he was going to make a really big stink), that should be noted. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the Lieberman/Cochran assymetry occurred to me overnight. I'll fix it. Were you aware of the Caroline Kennedy profile?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Of the award (it's listed in the awards and honors section), not the essay in the book. But note the essay was written by Al Hunt, not Caroline (she was the overall editor). I've fixed the cite accordingly. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've included the best and most famous part of the Cochran quote, which somehow you omitted. I've also included the rest of the qualifiers and "yes buts" on Cochran from the subarticle, for balance against the ones you included. But that ends up with:
Senator Thad Cochran, who has known McCain and the McCain family for decades and has battled McCain over earmarks,[228][232] has taken a different view: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."[228] Ultimately Cochran decided to support McCain for president, after it was clear he would win the nomination.[233]
which is really too much for how this summary section is written. I propose we reduce this to just:
Senator Thad Cochran (who did not support McCain in the 2008 primaries) has taken a different view: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
The parenthetical matches how we qualify Lieberman. Leave all the other mitigators for the subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I object to that proposal. You have gone ahead and edited the material in question, and have suggested further edits here at the talk page. I object on both counts.
First, regarding the edits you've just made, saying that Cochran has known McCain's "family" for three decades may be true, but it does not seem to be supported by the cited references, and it seems more than sufficient to mention that Cochran has known McCain for three decades without bringing in McCain's family (McCain has known lots of people for three decades so I also question why it's useful to mention that he's known Cochran for three decades, and certainly it's of very marginal relevance how long Cochran has known people other than McCain). I also object to your insertion of the statement that Cochran only endorsed McCain "after it was clear" that McCain would be the nominee. I did not see anything in the cited sources saying that this was clear to Cochran; it may be true, and it may be clear to you and me, but it is not supported by the cites, and seems to be an attempt to discount Cochran's endorsement. I therefore plan to remove the info about McCain's "family, and about what was "clear" to Cochran.
Also regarding the edits you've made, you say that you like the "cold chill" part of Cochran's quote the best. This seems to betray some partisan bias. The first "cold chill" part of the quote is basically an insult that contains virtually no information about McCain, pro or con. It is essentially content-free, and only the second part of the quote contains an explanation of why Cochran opposed McCain. You have acknowledged that this material about Cochran has become too lengthy, so I do not understand why you would think it wise or fair or neutral to include a content-free insult that Cochran made against McCain. So, I also plan to remove the info about the cold chill down Cochran's spine; you should feel free to start a separate article about Cochran's spine if you think his spine is a notable subject for a Wikipedia article, or better yet why not just leave his spine in the sub-article?
Oh please, "partisan bias" is crap. I like McCain's persona, to the extent I can know it from a distance. I don't mind a political figure or leader going volcanic now and then (especially when members of Congress are the target). The thought of him becoming president does not send a cold chill down my spine. Nothing contained in this section or its full subarticle would give me qualms about his becoming president. However, not everyone agrees with me. I'm trying to fairly represent that other view here. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
As someone who voted for HRC on Super-Tuesday, you understandably have partisan bias. I have partisan bias too (though I've not voted for McCain). The challenge for both of us is to keep bias out of these Wikipedia articles. Even if your inclusion of Cochran's content-free insult in this article is not due to partisan bias, it could certainly be interpreted by a reasonable person as skewing this article (of which you have already accused me). In any event, I am the one who inserted a quote from Cochran into this article in the first place, and I do not believe that it should be expanded as you have done; the extra material is a content-free insult.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no, repeat no, partisan bias in editing these articles. I have spent uncounted hours in libraries reading through everything I can find on McCain to get every damned detail of his life correct and well-sourced in these articles. Do you think there's any partisan advantage in determining whether he graduated from flight school in 1960 or 1961? No, but I've tried reconciling apparently contradictory sources to figure it out. And dozens of other examples like that. I've got stacks of copied pages and notes on his POW time that I haven't even been able to get into the Early life article yet because of being tied up by what goes on in WP. ... Stopping here before I go McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You've accused me of skewing, and I've accused you of partisan bias. We both deny it. Let's move on. You said that Cochran's insult against McCain is the "best" thing Cochran said — better even than Cochran's explanation of why he insulted McCain. Why do you feel that this article is an appropriate place to include insults against the subject?
And incidentally, no one is denying the great amount of extraordinarily good work you have done at Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to turn this into a collection of insults against McCain, here's a much more severe one than Cochran's, from Sen. Jay Rockefeller: "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Second, regarding your proposed edits, I strongly object to your suggested removal of the info about earmarks from this material about Cochran. As we discussed at the sub-article, reliable and neutral sources consider the earmarks material to be relevant to Cochran's denunciation of McCain.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) Rockefeller was being a complete idiot and retracted his remarks with the day. Ignore. I do not consider the first part of Cochran's quote to be an insult. He was saying, in effect, "I do not believe X's temperament is suitable for the office of the presidency", just in more vivid language. In Cold War days, people would frame it, "I don't want X's finger on the button." Cochrane's remark is along those lines. Such remarks are not insults, but very pertinent statements of belief (whether one agrees with them or not) that X is not right for this particular job. Senators can go haywire and it never matters. When presidents go haywire, it's not good. Again, I don't agree with Cochran, but his viewpoint as to McCain's suitability for the highest office in the land — a view in which he is not alone — deserves representation here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea that Cochran's viewpoint is not currently represented in the article is just not true. The article currently includes this quote: "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." This is a severe and blunt criticism. I'm unaware that other candidates' Wikipedia articles quote such severe criticisms. In any event, I do not see that the quote about cold chills adds anything informative to what we already quote Cochran as saying. If someone says that the thought of "President McCain makes me sick" and then explains why, we should be much more inclined to include the explanation than the initial insult. And, yes, it is an insult. But don't take my word for it. I cited a reliable source above.[8] More reliable sources on that point are available.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If someone said "the thought of X becoming president makes me sick" because of their view on issues such as supreme court justices, or the environment, or deficits, I would agree with you, the "makes me sick" doesn't add anything to what's just a policy disagreement. But temperament is directly related to the immediacy and criticality of presidential decisions, especially regarding foreign affairs. So to me, the first part of what Cochran said is important. He's not just saying that McCain is a, b, and c; he's saying that McCain is a, b, and c, and being those things in the presidency is really worrisome. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see your point. Cochran said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." Are you saying that you would also want to include this whole thing even if Cochran instead said: "The thought of his being president makes me sick. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me"? In both cases, the first sentence is just an insult, and even if the Grand Judge of Insults decides that I'm wrong about that, still the first sentence adds nothing informative to Cochran's later sentences. It's very obvious from the later sentences that Cochran was concerned about McCain being president.
And --- not that its especially relevant to our discussion here --- I wonder if you could please quote the most negative comment about HRC or Obama that's now in their articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a quick road to WP-insanity, and I don't go there. Every subject and every article is different. The best real biography about Hillary doesn't look or read anything like the best real biography about McCain. In general, there's a lot more "negative" things about HRC in her article than there are "negative" things about McCain in this one, and appropriately so (McCain's never been at the business end of multiple IC investigations, has never helped his party to get wiped out in a Congressional election, has never had chronically high unfavorable ratings, etc.). And the "most negative comment" would depend on the reader's perspective: it might be "while conservatives said her theories would usurp traditional parental authority,[73] allow children to file frivolous lawsuits against their parents,[50] and argued that her work was legal "crit" theory run amok.[74]", or it might be "Once there [on the Wal-Mart board, she] was silent about the company's famously anti-labor union practices.[106][103]" or for many of the fine readers it just seems to be "Hillary Diane Rodham was born". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds pretty tame to me. Maybe I should go over there and spice it up a bit. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't bother. From what CNN's showing, she may lose Indiana. Either way, she got clobbered in the popular vote differentials tonight and I think she's toast. Many gleeful edits about the faltering of her campaign are sure to follow. The obviously-pro-Obama editors have a lot of pent-up rage ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to address your concern by making it explicitly clear that Cochran was worrying about a McCain presidency. Also, Cochran's remark about his spine is now in a footnote, as well as in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I also don't know why the Leahy cite is back in. Having a footnote that refutes itself is a red flag at FAC. Whatever it is that you're trying to support, there's got to be other sources that will do it. If you do keep it in, you have to be explicit about what parts of the story you think are true and what parts you think are rubbish. But you're just buying into trouble on this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the edit summary: "Reinserting Leahy article in WaPo, regarding dispute about pork-barrel projects between Cochran and McCain." The Leahy article includes this unrefuted paragraph: "Cornyn is now a McCain supporter, as is Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, himself a past target of McCain's sharp tongue, especially over what McCain regarded as Cochran's hunger for pork-barrel projects in his state. Cochran landed in newspapers early during the campaign after declaring that the thought of McCain in the Oval Office 'sends a cold chill down my spine.'"Ferrylodge (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've inserted an excerpt from the Leahy article into the footnote, to address your concern. As for whether part of the Leahy article is rubbish, I don't see why I should make such a POV claim in this article. It should suffice to mention that Salter makes that claim.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2008 Election Section
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'd like to call into question this part: "Early polls in March 2008 showed McCain ahead of both Clinton and Obama in hypothetical general election matchups. Both leads were above the margin of error in the polls by Zogby International and Rasmussen Reports.[184][185][186]"
First, they were not above the margin of error. If a candidate is leading by 6 percentage points and the margin of error is 3.2% then the lead is not statistically significant. Subtract 3.2% from the leader and add it to the person in second and suddenly the person in second is winning to race! This is from the wikipedia page on margin of error: "...the margin of error as generally calculated is applicable to an individual percentage and not the difference between percentages, so the difference between two percentage estimates may not be statistically significant even when they differ by more than the reported margin of error." Yes, a 6 percentage point lead is more than the 3% margin of error but it applies to *each* percentage, not the difference between them. The articles cited make claims that McCain is beating Clinton and Obama but the evidence simply is not supported by their own results.
Furthermore, it seems a bit odd to only include results from a couple polls at one point in time that may benefit McCain. Prior to these polls the situation was quite the reverse. In fact, the sources even make a point of mentioning how McCain has 'pulled ahead' due to concerns about the economy. Subsequent polls, in March, showed all three in a dead heat: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/candidate.poll/. The daily tracking by Rasmussen, which is cited as evidence, now has McCain & Obama in a dead heat with Clinton trailing McCain only slightly. And Clinton's numbers are within the margin of error. If these things aren't going to be updated continually it seems best to simply leave them out. As the sentence now reads, it suggests McCain is favored over Clinton & Obama, which strikes me as misleading, if not biased. Anyway, here's more recent polls:
In sum, I think this should simply be removed. It's clear that these things are shifting constantly and should be clear that both leads were not statistically significant.
Arpayton (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"With the Democratic candidates still involved in a fierce primary race, McCain faced the challenge of staying in the news. However, the period after clinching the nomination allowed the campaign and the candidate to begin implementing their general election strategy."
This is ridiculous too. We don't know their general election strategy!
Arpayton (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that both of these needed to go. I think what the original was trying to convey was that for about a month during February, McCain significantly trailed Obama in polls, but then he more or less caught up. (You can see the changes from this RCP chart.) But the way this was explained focussed too much, and poorly, on specific polls. And since McCain had been roughly even with Obama for a month before that (since his GOP comeback started), it's hard to know which was the blip. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Audiovideo
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I recently put an audiovideo into this article, here. The video is fine, but the audio track only seems to work when I run VLC(Activex), and not when I run Cortado(Java) or QuickTime(ActiveX). Anyone know what the problem is, or how it can be fixed?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fixed now.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
New image
Latest comment: 15 years ago40 comments5 people in discussion
Here's a new image, over to the right. It's from the website of the U.S. Senate (Senate Republican Conference). I'd like to put this at the top of the article. It's formal, and forward-facing. The suit doesn't completely blend into the background which is good.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I really like you Ferrylodge; I think you are an amazing and talented editor who has volunteered so much time and effort to making this article great. But it would be a very big mistake to place this at the top of the article. For starters, it's 7 kb. The current image, Image:John_McCain_official_photo_portrait-cropped.JPG, is of a much higher resolution at 520 kb. The current image also protrays McCain in somewhat of a positive light, with a little smile and he looks clean, whereas with your proposal, McCain is off balance, the background is two different colors, and he looks a bit perplexed. Also, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's articles use official Sentorial portraits, which is what the current image is. Happyme22 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, okay. I don't like that picture we've got now, but I can see that this one to the right isn't good enough. Oh well. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well thanks. I'd stick with the official portrait for consistency reasons during the election, and then see where life takes us. :-) Thanks for all your hard work, Happyme22 (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with this article, Happyme22. I still think that we should at least change the background color. The present picture at the top of the article looks funereal. How about this pic to the right?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. I went ahead and changed the background color.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh, since when are we given lattitude to photoshop the BLP images we use here?? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The photo has been photoshopped for months, in the sense that it's been cropped. Changing the background color seems equally unobjectionable, and perhaps more so given that the image of McCain himself is not touched. Having black clothing on a black background is horrible photographic composition.[9] I have asked for some outside opinions about this, at theGraphic Lab and also at Featured Picture Peer Review.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've reverted it. Seriously, this is the kind of thing that can land us in the general press for all the wrong reasons: "Another blow to Wikipedia credibility: McCain supporter alters web site photo for use in Wikipedia, saying he wanted McCain to look less funereal." Not. A. Good. Idea. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
WTR, I'll go look into the guidelines, but I think you're mistaken. The Wikipedia Graphic Lab alters images all the time to improve quality. Are you saying that a black jacket on a black background does not look funereal? Of course it does.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this one is better- it has been lightened so the suit and background don't merge into one. I also think it looks better uncropped Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC):
OK I swapped it for this one. Feel free to revert if you hate it ;) Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) We already had a long discussion and poll regarding which picture to use, and the consensus was to use the cropped official photo.[10] If a new picture comes along, then that can be discussed, but I think the consensus right now is to stick with the cropped official photo.
Frankly, I don't see any problem with cropping the official photo, and no one has suggested that doing so is against any Wikipedia policy. Likewise, what policy frowns on changing the background color? A black suit on a black background looks horrible, so I don't see the problem with changing the background to blue as long as nothing else is modified. I have started discussions about this at Graphic Lab and also at Featured Picture Peer Review.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the cropping makes the photo look unnatural. The original photographer would have framed the image the way they thought they looked best. I'll have a look at other official portraits to see if they have been cropped. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I would support Gustav's proposal of the full version. Compared with the cropped version when placed in the infobox, I think the full looks better. Happyme22 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Happyme22, do we want to reopen this particular can? Both the cropped and uncropped were already extensively considered. Do we want to alert the people who participated in the previous discussion?
I suggest that we at least wait until we get some feedback from the Graphic Lab and from Picture Peer Review first. Whether we use cropped or uncropped, black clothes on a black background is just a very bad idea.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the black background is such a problem with the lightened image. It could be lightened more if necessary. I think it would be better to use the picture as originally framed to be honest with you. A person isn't just a head. I just checked Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush and they're all using non cropped official images. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You have a respectable and legitimate position, Gustav. However, others have disagreed. Can we please wait until we get feedback on colorizing the background, before re-starting this whole debate?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please can you point to a link where this was discussed earlier? Thanks. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I already gave the link above. here it is again. Additionally, Wasted Time R has objected today to photoshopping the image, and that would apparently include an objection to lightening it. I also object to modifying the current image, before we get feedback from the Graphic Lab and Picture Peer Review.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that discussion may have been a little biased against the uncropped version since the images were displayed as very small thumbs, not how they would have actually been shown on the page. I have uploaded a slightly lighter version of the uncropped image (right). Personally I would like to use a newer image since this is one is at least 4 years old, and I'm sure a decent one could be found on flickr. Is there actually a policy that says official portraits must be used, or is just a guideline? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a few images of McCain available at Wikimedia Commons.[12] I would prefer several of them to the one we're currently using, but the consensus was to use this one because Clinton and Obama also use official photos. Is anyone other than myself going to acknowledge that black clothing on a black background is awful photographic composition, and makes the photo look funereal?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously people have different opinion, such as the photographer who took this and the McCain PR people who put it up on their web site! In case you haven't heard, to many folks black is always cool. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The other ones on Commons don't look so good to me. I'll have a look around on flickr and see if I can find anything decent. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Black is not just cool, it is beautiful. I am not suggesting to alter the color of McCain's black suit. What I object to is the lack of contrast between the suit and the background. Such a lack of contrast regularly gets nominations rejected at Featured Picture Review. WTR, are you saying that it's fine to crop images, and fine to lighten or darken them, but not fine to change the background color? We're already defying the McCain PR people, so why not do it some more?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The lack of contrast obviously appealed to the photographer and the McCain people — maybe they thought it dramatized his face, or something like that. As for where "the line" is on image manipulation, I'm not sure exactly, but I know dramatically replacing the background color is on the wrong side of it. Lightening/darkening is also fraught with peril, witness controversies with O.J. and Obama on same. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We'll soon find out if you're correct about changing the background color. It's not like we're changing the background to a photo of the surface of the Moon!Ferrylodge (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)There's an excellent photo of McCain here. The photographer indicated he might be willing to donate it to Wikimedia. I don't want to bother him any more about it, unless there's a likelihood we'll use it.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal opinions. The black-on-black looks too "jowly", to me, even with other colors added. I can see using an official picture, but we could just as easily use any others as well, including the one proposed above, which I rather like. And, just out of curiosity, are there any copies of any of McCain's earlier "official pictures"? If there are, they would probably be preferable to the black-on-black one. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, I certainly didn't mean to start up another image debate, but I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That said, I am very much opposed to the blue background image. When I look at it, all I see is the blue background; it takes away the purpose of the photo and doesn't go well with McCain's face. I would prefer keeping the cropped image that we currently have, or putting up the slightly lightened full version. As for this suggestion; it's not bad if we can get it released, but he is slightly off center, the two different background colors bother me, and he looks a little angered.
As for the age of the photo, look at Nancy Reagan. Her photo was taken 27 years ago, but it is arguably the most well known of her and is a very good, high res pic. And do you honestly think that Hillary Clinton's was taken sometime this year? :) I'd say the current or light full are the best. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, the image we're currently using was nominated as a featured picture in February 2008. See here. I was not involved in that discussion, but there was widespread criticism of this picture we're currently using. So, there is definitely room for improvement. Incidentally, I could try a less ostentatious background color than the shade of blue I used. But that wouldn't address some of the other criticisms (e.g. "jowliness"). Poor Senator McCain has to put up with a bunch of doofuses debating endlessly about his picture. :-)
A commenter during the featured picture review said "I don't like the way the subject's jacket blends into the background, which makes him look like a floating head and tie." Another commenter agreed: "I don't like how he looks disembodied either."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Part of that is due to it being cropped. The other part I think can be addressed by my lighter uncropped versions above which show the contrast between the background more clearly. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Andrew c kindly made the image over to the right. This image comes from the Wikipedia Graphic Lab, which frequently improves Wikipedia images, including images for biographies of living persons. This is a forward-facing official portrait of McCain, and the image of his face has not been modified or touched up by Wikipedia at all. I support using this at the top of the article until we have consensus for a better pic. The current image at the top of the article is of poor quality, in that the suit and the background are virtually indistinguishable.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'll reiterate my position that doing this is a Bad Idea. This is not a matter of whether we have the rights to do the change, or whether Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve sometimes does BLP images. It's more a matter of journalistic best practices. Given the context of a high-visibility political campaign, I don't think it's our job to make McCain-provided photographs of McCain look better. It should be the job of McCain, his senate office, or his campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, my position is that it is a Bad Idea to deliberately select from several McCain portraits the one where his black suit is indistinguishable from a black background so that his head looks disembodied and seems to be floating. If this image is deliberately chosen by us, then there is nothing wrong with fixing this problem. The image has already been cropped, and the background can easily be changed to conform with the background of the Obama pic.
Wikipedia says: “Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good. When they do, an article appears more professional and is more pleasant to read. When they look amateurish, the article looks amateurish.” It is amateurish to have a black suit against a black background. I am not suggesting giving McCain an afro, or changing the background to the surface of the Moon. Wikipedia says: “Check color. Make sure the colours look natural. If the photo looks too 'cold' or too 'warm', it can often be easily corrected using a color balance adjustment....Dark and unclear pictures should also be properly modified." By declining to take any of these steps here, and by deliberately selecting a McCain image that has lousy background coloring, the article is worsened.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the main solo portrait on the McCain Senate website bio page, a prominent image, so the photographer and the McCain PR people obviously disagree with you regarding it being "disembodied" and "amateurish". Since they are experts at what they do and you and I aren't, I don't see why you're on a mission to save McCain from himself. And regardless of the merits of the photo, I think it's a mistake for us to try to alter it. I would go back to the uncropped, unaltered version and be done with it. If and when he comes out with a newer official-looking portrait, we can switch to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Every photo that Wikipedia cleans up for use in a Wikipedia article comes from a source, so you could jump to the conclusion that Wikipedia often disagrees with those sources.
I resent your characterization that I am "on a mission to save McCain from himself." My intent is to create a high-quality and neutral article that does not look amateurish. This image we're now using was rejected as a featured picture after commenters said that the head appears disembodied due to the poor black-on-black composition. I noted this above, and also noted that other black-on-black photos have been similarly rejected.
You have assiduously avoided saying whether you think this photo makes this article look amateurish. Instead, you argue that Wikipedia is somehow compelled to use the main solo portrait on a Senator's website bio page, without any alteration or cropping. But, unless I'm mistaken, Wikipedia is not using the main solo portrait on Sen. Obama's website bio page.[13] Why do you insist on this requirement? It runs counter to the Wikipedia policies I quoted in my previous comment.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The most appropriate top photo for a political figure isn't necessarily going to qualify as a featured photo, so I don't see that criterion being relevant. My "mission to save" comment was because you must think the McCain PR people are dolts for putting up such an obviously (to you) bad image; nothing "resentable" was intended. No, I don't think this photo makes the article look amateurish at all. I think black on black is cool, I think this photo is fine, and obviously the McCain people do too. Although in retrospect, it was a mistake for us to crop it; I would just use it as we found it. I don't want to reopen the discussion on the top photo and I think we're going around in circles here. I just wanted to go on record again that I think modifying the photo is a blunder that could get us bad press. I won't say any more on it. Best would be if McCain gets elected, then there'll be an official White House photo and all these debates will go away. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. I never said or thought anything about anyone being "dolts." On the contrary perhaps you don't understand that Wikipedia often improves images without accusing the providers of those images of being dolts.
As for going around in circles, perhaps we're doing that because you decline to acknowledge that there is no requirement for us to use the main image at a Senator's bio page. Do you think that the Wikipedia editors who declined to use the main image at the Obama website were accusing the Obama people of being "dolts"? I really don't find your attitude here to be helpful. You seem to be insisting on a requirement that is not followed by other Wikipedia articles, and that runs counter to Wikipedia policy about how to choose and improve images.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Here's what I'd like to suggest, at least until we get more images. For this article's lead photo, see the cropped image with colorized background that's been produced by the Wikipedia Graphics Lab. This is a more traditional photo, and I'm unaware that any lead photos in Wikipedia use a black-on-black composition. The background is exactly as in the Obama lead photo.
The other image to the right is the original untouched official photo, and I suggest that we also use it in the article, for the section on "Political and Cultural Image," with a caption saying "Another official Senate photo, from which this article's lead photo was taken". Even if we decide not to use the original photo in the "Political and Cultural Image" section, I would still urge going with the lighter background for our lead photo. The primary advantages of also including the black-on-black photo in the image section are: (1) the "Political and Cultural Image" section could use a photo; (2) this original uncropped photo would convey the image that McCain's office/photographer have sought to convey; and (3) the full-length original photo with caption would clarify that we're not trying to hide the fact that the lead photo has been cropped and colorized.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I did it. As stated in the FAQ at the top of this page, the article's lead photo is not set in stone. But, I think it's improved now.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Military Medals
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
He should have the POW ribbon/medal. How come he doesn't anyone know atleast it's not showing in wiki? Ron John (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's in one of the sub-articles, here. Coemgenus 10:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In the sub-article, there's no footnote attached. If someone can attach a good footnote, then we can move the POW image to this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ask someone on the campaign trail that keeps "fixing" wiki to add itRon John (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate cats?
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Category:American autobiographers was recently added, when the article already has Category:American memoirists. I don't know exactly why there are separate cats to begin with, but Faith of My Fathers is cover-billed as "A Family Memoir" and Worth the Fighting For is cover-billed as "A Memoir". So what's the rationale for the addition of the autobio cat? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A memoir is considered a subset of autobiography. So, if something is a memoir, then it also qualifies as an autobiography. Here's what the memoir article says: "Memoirs may appear less structured and less encompassing than formal autobiographical works as they are usually about part of a life rather than the chronological telling of a life from childhood to adulthood/old age. Traditionally, memoirs usually dealt with public matters, rather than personal, and many older memoirs contain little or no information about the writer, and are almost entirely concerned with other people."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll be glad to completely trust your judgment on this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Depiction
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Mccain sure does seem highly respectable in the biographical sense..almost wouldn't know how controversial the man now is. Rodrigue (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
How exactly does this comment relate to the article? What specifically are you unhappy with in the article, if anything? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It probably relates to the fact that this article looks like it was written by the McCain campaign team, no real discussion of the man at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.139.196 (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Still not helpful without specifics. List three example items that would be included in a "real discussion of the man". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Peer review
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A request has been made for Peer Review of this article.[14]Ferrylodge (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
