This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Worldruler20 (talk | contribs) at 06:03, 20 August 2008 (→The epitome of patriotism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:03, 20 August 2008 by Worldruler20 (talk | contribs) (→The epitome of patriotism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John McCain article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
 | John McCain is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
A1:Nothing is being covered up. This article is written according to summary style which requires that material in other articles is only summarized here in this article. The information about McCain's use of the term "gook" is discussed in the articles on John McCain 2000 presidential campaign and Cultural and political image of John McCain. Many other controversial remarks by McCain are detailed in the latter article. The "gook" comment was narrowly used by McCain with reference to the specific people who captured and then tortured him in Vietnam; McCain stopped using the term in 2000, and many Asians did not mind him narrowly using the term in the way he did. Singling out this remark for inclusion in this article would give it undue weight, and providing the necessary background and context would also take up too much space in this article. This issue was previously discussed in March, May, and June of 2008.
A2: As stated above, this article uses summary style; think of it as an executive summary of McCain. Much more information about McCain's life, military career, political career, and persona is included in the McCain biographical subarticles shown in the navigational box: Early life and military career of John McCain, House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–1999, John McCain 2000 presidential campaign, Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, John McCain 2008 presidential campaign, and Cultural and political image of John McCain.
A3: None of them. All such material (such as his role in the Keating Five, for example) is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, in this article and in the various subarticles. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. A special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' articles of such treatment — see here.
A4: Complaints of bias are taken seriously, but must be accompanied by very specific areas of concern or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements such as these are of no help to editors; we can't read your mind.
A5: The main article's presidential campaign section is intentionally brief. The subarticle John McCain 2008 presidential campaign has a much fuller treatment of the campaign and that is where most new additions should go.
A6: This article (like many others) uses the approach that there are no citations in the lead section, because everything in the lead is also found in the body of the article along with its citation. |
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
New material about McCain's medical issues
The current Wiki page for McCain very lightly treats the issue of the Senator's medical history under the category "2008 presidential campaign". However, his most recent 1,173 page personal medical report (covering his medical history from 2000-2008) has been the subject of contemporary discussion in the mainstream media, various blogs, and (likely) many water cooler discussions. The Senator's medical history (particularly with regards to both his diagnosis of melanoma and any possible long-term effects of his Vietnam-era status as a tortured POW) predates his current run for the presidency.
The issue of the senator's medical history should be addressed outside the scope of his current candidacy and commentary regarding the published medical records should be linked, such as that of Dr. David Katz of the Yale Prevention Research Center. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/05/23/DI2008052301043.html
This is especially relevant as the current Misplaced Pages entry only indicates the one opinion that McCain is cancer-free and in good health while in July of 2008 he had a small patch of skin removed for a biopsy to help his medical team gain some insight as to whether he remains cancer-free or not and other health concerns. See: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aeAySpQnSkak&refer=home
McCain's additional medical issues made public over the years include:
- removal of early-stage melanomas from McCain's left shoulder in 1993, left arm and left temple in 2000, and from his nose in 2002;
- removal of early-stage squamous cell cancer and benign growths in his colon in 2008;
- previous treatment for an enlarged prostate and underwent cataract surgery;
- currently suffers from arthritis;
- currently takes medication for high cholesterol;
- attemped suicide while in captivity as a P.O.W.; and,
- smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years (relevant given his status as a self-described 'cancer-survivor').
Other medical-related issues stem from his time as a POW in Vietnam War 5 1/2 years, including limited motion in both shoulders and arms, and possibly long-term mental health deterioration from this trauma. Relevance here is the following report according to www.archgenpsychiatry.com at Weill Cornell Medical College, on February 8, 2006:
"War is particularly traumatic for soldiers because it often involves intimate violence, including witnessing death through direct combat, viewing the enemy before or after killing him, and watching friends and comrades die. Heavy combat exposure, seeing comrades injured, witnessing death, and prisoner-of-war (POW) experience are traumatic beyond the time spent in military service or other military events." See: http://www.cpe.uchicago.edu/publication/lib/pizarro_combatstress.pdf
Relevancy here is to help contextualize the reference to McCain's suicide attempt as listed on the current Misplaced Pages page under the heading "Prisoner of war".
Clearly the Senator's public medical history should be addressed outside the scope of this current campaign for higher public office. Dacoach76 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)DaCoach76 in AZ
- This article discusses his war wounds and the resulting physical limitations in the lead paragraphs, and in the prisoner of war section, and also in the cultural and political image section. Likewise, melanoma is discussed in the cultural and political image section, plus in the 2008 campaign section.
- So, there's already quite a bit of coverage in this article, and we should be wary about WP:Undue weight. If you want to include more info, then I'd recommend that you think about doing so in the sub-articles, since this article merely summarizes what's in the sub-articles. See WP:SS. Additionally, some of the material you mention is probably not going to be significant enough for the sub-articles. That McCain takes meds for high cholestoral is not very notable, since a high percentage of people his age have high cholesterol.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree with your comments on smoking and cholesteral, I would not characterize two mentions of melanoma as "quite a bit of coverage", or a discussion of this condition.
- The article includes more discussion regarding his temper issues than his past decade of battling ongoing melanoma. Dacoach76 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article says: "McCain’s prognosis appears favorable, according to independent experts, especially because he has already survived without a recurrence for more than seven years." That seems accurate. Unfortunately, there are space limitations in this main article, and there's a lot of material to cover, so not every detail can be shoehorned in here.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
New material about torture
This bolded material was recently inserted: "McCain was subjected to repeated beatings every two hours and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery. After four days, McCain reached what he called the lowest point during his time in North Vietnam. Still suffering from the injuries sustained during his initial crash, a guard yanked him up and threw him down, his left arm smashing against a bucket and breaking again. Following this episode, McCain rolled his prison shirt into a rope and looped it through louvers of his cell window in an attempt to hang himself. A guard caught him and spent the next few days on suicide watch. Unable to endure any more, McCain gave into his captors and made an anti-American propaganda "confession", writing: 'I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors.'"
Also, this bolded material was deleted: "He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements. Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract 'confessions' and propaganda statements, with many enduring even worse treatment than McCain."
Seeing as how it was a forced confession, and seeing as how it is already in the sub-article, I don't see the point of quoting McCain here. It's obviously something he didn't say by choice, so why quote it? This description also leaves out that "He used stilted Communist jargon and ungrammatical language to signal that the statement was forced" as described in the sub-article, so this is a non-neutral summary that's been recently put into this main article.
JOHN MCCAIN adore to DaLai Lama so he is worship of lie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.22.176.50 (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, this new material in the main article gives the impression that the precipitating event for a suicide attempt was that a guard broke his arm; actually that was only part of it, as the sub-article describes ("His right leg was reinjured, he was given cracked ribs, some teeth were broken at the gumline, and his left arm was re-fractured. Lying in his own waste...."). So this does not seem like a neutral summary.
Also, why delete that other POWs broke down and gave forced confessions even though McCain continued to endure harsher treatment while refusing to make any further forced confession?
I'll therefore revert some of these new changes, which do not seem neutral. The sub-article covers it well, I think.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit first off that I hadn't read the sub-article. I'll also admit that I am not familiar with the subject matter. Rather, while reading the main McCain article and looking a little at his history and reading (for the first time) about his POW experience, one of the first questions I thought was: What was the text of the confession (even though it was forced). I clicked on the footnote, read the cited article, and inserted the text. It seemed to be to be a natural question that flowed from the reading of the text--which is why I inserted it. Perhaps since you are so immersed in the McCain material, you may no longer recognize some of the gaps that would immediately pop into the head of a reader unfamiliar with the subject matter? But I understand your point, and I'm not going to undo your edit. But I ask that you reconsider inserting that text again.
I agree that the new material gave poor impressions as to the precipitating event for the suicide attempt. I only cited what was in the one reference that I opened up. I do think, however, that a suicide attempt during his time as a POW is a significant event which should be noted in the main article. I truly urge you to re-work/replace the text to reflect this.
I made a partial deletion where I personally felt that the entire sentence ought to have been deleted. While in legal doctrine, you have the concept of "the dog didn't bark", it is often looked upon as a place of last resort. That is, why mention what did or did not happen to other POWs? Are you going to go ahead and mention what did or did not happen to the other Keating 5? Or are you going to mention what did or didn't happen to other candidates for the presidency during campaign 2008? That is to say, it isn't necessary to include that information and if anything at all, it affects the neutrality of the article by insinuating that McCain torture was "run-of-the-mill torture" (whatever that is) by comparison to others. I think that it ought to be deleted.
Finally, you did a great job voicing your concerns about my contributions on this talk page, but then you make a blanket statement at the end which questions the neutrality of them. I honestly do not see how the additions were biased; rather, they were an attempt at making the article more neutral. Let me know what you think. LegalFiction (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your kind comments. I'll think it over carefully (can't right this minute). Unfortunately, this main article has pretty strict size limitations, and so we often reference stuff without including full quotes. But you have a good point that a suicide attempt is probably something that should at least be mentioned briefly here, if we can provide enough context. You also raise other interesting poiunts (e.g. about referencing torture of other people) that I and I'm sure others will consider carefully as soon as we can. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
LegalFiction, the first thing to say is that Early life and military career of John McCain is really the go-to place if you are interested in McCain's time in Vietnam and as a POW. (And it's a Featured Article! Shameless plug.) Once upon a time, all of that was in this main article, but then it had to be cut down for size and a lot of important setting and event material had to be moved out. Regarding things like the suicide attempt and the "confession" text, it's important that everything be presented in proper context, since there are people out there who twist everything McCain did as a POW into an incorrect meaning. As for the treatment of other POWs, again it's important to establish the full context; McCain himself has always stressed that as bad as things got for him, it got worse, and worse longer, for a number of others (see Hubbell's P.O.W. or Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound for corroboration). Since McCain is now the most famous of the POWs, and this is where many people will read of the American POW experience there, it's important to state this. In no way is it meant to belittle what McCain experienced. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have attempted to work in the suicide attempt. It's a very momentous thing in a person's life, and I agree we should try really hard to include it here. Regarding the idea of saying that some other POWs were treated worse, I'm not sure of the need to do that here, or what it says about McCain. Was he the least tortured person who ever tried to kill himself? Did POWs who were tortured more refuse to make confessions? I think it's enough to just say that others were tortured similarly, without raising all kinds of questions about how many were treated worse, and what their reactions were.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm leery about what you said about the suicide attempt ... this isn't like a manic depressive or a the stockbroker who loses a million and his girlfriend dumps him and he ends up on the office ledge ... this is more like a forced suicide, parallel to the forced confession ... it's not a sign he was ever mentally unstable or self-destructive, but rather had hit the bottom point of physical well-being doubled with incipient loss of (what he perceived as) his honor. I just hope there's enough context here where people will understand that. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- As for the other bit, neither of you are getting it. I inserted it as a tribute to the other POWs, the same as McCain does. Somewhere there's an interview with Salter where he says, the whole time they were writing up the book, McCain kept telling him, 'I didn't have it as bad as a lot of them, say that, make sure the readers know that.' McCain had two really bad stretches, one at the start, one after he refused release. Then he got moderate hammering a bunch of other times. Some of the guys that got there early, in '65 or '66, they had years and years of bad, bad stretches. Over and over. And they virtually all broke, had to, that wasn't the point either. I just didn't want readers to think that this was as bad as it got with the North Vietnamese. But since you're misinterpreting it, so will others, so it's better out. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- We'll see what people think about the suicide stuff. I could go either way. It might help to mention that other similarly situated POWs did likewise, but I think it's okay as-is. It might become problematic, though, if someone tries to wikilink suicide, thus drawing extra attention to it. I could go either way on this, as I said. And, of course, I understand it was a perfectly normal reaction given the situation.
- Regarding a tribute to other POWs, maybe we could quote McCain offering the tribute, instead of us doing it?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea. And thank you for considering all my other suggestions. LegalFiction (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The epitome of patriotism
I see this article is protected. Could anyone add a section to it about how McCain is a living personification of all the values that make America great? He is almost metaphysically profound in this sense. His whole life has been devoted to his country and he has always refused to surrender! McCain Landslide! (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, can't do it. We're just providing neutral facts here. But maybe people will draw those conclusions from the facts.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was suggesting a new section to be added, based on a popular perception of John McCain as a hero embodying everything that makes America great, someone who cares more about his nation than about any political parties or special interests. I'm discussing how the article can be improved, but can accept if you respectfully disagree with my suggestions. I'm aware that Misplaced Pages is noted for having a liberal and pro-Democrat bias, but will do my best to improve articles towards neutrality. McCain Landslide! (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- As JayJasper indicated, we respectfully disagree with your suggestions. We're just trying to present a neutral point of view here, supported by verifiable facts that can be found in reliable sources. If you detect any bias in this article, please let us know.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Landslide, there is an article that covers some of the territory you are interested in: Cultural and political image of John McCain, which incorporates conclusions reached by academics, serious writers, and the like. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will be working on improving that article in coming days. McCain Landslide! (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you should describe first on Talk:Cultural and political image of John McCain what it is about that article that you think needs improvement. To be honest, you already have two strikes against you, the first your username and your fannish statements regarding McCain above, the second your claim that "Misplaced Pages is noted for having a liberal and pro-Democrat bias". My experience has been that Misplaced Pages does have some articles about political figures that are a bit too pro- or anti- a particular figure, but that it tends to vary greatly depending upon the happenstance of which particular editors work a lot on which particular articles. During much of last year I believe the McCain article was slanted against him, but I do not believe that has been the case from November 2007 on. The good news is, as long as your edits are well cited and represent aspects of McCain accurately and fairly, neither of these strikes will matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- If there is a specific example of how McCain is "a hero embodying everything that makes America great, someone who cares more about his nation than about any political parties or special interests" then im sure we could add that, otherwise its facts anf figures only, no opinion (popular or otherwise) allowed :)
- CaptinJohn (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure McCain Landslide! is an attempt at satire, and not an actual McCain supporter.Worldruler20 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
See also
Why are people removing links to Cultural and political image of John McCain. It is not cited elsewhere in the article, it should therefor be cited here.Dogru144 (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't it the main article link right below the "Cultural and political image" section header? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is already linked to three different times in the article: By the "Life of John McCain" nav template at the top of the article (underneath the infoboxes), by the "Main article: Cultural and political image of John McCain" link at the start of the "Cultural and political image" section, and by the general "John McCain" nav template at the bottom of the article. Per WP:ALSO, "See also" links are generally to articles that haven't been linked already, but concern related topics, and are often used in underdeveloped articles where eventually the "See also" entries go away. None of this is the case here. I'm not trying to hide the existence of this or any of the other bio subarticles, since I'm the main author of all of them. But "See also" entries for them don't seem to be appropriate, and it certainly makes no sense to just list this one and not all the others. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
McCain's religion
Why is his religion listed as "Baptist" in the infobox? Yes, there's a footnote noting the fact that he was raised as an Episcopalian. Yes, he married a Baptist and raised his children in that faith, even attending a Baptist church the past several decades. Yet, as far as I know, he hasn't actually been baptized into that faith. Hence, he should still be considered an Episcopalian. I thought about changing it, but I don't want to make an edit war out of something this minor, in light of the fact that one's religion is immaterial as far as being an elected official. Specifically, that the Constitution doesn't require one to be a specific religion in order to be an elected official. —MicahBrwn (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well for starters, McCain identifies himself as a Baptist. It appears, according to the Fox article, that McCain has not been bapized into the Baptist Church, but identifies himself as a Baptist. Happyme22 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Happy, this is a matter of self-identification. The end of the Cultural and political image of John McCain article goes into a little more detail: "By September 2007, McCain's denominational migration was complete, and he was identifying himself as a Baptist. More broadly, he identifies himself as a Christian rather than an evangelical Christian." Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- McCain considered himself Episcopalian until some time between June 2007 (when he identified himself as Episcopalian to McClatchy) and September 2007 (when he identified himself as Baptist to Fox). I think simply saying "raised Episcopalian" in the footnote is a little misleading for a man who was Episcopalian into his 70's.Crust (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've expanded the footnote a bit.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- McCain considered himself Episcopalian until some time between June 2007 (when he identified himself as Episcopalian to McClatchy) and September 2007 (when he identified himself as Baptist to Fox). I think simply saying "raised Episcopalian" in the footnote is a little misleading for a man who was Episcopalian into his 70's.Crust (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Semiprotection of Talk:Barack Obama
I'm putting this comment here b/c I notice that the Obama talk page is semiprotected, and because Mac is the other presumptive nominee this election cycle. Question: if someone wants a protected page edited when a talk page is semiprotected, and wants to be an anon, where does he/she go? 204.52.215.14 (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- This article doesn't get near the editing traffic and disputes that the Obama one does, so I don't think it will be an issue here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the question is where an anon can ask for changes to be made to the Obama article (since the page and the talk page are both semi-protected). I think the answer is either:
- wait for the talk page to be unprotected (it shouldn't stay protected very long)
- find another place to ask for the change to be made - I'd suggest either the talk page any of the users editing the article or some place like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance) or Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection.
- You can leave a message on my talk page if you'd like. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the question is where an anon can ask for changes to be made to the Obama article (since the page and the talk page are both semi-protected). I think the answer is either:
Cultural and Political Image
I know the editors are probably bored to death of hearing about this... but I still find the section to be, not neccessarily biased, but still flawed. It does a great job of posting both pros and cons to his political image, but seems to also excuse him from the cons with hilarious statements like "Having a temper is not unusual for U.S. leaders, nor is it unusual for leaders to be passionate and engaged." How did that sentence get in there? Is that considered a shift in voice? Duh?
If credibility is taken away from criticism of McCain in this section, should it also be taken from praise? Would it then be acceptable for an Obama supporter to take credibility away from his military image by writing that he refused to sign the new GI bill, or that more donations from soldiers go to the Obama and Paul camps? I don't believe so. 71.204.234.28 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Ryan 7/25/0871.204.234.28 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the cited sources for the statement you quote ("Having a temper is not unusual for U.S. leaders, nor is it unusual for leaders to be passionate and engaged")? The cited sources are relevant and neutral. This section of our article would not have a neutral point of view if it only talked about McCain's temper again and again, without also mentioning what is stated by those cited sources: that various presidents have had tempers, and that being passionate and having convictions are not necessarily bad things. We could try to paint McCain as a grumpy old man, but then this wouldn't be a neutral article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- My two cents: read the actual Cultural and political image of John McCain article, bypass the summary of it here. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- My two cents: every facet of a[REDACTED] page should be perfect, regardless of whether a section is just a summary or if there is another article more accurately expands upon the subject. Perhaps my argument is not so much with the POV, but rather the shift in voice. If you read the entire section, I think you'll also see why the sentence is odd. A better approach would be to say that "Feldman and Valinty argue that blah blah blah." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.175.166 (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Perfection, huh? That's a tall order! You better register yourself a username and come help.... Anyway, this whole section (and the subarticle beneath it) intentionally has a different voice. It shifts into the present tense from the past, and instead of the historical narrative voice of the bio sections and subarticles, it assumes sort of the voice of an omniscient observer. While at times that voice becomes like an academic survey article, at other times it doesn't. So yes, it could say "Renshon and Keller argue ...", but I think the current phrasing is okay too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's pretty much a factual statement that other leaders have had tempers. If the truthfulness of the assertion were controversial or disputed or questionable, then I'd support "Renshon and Keller argue ..." but it seems okay the way it is. Inserting such language would require us to insert similar language before lots of other statements too (e.g. "John Doe argues that McCain has a temper" and "Sally Knowitall contends that McCain likes hiking...." and "Walter Wisdom opines that McCain is a Senator....").Ferrylodge (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Aaaah, come on! Mao and Stalin had tempers too and see what it did for them. The sentence is biased and should go. It's like saying: "McCain likes to torture kittens in the weekends, although assertiveness to furry animals is a common trait among war heroes" - That's not a matter of fact, but of opinion. And even then it's not about whether his temper excludes him from leadership, just the public perception that he has one.VeryGimpy (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- The cited sources compare McCain's temper to that of other U.S. leaders. McCain is not running for politburo or kuomintang, so it would not be pertinent to discuss Mao and Stalin in the present Misplaced Pages article. Temper is always a relative trait, everyone has a temper to some extent, and therefore it's useful to compare McCain's to those of other people who have occupied the office he seeks, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Category:American prisoners of war
Here's yet another category that McCain could be added to: Category:American prisoners of war.68.167.248.181 (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- He's already in Category:Recipients of the Prisoner of War Medal, which is a child cat of what you suggest. We don't add redundant parent cats. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
John McCain is not featured like Obama
Why is McCain not a featured article like Obama?
Doesn't Misplaced Pages take a stance that it is unbiased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.148.2 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- This article can be nominated as a featured article at any time by any one. Some of us have been reluctant to do so because of the time that this would demand. However, if you think that this article is worthy of featured status, then I agree with you. But really, is a tiny star at the upper-right corner such a big deal?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages's featured article process has nothing to do with bias. All this means is that editors of the Obama page nominated that article and responded to concerns relating to Misplaced Pages's Misplaced Pages:featured article criteria (actually, this happened quite a while ago and the article has been through 3 featured article reviews since then as well). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's very difficult to get an article featured while the subject is in the middle of a political campaign. Many reviewers will object to it on WP:FACR criteria 1e grounds: "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." Even if the article doesn't have edit wars (and this one is pretty good on that score), reviewers will say the article will have to undergo massive change if McCain wins the election in the fall (true) and thus cannot be considered stable (debatable). The Hillary Rodham Clinton article was defeated twice at FAC for this reason, the second time fairly recently when it was clear to most observers she no longer had a chance to winning the nomination. So based on that experience, it would seem unlikely that this article could get through. The Obama article is an exception because it got its FA years ago, before the campaign began. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Obama has cleared FAR more recently, though, despite its great instability, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, although if I remember right, the last FAR broke down in acrimony. I think there was sentiment not to strip the FA on such a high-profile article just due to aggressive edit warring. If someone wants to take this article to FAC, and make the argument that the 1e objections should be ignored, they certainly can try. For a while I thought the 1e objections would be dismissed by the FA directors on the last HRC FAC, but that's not the way it worked out. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure that this article would undergo massive change if McCain wins the election. This article is written primarily in chronological format, so the new stuff would primarily just be appended after the 2008 campaign section. Additionally, doesn't 1e apply to FARs too (e.g. the Obama FARs)? Also, we don't have a crystal ball; any FAC may undergo great change if there are revelations or developments in the future about the subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I should also have pointed out to the original query, that Early life and military career of John McCain, which covers the first 45 years of his life, is a featured article. So that's evidence that this is not a matter of Misplaced Pages bias. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Though technically not conclusive evidence, since that article gets relatively few hits, alas.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- As others have stated, due to the upcomming presidential election it is probably not a good idea to have this or any of the candidates as featured articles until after the elections. BO's FA was quite some time ago, sufficiently so that it should not appear to have any specific bias for him. If any candidate becomes a FA prior to the election you would have serious questions of bias within WP. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm in process of giving this article a thorough proofread today, just in case it gets nominated. Doesn't hurt to improve it a bit anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- A common viewpoint, but one I disagree with. FA status is a measure of the quality of an article, not an endorsement of the article's subject. If the appearance on the main page is the worry, that could certainly be postponed until after the election. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm through with my proofread. And postponing appearance on the main page would be fine by me.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd just say be careful of what you wish for. The FA process is sometimes not pretty, and if someone decides to nominate it, that person has to be willing and able to reply to the dozens upon dozens of comments - major, minor, insignificant, meaningful, utterly contradictory, and often mean-spirited - and defend the text or amend it in ways that the editors here will not object to, as well as satisfy the reviewers. Other editors of course can chime in and help out, but some one or two editors have to take the lead so it doesn't descend into chaos. I'm not saying don't consider going for it, but I am recommending you look at some of the closed actions whether voted up or down and be sure you're ready for it. And if you go for it, I do hope you get it, because I actually think we're all best served by high quality, fair articles. Tvoz/talk 06:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think a significant portion of the community is misinterpreting the "1e problem," but the past few FA noms of this and Hillary's article show that they remain as convinced of their opinion as we do of ours. Perhaps after the election, the concerns might subside a bit. It would be nice to have the winner's article featured in time for Inauguration Day in January. Coemgenus 12:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- This article was nominated for FA only once, and it was a much different article then. The primary objection was its excessive length, not instability. See the closing rationale. Additionally, that was merely a drive-by nomination. Another important consideration here is that, at the time of the drive-by nom, the article had not been through any content review process. Subsequently, it became a "Good Article", then went through "Peer Review", and then went through "Good Article Review" (and one of its sub-articles became featured). Ferrylodge (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Writings section
The Writings section was something of a mess, with full books co-authored by McCain mixed in with articles he wrote, forewords he wrote, etc. Worse, some forewords were incorrectly labelled as books co-written (you can't always believe the top line on Amazon or Google Books, you often have to look at the actual cover). I separated the books from the rest, normalized the formatting, and put both in standard chrono order. I added two more forewords that I knew about. Then I did this Amazon search and realized he's written a bunch more forewords. Do we want to include all of these here? How significant are forewords? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Good going. I wouldn't worry about being comprehensive about the Forwards. It seems okay for people to just pick out the ones that they think are most significant.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Furious
No, I'm not furious. Who wants to be characterized as furious? But I do disagree with this phrasing in the article:
In June 2007, President Bush, McCain, and others made the strongest push yet for such a bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, but it aroused furious grassroots opposition among talk radio listeners and others as an "amnesty" program, and twice failed to gain cloture in the Senate.
I'd like to change the word "furious" to "intense" or "strong" which are both supported by the new reference. The word "furious" is also supported by the new reference (which appears to be why the new reference was chosen), but I think using the word "furious" is not as neutral as we could be. Here are the pertinent excerpts from the new reference:
But the legislation sparked a furious rebellion among many Republican and even some Democratic voters, who were linked by the Internet and encouraged by radio talk show hosts. Their outrage and activism surged to full force after Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who was an author of the bill, suggested early this week that support for the measure seemed to be growing. The assault on lawmakers in Washington was relentless.
.... “The opposition to the amnesty plan is so much more intense than the intensity of the supporters,” said Mr. Hanna, speaking of the bill’s provisions to grant legal status to qualifying illegal immigrants, which the authors of the legislation insisted was not amnesty. ....
Mr. Murphy said he felt strongly about the bill because he believed it would degrade the value of American citizenship.
The first paragraph of this blockquote is where "furious" comes from. The problem is that there were a lot of concerned citizens who were not frothing at the mouth about this, and who are described in the latter parts of this blockquote. So, can we please change "furious" to "strong" or "intense"? I'll tentatively do so.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Furious" does not imply "frothing at the mouth". It accurately depicts an anger at what was seen as the political elites of both parties trying to push through something against the sentiments of the citizens. But, like most of my attempts to add some zest to these articles, I guess it has to be watered down. Never mind ... Wasted Time R (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind zest, WTR. There were a lot of opponents who were not "furious". Instead they just thought it was a really bad idea, and they were strongly opposed. I put "furiously" back, but not in a way that implies all the opponents were furious.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't McCain's entry include any information regarding his involvement in the Keating 5?
Misplaced Pages has an entry regarding the Keating 5, which begins:
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).
Shoeempress (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please look more carefully in this article:
McCain became enmeshed in a scandal during the 1980s as one of five United States Senators comprising the so-called "Keating Five". Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, along with trips on Keating's jets that McCain belatedly repayed two years later. In 1987, McCain was one of the five senators whom Keating contacted in order to prevent the government’s seizure of Lincoln, and McCain met twice with federal regulators to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln. On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do." In the end, McCain was cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee of acting improperly or violating any law or Senate rule, but was mildly rebuked for exercising "poor judgment". In his 1992 re-election bid, the Keating Five affair was not a major issue, and he won handily, gaining 56 percent of the vote to defeat Democratic community and civil rights activist Claire Sargent and independent former Governor Evan Mecham.
- Ferrylodge (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The article does mention the Keating 5 in the header:
After being investigated in a political influence scandal of the 1980s, as a member of the "Keating Five", he made campaign finance reform one of his signature concerns, which eventually led to the passage of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002.
This entry is incorrect, campaign finance reform has nothing to do with corruption and a savings and loan scandal. This entry need to be rewritten as two separate events. Something about him surviving the Keating 5 corruption scandal, and not linking it to some random other act by McCain.
- McCain's push for campaign finance reform was in direct response to his experience in the Keating Five scandal. See the cite given, , in the article body text. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Pilots not wanting to fly attack aircraft
I can share some general insight into this-- my father was a career fighter pilot and flew ground attack aircraft in Korea. He also flew in a different capacity in Vietnam.
The reasons why the 'ground attack' role for fighter jets is generally less popular are twofold:
1) Dog-fighting involves more advanced flying skills and carries more prestige in the military.
2) Ground attack fighter aircraft have a much higher casualty rate than air-to-air combat (even higher than infantry in Vietnam).
This is because ground attack fighters (during the Vietnam era and also prior to that) were exposed to far more enemy fire, and at much closer range, and on a much more frequent basis; resulting in some of the highest American casualty rates in modern warfare.
The division between ground attack and air to air combat roles in the military can be blurred, depending on the needs of the immediate situation.
Generally there were planes assigened to different roles, but these roles could be lurred and heavy casualties were possible for all roles, although ground attack figher jets suffered the highest losses over all. Reconnassaince was a third role for fighers and also was dangerous/
Hope that is helpful.
Sean7phil (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The user User:Epischedda insists on adding something about pilots not wanting to fly ground attack aircraft. This was reverted by User:Wasted Time R on July 26 for being unsourced and incoherent. I've just reverted the same text but he has resubmitted it. It's a bit better but still badly worded and I think not worth keeping. I'm not going to get into an edit war but other may have opinions. Brettr (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- The wording of the text in question reads just fine to readers for whom English is their first language, who are capable of thinking in terms of greater complexity than a sound-bite and who do not have a pre-existing bias in favor of John McCain, the article's subject.Epischedda (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Epischedda
- The addition is ", not usually the first choice of top Naval Acadamy graduates, the vast mejority of whom seek to fly high performance fighter aircraft due in part to the lesser potential for confronting less-capable ground troops and inflicting collateral damage." First, it confuses all Naval Academy graduates with those going into naval aviation. Second, it's true that fighter jock positions are the most prestigious/desirable ones (Top Gun etc.) but the reason given is incoherent, wrong, and uncited. One of Epischedda's edit summaries said "Restored clarifying material obtained from unpub. interviews, removed by individual apparently opposed to context, clarity and accuracy. It is not necessary for every sentence to be footnoted." Well, if it's an unpublished interview (with whom?) it's WP:OR and can't be used, and in an article like this, yes, pretty much every sentence has to be footnoted. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- alleges incoherence without substantiating his accusation; somehow another poster - - understood the original text well enough to submit a response that further substantiated it. Secondly, if it's incoherent, how could it be wrong, as the reverter disingenuously asserts? If it's incoherent, it isn't right or wrong - it simply isn't anything at all. That makes such a contradictory assertion so vehemently is further demonstration of the disingenuousness of his efforts to remove irrefutable information he seeks to quash.Epischedda (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Epischedda
- Furthermore, there is no confusion between "all Naval Academy graduates" and "those going into naval aviation"; all that was ever at issue were naval acacemy graduates like John McCain i.e. those going into naval aviation (which, in any case, at the height of the advent of the nuclear carrier task force, was most naval academy graduates). Reverter alleges confusion in order to obfuscate an issue he seeks to keep from becoming publicized. In general the reverter confuses his own disingenuousness with the general worldiness and intelligence of a tyically-informed reader of this article, who can be expected to distinguish reasonable, readily-verifiable information obtained from numerous sources over a number of years - even if not overtly sourced - from wildly inaccurate accusation.Epischedda (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Epischedda
- As substantiated by another recent poster, the deleted material is simply incapable of being reliably refuted due to its ready acknowledgement by the members of McCain's chosen profession; it therefore deserves to remain. It's relevant because it speaks to the "heroic" aura McCain's supporters like seek to project for him when, in reality, McCain graduated near the bottom of his class, has been a participant in the destruction of a number of multi-million-dollar aircraft for which he was responsible (which, in times other than ones in which the military was desparate for pilots, would have gotten him forcibly retired early), and has pursued with apparent gusto a specialty that many of his peers eschew on account of its moral distastefulness - all hardly demonstrative of his possession of the "right stuff".Epischedda (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Epischedda
- I agree with Brettr and Wasted Time R that this reversion was appropriate, for the reasons they explained. We could likewise mention that most undergraduates chose not to go to a military institution for college, or that most young people McCain's age did not want to go to Vietnam during that War, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know what the ratio of fighetr pilots to ground-attack pilots was during the Vietnam War (I kind of doubt that the North Vietnam had a whole lot of fighter pilots), and I don't know if McCain would have preferred to be a fighetr pilot. The main thing is, all the stuff in this Misplaced Pages article has to include footnotes that discuss McCain, not just general background footnotes, and certainly no footnote at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
McCain obtained marriage license before his divorce was granted
According to the LA Times:
Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.
Any views on whether this should or should not be mentioned? (Under current Arizona law this should not be possible, though perhaps the law was different then. Regardless, this was surely pretty unusual.)
And if it is mentioned should the discrepancy be stated explicitly or just implicitly by noting the date he obtained his marriage license as well as the date he obtained the divorce? Crust (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- This Misplaced Pages article currently says:
In April 1979, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co. Also in 1979, he pushed to end his marriage with his wife Carol, who accepted his request for a divorce in February 1980; the divorce became effective in April 1980. The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments due to the injuries resulting from the 1969 car accident; they would remain on good terms. McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980 with Republican Senator and future Secretary of Defense William Cohen serving as best man, and Democratic Senator Gary Hart as a groomsman.
- So, there's already quite a bit of chronology about his divorce and remarriage, in this Misplaced Pages article. Have we omitted any important part of the chronology? I can't see any. The LAT article that you mention is cited in Early life and military career of John McCain. No one is suggesting that he got married to his second wife while still married to his first wife, so the details about when he got a license to marry don't seem particularly notable.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why would this be notable? Well, it sounds like McCain may have got his marriage license under false pretenses (claiming that he was not legally married when in fact he was). If true, that's surely notable. But on reflection, my instinct is we should not include this based on WP:BLP, at least not without more information than in the LAT article. Maybe there was some unusual aspect to Arizona law at the time or some other wrinkle that makes this other than it might seem.Crust (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- It seems kind of like jaywalking, at the very worst. His wife agreed to a divorce in February 1980, a marriage license was obtained in March 1980, the divorce became effective in April 1980, and the wedding occurred in May 1980. Even if Arizona law technically required that the effective date precede the license date, it's hard to see this as notable. In any event, the LAT article doesn't mention any such technical requirement.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Arizona law at the time did not require a person to be unmarried to get a marriage license. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of you...(and specifically Arizona in the 70's), but I had to swear an oath before a notary that I was not presently married in the US or any other country in order to obtain a marriage license. I also had to state whether I had been previously married or were a bigamist (the first time I had heard the word), and if I had, whether I was widowed, or divorced. All of these things I had to swear were true, and then add my signature. It is not a light thing, and I can't believe 'Wasted's statement that a person in Arizona was not required to be unmarried in order to obtain a marriage license. What then would prevent someone with that license to become a bigamist? It doesn't make sense. I need some more solid backup 'Wasted' before I can believe you. 222.2.96.73 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Rawckuf.
I'd like to see this information posted so that we judge for ourselves. No one is suggesting that his second marriage is illegal, but that facts regarding when the divorce was initiated, when he got a marriage license, when his divorce was finalized and when he was remarried should be posted since they are completely unbiased (based on the legal documents). It's not the fault of the public that the facts are unflattering to his image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLauren (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Either he broke the law or he didn't. I haven't seen any reliable source that says he did. If a reliable source reports in the future that he may have violated some law, then we can address this again.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- The criteria for whether something goes in Misplaced Pages is not whether or not the activity was legal or not. The Los Angeles Times is a perfectly credible source on this. This information should be in this biography entry. McCain applied for a marriage license while still married to his first wife. It's a fact. Period. Put it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.145.225 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- The LA Times article contains lots of facts, but that doesn't mean we're obligated to put every single one of those facts into this Misplaced Pages article. A fact has to be notable to go in here. You argue that this particular fact is notable because it shows McCain broke the law. However, neither the LA Times article nor any other reliable source suggests that McCain broke the law.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- My source for what I said above is inadmissable by WP rules, but one I believe nonetheless. In any case, per WP:BLP and similar considerations, the burden of proof is on those who claim that McCain violated or broke a law or regulation. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted an attempt to add this to the article. It is like adding, "Joe Politico was observed driving down Park Avenue at 50 mph." Without knowing if the speed limit is 25 or 55, this doesn't tell you anything, but the fact of an otherwise trivial detail being included in the article insinuates that it must have been illegal. This is, as I said, a violation of WP:BLP and similar guidelines. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a fact for you: While still married to his first wife Carol, John McCain had an extramarital affair with millionaire heiress Cindy Hensley. Even though this information is available in your article it is buried and has to be parsed together. It is not mentioned on the first page where his life is summarized. Your short biography conveniently jumps from 1973 to 1981. It is not your job to whitewash his biography for him. Let the straight talker do his own spin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.202.2 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're correct that this information is covered in the article but not in the lead section. Unfortunately, the lead can only cover a few of the major events, so it necessarily jumps around. For example, there is also a jump from 1936 to 1958. Even the lead of the sub-article Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain necessarily jumps around a bit.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- The lead section doesn't talk about McCain's personal life at all, good bad or indifferent. The John-Carol-Cindy business is described in the body of four different articles: this one, Early life and military career of John McCain, Carol McCain, and Cindy Hensley McCain. It's not explicitly labeled an 'extramarital affair' in any of these articles; whether it should be is a matter of opinion wherein different editors have had different views, and this is how it's worked out. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, if you'd like to see whitewashing, you might check out the Barack Obama article, which does not mention anywhere that he was a cocaine user. One of the Obama sub-articles mentions it, though does not mention that it was illegal. Compare an article like Sarah Palin, which does mention that she used marijuana, and also mentions whether or not it was legal.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ferrylodge. Please don't point the "white-wash-finger" to other articles. It's just a senseless exchange between the two major camps and their editors. ;) --Floridianed (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you're right to point the "senseless-exchange-finger" at me. I should probably bring up the drug use thing there rather than here, but I'll have to work up my courage first. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comparing articles is generally a bad idea. Each article stands on its own merits. What makes sense for one may not make sense for another. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
How to describe pre-marital relationship with second wife
I agree that articles need to stand on their own merits and just because something is handled one way in one article does not mean it must be handled the same way in another - including political rivals. And I agree that the details of McCain's personal life don't belong in the intro. I do not know anything about the laws of Arizona regarding marriage licenses, but I do know the difference between calling something an "extramarital" relationship and saying only that there was a "relationship", and I am bothered by the omission of the word "extramarital" here. I know this has been discussed, and I know that the chronology is spelled out in the subsequent sentences, but it seems to me that the way this ended up has gone too far in the direction of sanitizing what was obviously an extramarital relationship. There is no such hesitation in other articles across the political spectrum, and I am unconvinced that this is a direct and clear way of presenting information that is not in dispute, even by the McCains. All that needs to be added is the word "extramarital" - doesn't have to be "adulterous" or linked to adultery although that would be accurate - but to say just "relationship" followed by his "pushing" to end his marriage (as a reader I do not understand exactly what that means, by the way) may imply the truth but it doesn't state the truth, which I believe is what we should be doing here. He likely had a "relationship" with hundreds of people at that time, but the one with Cindy was presumably quite different and we ought to be stating it more directly. Tvoz/talk 17:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- There are several reasons why this question resolved itself the way it did, and we can go into it again if necessary. First, this article does use the word "extramarital" where it is clearly appropriate to do so, regarding affairs in Jacksonville, Florida. So, there is no squemishness about using that word. Second, regarding McCain's initial relationship with Cindy McCain (which occurred several years after the Jacksonville stuff), the fact that they knew each other while McCain was still married to Carol is made very clear already in this article; adding the word "extramarital" would therefore not only be redundant (with the concomitant risk of undue weight), but would also potentially be misleading. It could be misleading because the word "extramarital" has connotations; McCain had lots of relationships with people outside his marriage (e.g. with other Senators), but we would not call them "extramarital", because that word has connotations of jumping into bed for sex. Regarding Cindy and John McCain, we have no idea when they first had sex, and one of our leading sources repeatedly uses the word "courtship" to describe their relationship before marriage; obviously, the word "courtship" does not have connotations of having sex. I offered that we could use the word "courtship" in this article, but the consensus was to instead go with the bare word "relationship." A further reason to be wary about inserting the word "extramarital" is because that word is used less frequently when referring to a spouse who has separated and is seeing another man or woman, and it is unclear exactly when Carol and John McCain separated (he plausibly says that he was separated from Carol before he met Cindy). All in all, we can re-open this can of worms, but I'd rather not.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I was a party to the previous struggle on this, so it's not good form for me to try to open it. But I will say, I don't think the result has been very successful. In a short amount of time, there have been at least four editors (the IP above, Tvoz, Hanter and Sjh) who have felt that "extramarital", or some formulation of "still married to", needed to be added here. Like it or not, this is a high-profile part of the article, especially in light of the Edwards-Hunter business, and it does bother me that overall confidence in the entire article may be undermined by it appearing that the editors are dancing around a simple truth in this particular matter. And the "extramarital" truth is pretty simple: John and Carol were still married, still cohabiting, and not legally separated during this period. While Ferrylodge thinks the idea that they were nonetheless separated in some sense during this time is plausible, I think it's far-fetched. But even if so, the separation was of the informal variety and the "extramarital" would still apply. As for connotations, "extramarital" does not imply "jumping into bed for sex". All sources agree that McCain was smitten with Cindy at first sight and remained so; the fact that he quickly married her after the divorce went through makes this clear. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- We had a long discussion already about whether or not they were separated. In Florida (where the divorce was obtained), the law does not require filing of papers to become separated. So, while Carol and John may not have separated in any legal proceeding, they still may well have been separated according to the law, prior to John meeting Cindy. See Abrams, Brenda. Everything about How to Divorce in Florida: An In-Depth Guide to Divorce in Florida, page 14 (2003): "Parties living together in the same home are considered to be separated if they no longer have sexual relations with each other and no longer share the same bedroom."
- I suspected that WTR's formulation of "relationship" without the word "extramarital" might become problematic. As I've said before, I would have no objection if we stick to the cited source, and instead use the word "courtship" which does not beg for any adjectives like "extramarital". Rick Block also suggested "seeing".Ferrylodge (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. And regarding Edwards-Hunter, please see here and here.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There is such a thing as commonsense understanding, and we all know what is generally meant by "extramarital", and as I said, I am not asking that "adulterous" be added or linked to (as it is in some other articles). It in no way would be undue weight to refer to his relationship with Cindy as an extramarital relationship - it is one word which clarifies the overly general "relationship". WTR's point is right on the money - there is an appearance of dancing around a rather simple truth, and that can raise questions in readers' minds about whether other things in the article are straightforward and reliable. I think this is a good article, and I'd like to see it eventually go forward as a featured article, but things like this give me pause. I strongly recommend the addition of the word "extramarital" in this sentence. I also again mention that "pushed for a divorce" is not particularly clear to me - does this mean that Carol contested it? Tvoz/talk 21:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- No Tvoz, I would rather withdraw the featured article nomination than put this in the article. Extramarital relationship connotes (if not denotes) extramarital sex. You are not citing any reliable source. I would be glad for the article to say that he began "seeing" Cindy or began "courting" Cindy as stated in the cited source. Regarding "pushing for a divorce", I think that is very understandable and is supported by the cited source (New York Times); have you looked at the cited source? It obviously means that there was some resistance, but this Misplaced Pages article makes very clear that she did not resist in court.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't post that note to argue with you about this. I made a point about how the article reads to an interested reader and it really wasn't about whether or not this article reaches FA status - I have a problem with that paragraph whether or not you withdraw the nomination, so doing so wouldn't help. Yes, I have read the NYT article, more than once in fact. It uses phrases like "aggressively courted" which is not the same tone as "courted" or "seeing"; "lived together as man and wife" (referring to Carol) from February to May 1979 suggesting that his relationship with Cindy was secret and, indeed, extramarital as anyone would define it. I don't expect that there are reliable sources regarding their sex lives, nor am I interested in including that kind of detail. But I don't think there are too many people who read this relationship as anything other than what is commonly understood of an extramarital relationship - especially since he himself acknowledges that he had other extramarital relationships before it. I think that the appearance here is of an effort to avoid the obvious, and that concerns me regardless of whether you go for FA or not. As for "pushed for divorce", I think it's colloquial and we'd do better with some more explanation - I see that Kristof used the phrase, but that doesn't explain the idiom to our broad-based, worldwide audience. Tvoz/talk 04:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- There are dozens of reliable sources that describe John McCain's initial relationship with the person who would become his second wife. As far as I know, none of those descriptions use your preferred phrase "extramarital relationship." Why are you insisting on it here then? Are all of those reliable sources written poorly? I am not wedded to the present language of this Misplaced Pages article. But I will do everything I can to oppose inserting material that is not reliably sourced, and your assertion of an extramarital relationship is not reliably sourced, given that the word "extramarital" connotes (and probably denotes) extramarital sex. I hope we can resolve this matter soon, and if it resolves in favor of including unsourced information, then I will withdraw the featured article nomination. Is there no phrasing that will be acceptable to you without using the loaded term "extramarital"?
- As regards the phrase "pushed for divorce" used by the New York Times, please do go ahead and suggest something that you would prefer, so we can discuss it.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- "Eager to marry Cindy, McCain urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce", or words to that effect, is what you mean, I think - "pushed for a divorce" is an imprecise idiom whether the New York Times used it or not. "As the pair began dating, Lakeland allowed them to spend a weekend together at his summer home in Maryland, he said." would be a reasonable source for "extramarital". I might be ok with something like "In April 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley... " - would have to see it in context. I am not insisting on anything, Ferrylodge, and I didn;t say this article was poorly written. I am raising an issue about this section which I believe is oddly worded in a way that could be construed as trying to sanitize the biography, regardless of its status. And by the way, the cultural image section also seems to be worded in a way that takes presumably negative items and turns them into positives, an example being his well-sourced temper. Another example of a questionable item is his "close ties to his children from both of his marriages" - I believe this is a true and sourced item that is fair to include, but you've left out of this article the also sourced item that his children were so upset with his abandonment of their mother that they did not attend his wedding; we have it in the subarticle, I know, but in this article you are telling only half of the story regarding his relationship with his children - the good half. That also can be construed as sanitizing. I am well aware of the lengthy debate that went on previously on this talk page about some of this, and I am not interested in getting into a debate with you about it, having had that pleasure in the past. But I am registering an objection here to euphemism and sanitizing. Perhaps other editors have opinions on this - I'm going to step back for a moment and see, and hope you will too. Finally, I specifically said that removing your FA nomination is irrelevant, so please stop holding that out as a threat. The only thing that will accomplish is it will reduce the number of uninvolved editors who come to this article and talk page to review it, some of whom might share the concerns that I and others have expressed about this. I hope that's not why you're saying you'll remove the nom. Tvoz/talk 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tvoz has a good point about being given a weekend together to spend at a summer home; I think that would be allowable as evidence of adultery in a divorce proceeding (it's New York, not Virginia or Florida, but see this for "the plaintiff can imply guilt through indirect or circumstantial evidence so long as it leads the reasonable observer to conclude that the parties were inclined toward adulterous acts and the opportunity existed"). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that we move this discussion to the sub-article, here. This article merely summarizes what's there. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the subarticle goes into more detail, so the problem I am raising is here more than there. Tvoz/talk 00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- If you have no objection to the change I am suggesting at the sub-article, then I will implement it there, and then replicate it here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and edited the article to try to address your concern. It now says: "In April 1979, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, whose father had founded a large beer distributorship. They began dating, and he urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce, which she did in February 1980; the uncontested divorce became effective in April 1980."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I think it needs to say In April 1979, while still married, McCain met Cindy Lou... - yes, it goes on to say he asked his wife for a divorce, but the way that is worded sounds now as though Carol had no problem with this and this could be read to mean that they were separated, but we have clear evidence that this is not the case - she was stunned, etc. With "while still married" we would more accurately summarize the longer section in the subarticle. I'm not sure if this is enough, but it would be an improvement. Thank you for adding the part about the children's reaction, and I think that the Cultural section should say "All of JMC's family are now on good terms with him". Tvoz/talk 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. A wife can be separated from her husband, but still hope for reconciliation, and therefore be surprised to learn about another woman. We have evidence both ways as to whether they were separated. See here. This article presently says: "They began dating, and he urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce…." This could not possibly be any more clear regarding the fact that he was still married when he began dating, unless we place this sentence in ALLCAPS with bolding, or alternatively we could achieve the same undue weight and redundancy by adding “while still married.”
- As for the cultural section, it says “all of John McCain's family members are on good terms with him.” This is written in the present tense, and is therefore very clear. Inserting the word “now” would only confuse matters and require further explanation. As far as I know, he was never on poor terms with his adopted daughter Bridget, for example, although it’s certainly possible he may have been at some point.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the separation/cohabit discussion when it was going on. The way the sub is written now makes it clear(er) that they were married, he began "dating", and then stopped living with his wife who later accepted his request for a divorce. There is no concern about undue weight here regarding this phrase - and if you'd allow the completely clear "extramarital" to be back in the article this would not be a problem. But since you feel that the word isn't sourced (Wasted and I disagree with you, but that's your position), our first responsibility is to accurately summarize the relationship as set out here:
- McCain and his wife Carol had been briefly separated soon after returning to Washington, but then reunited. In April 1979, while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, eighteen years his junior, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley. They began dating, travelling between Arizona and Washington to see each other, and John McCain urged his wife Carol to accept a divorce. The McCains stopped cohabiting in January 1980, and John McCain filed for divorce in February 1980, which Carol McCain accepted at that time. The uncontested divorce became official in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on April 2, 1980.
- Notice it begins with words that indicate that John and Carol had reunited, meaning they were still married and were living together; subsequently he met a woman and began "dating" her apparently seriously as they traveled btwn cities over months and he urged his wife to grant him a divorce, and then he and his wife stopped living together and then he filed for divorce, and then she gave it to him. Although I don't completely love the subarticle's wording in this part, at least the chronology is clear and there is less ambiguity. I think this summary is ambiguous: by not including the first point - i.e., that he and his wife were together - you imply that maybe they were separated and he was dating and asked his wife for a divorce. But I think the evidence shows otherwise, and importantly the subarticle we are summarizing says otherwise. So, I am less worried about undue weight which is a subjective thing anyway, and more worried about giving an erroneous impression which perhaps appears biased in one way or another. Adding "while still married" is not as good as adding "extramarital", but as I said, I might be able to accept it with the present available sources. Without it, we may be misleading. (By the way - I wasn't singling you or anyone out by using the word "sanitized" - I didn't study who made which edit and wasn't pointing fingers at anyone, any more than I thought "pushing' implied physicality. I merely am looking at the article(s) as worded and giving my impressions of what they say. ) Tvoz/talk 22:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the separation/cohabit discussion when it was going on. The way the sub is written now makes it clear(er) that they were married, he began "dating", and then stopped living with his wife who later accepted his request for a divorce. There is no concern about undue weight here regarding this phrase - and if you'd allow the completely clear "extramarital" to be back in the article this would not be a problem. But since you feel that the word isn't sourced (Wasted and I disagree with you, but that's your position), our first responsibility is to accurately summarize the relationship as set out here:
- It is very clearly original research to use language that denotes or connotes sexual intercourse, based merely on the fact that the people in question spent a weekend at someone's house. ALL of the reliable sources that I'm aware of use terms like "seeing each other" or "courting" or "dating", and I remain dumbfounded as to why there is a desire on your part to diverge here from the reliable sources. You may be 100% correct that the people in question may have been conducting a hot and heavy sexual romance, but you have not produced the reliable sources to show that. If you do so, then I will have no problem whatsoever changing this article accordingly.
- You apparently believe that this main article is not now accurately summarizing the sub-article. I disagree. You say that this main article does not include the point that "he and his wife were together." But this main article does say that he asked his wife for a divorce after the dating began. So, this article very clearly indicates that they were still married. How married were they? The reliable sources disagree, and John McCain plausibly contends that they were separated. The sub-article therefore deliberately does not say one way or the other whether they were saparated when the dating occurred. The sub-article says that they were briefly separated and reunited (in 1977), but that does not imply that the marriage was in fine shape as 1979 began. On the contrary, the sub-article says that their "marriage began to falter" around 1977 and would later "collapse." If you read the sub-article as saying they were not separated when the dating began, then you are reading between the lines, because WTR and I and others deliberately decided that we would not say one way or the other when they were separated.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- To reiterate my position from the previous discussion of this, yes the "separation" sources are conflicting in details, but I find the separated-before-meeting Cindy argument far-fetched, not plausible, and Ferrylodge's scenario for it relies upon his own original research about "separated while cohabiting". Like Tvoz, I find the main article treatment of this less satisfactory than the current subarticle treatment. I'm also interested to see what other editors think ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the sources do conflict. Therefore, we shouldn't dismiss half of them, and only rely on the other half. As to "original research", WTR, you should realize that I did not suggest inserting anything into this article about how the word "separated" is defined. It is not "original research" to discuss such matters at a talk page. This stance of mine is very different from the stance that we ought to assert in the article that John and Cindy had extramarital sex, based on the fact that they spent a weekend at someone's house.
- And just for clarification, WTR, are you saying that you find the following statement implausible? "Parties living together in the same home are considered to be separated if they no longer have sexual relations with each other and no longer share the same bedroom." Abrams, Brenda. Everything about How to Divorce in Florida: An In-Depth Guide to Divorce in Florida, page 14 (2003).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Undue weight?
How much weight should be given to facts that would, at a minimum, raise in many readers' minds the strong possibility that he cheated on Carol with Cindy? His campaign certainly thinks that his character as to cheating or not cheating is an important issue. In response to evidence that McCain did not honor the protocols agreed to for the Saddleback forum, and could have had advance access to the questions, and appeared to answer more quickly and confidently than is his norm, his campaign spokesperson replied: "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous." So, With his campaign saying that he would never cheat (because, after all, he was a POW), I'd say the weight to be accorded to this information goes up. JamesMLane t c 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- We need to keep the description of what happened to McCain in the 1970s distinct from the issue debates of the 2000s. We ought to just say what happened, regardless of present circumstances. This article is unequivocal that McCain had extramarital affairs in Florida, that he dated his second wife while married to his first, and that he accepts blame for the failure of his first marriage. I don't think we need to devote an entire section of this article to the man's love live of 3+ decades ago, merely because of yesterday's news. If people do want to include and repeat further details about McCain's first marriage, then maybe we ought to also mention that he claims he was separated when he met Cindy, and that his first wife's injuries affected their ability to have children, et cetera, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- McCain does place much value on honor, but he's always accepted the blame for the demise of his first marriage, including saying at Saddleback it was the worst moral failure of his life. So I don't think JamesMLane's attempt at tying these together holds water. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Response to Ferrylodge: The facts of what happened in the 1970s are generally unaffected by the issue debates of the 2000s. (It's conceivable that McCain could say something now that shed new light on what happened then, but it isn't very likely.) Contemporary debates over substantive policy issues and even contemporary mudslinging matches may, however, affect the prominence that should reasonably be accorded to events of the 1970s. I was addressing solely the "undue weight" criticism.
- Response to Wasted Time R: If he had stayed faithful to Carol, divorced her nonetheless, and begun canoodling with someone he met only after the divorce was final, he might still regard the end of his marriage as the worst moral failure of his life. Anyway, the relationship isn't to his answer to that particular question; it's to his assertion, in this campaign, that he would not cheat on the Saddleback rules because he would not cheat, period. That raises the importance of allegations of past cheating. JamesMLane t c 00:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like apples and oranges. Moreover, the apple is fresh whereas the orange is several decades old. And the apple is not mentioned in this article, whereas the orange is.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Response to Wasted Time R: If he had stayed faithful to Carol, divorced her nonetheless, and begun canoodling with someone he met only after the divorce was final, he might still regard the end of his marriage as the worst moral failure of his life. Anyway, the relationship isn't to his answer to that particular question; it's to his assertion, in this campaign, that he would not cheat on the Saddleback rules because he would not cheat, period. That raises the importance of allegations of past cheating. JamesMLane t c 00:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Something else to bear in mind: we know very little. McCain's first marriage involves very private matters that have not been (and probably should not be) detailed in public. We don't know with certainty how much one spouse's injuries may have affected the intimate aspects of their marriage, nor do we have any business making assumptions about how much pain this may have brought to both spouses. I respectfully request that we just stick to what's clearly verifiable by reliable sources, and also request that we please not try to use old intimate details to make a point about present political debates. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Duyet
On 29 July, User:Maxwellcoffee made some edits without any edit summary or talk page discussion. The disputed material is in bold italics as follows:
Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information. Footnote: Hubbell, P.O.W., 364. (however this is disputed by Tran Duyet, in charge of the prison at the time, who said McCain had friendly informal chats with him).
I reverted later on 29 July with the following edit summary: “Please seek change in sub-article first. See WP:SS. Also see WP:RS. Tran Duyet says 'We never tortured any prisoners' but he is not a reliable source.”
On 31 July, MaxwellCoffee then reverted back, with the following edit summary: “Tran Duyet is as reliable of a source as any, he has no motive not to be anymore.”
None of the material that MaxwellCoffee wants to insert into the present Misplaced Pages article has ever been inserted into the sub-article Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain. So, this is clearly against Misplaced Pages Summary Style policy (see WP:SS).
Additionally, the cited BBC article quotes Tran Duyet as saying that “We never tortured any prisoners” at Hoa Loa Prison (i.e. the Hanoi Hilton). The BBC article does not confirm or endorse what Duyet said, and a torturer obviously would have a strong motivation to, shall we say, shade the truth. No reliable source confirms what Duyet said. Please see WP:RS.
Please also see the Misplaced Pages article about the Hanoi Hilton, which cites numerous reliable suorces contrary to Duyet:
The Hanoi Hilton was merely one site used by the North Vietnamese Army to torture and interrogate captured servicemen, mostly American pilots shot down during bombing raids. Although North Vietnam had signed on to the Geneva Convention of 1949, which demanded "decent and humane treatment" of prisoners of war, the North Vietnamese saw U.S. bombing attacks against them as "crimes against humanity". As a consequence, severe torture methods were employed, such as rope bindings, irons, beatings, and prolonged solitary confinement. The aim of the torture was usually not acquiring military information. Rather, it was to break the will of the prisoners, both individually and as a group.
So, I’ll revert the edit by MaxwellCoffee again, and request discussion here at the talk page before it’s reinserted again. Please see WP:Consensus. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The official North Vietnamese (now Vietnamese) line all along has been that no American POWs were tortured. This newspaper story is just one more person echoing that line. The evidence that this is not true is overwhelming, and thus statements like this have nothing useful to say about McCain's treatment. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
PNAC?
Why don't I see any mention of McCain's involvement with PNAC? He is a signatory and has several other PNAC members working with his campaign. Source: http://www.freedomcentralusa.com/PNAC_Signatories.html
- The source you cite (Freedom Central USA) also says:
Freedom Central USA is dedicated to the destruction of domestic fascism -- also known as neoconservatism -- using truth and the Internet as WMDs.
- So, if your cited source is accusing McCain of being a neofascist, then this source is probably not neutral and reliable. See WP:RS. If you would like to provide further sources that are neutral and reliable, then we can take a fresh look at this. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not a reliable source, indeed. Doing a little googling, I don't think McCain was ever a formal member or signatory of PNAC. Possibly the misconception may come about because -- according to SourceWatch anyway -- McCain has been a president of the New Citizenship Project. (SourceWatch links to a press release on McCain's website that is no longer there.) According to their website (now defunct), "The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project". Crust (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Very well, but why don't I see any mention of McCain's NCP membership anyways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraetorianGuard2004 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No mention of Hagee?
I notice this article has zero mention of John "Catholicism is the Great Whore" Hagee, a man who McCain praised (and sought, and received, an endorsement from). The main Obama article, by contrast, includes detailed info about his controversial preacher, Jeremiah Wright. I hope this isn't going to be indicative of a trend of Misplaced Pages sanitizing McCain's record in the lead-up to the election (the same way George W. Bush's article has been sanitized).
- Wright was Obama's pastor. Hagee is just some pastor who endorsed McCain. Besides, there's a whole section about Hagee in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Coemgenus 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Obama attended a church where Wright spoke, but Obama NEVER sought Wright's endorsement. McCain, on the other hand, SOUGHT the endorsement of Hagee. If detailed info on Wright is going to be included in the main Obama article, then at least least a mention of Hagee should be included in the main McCain article. The way it is, it's clear that Misplaced Pages is heavily slanted against Obama and is intent on sanitizing McCain's record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent) This was previously discussed quite a bit at this talk page. See Archive 9. The consensus was that Hagee is covered adequately in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Hagee gets a couple paragraphs in that article. The relationship (if one can call it that) between Hagee and McCain was much more remote and brief than that between Obama and Wright. Many elections nowadays feature guilt-by-association games, but Obama-Wright-TUCC is a bit different, because the coverage went on so long during the campaign, and the relationship went on so long in real life. If Hagee turns out to bedevil McCain as much as Wright and TUCC has affected Obama, it would merit inclusion here in this main McCain article. There are hundreds of other items in the sub-articles also. Picking out just Hagee to add to this main article, and not picking out those other hundreds of items, would cause undue weight. This article is about McCain's whole life, not just the current campaign, and in the context of his whole life Hagee is just not very significant. If a person is scratching their head wondering the name of some minister connected with this election, then the person can go to the article about McCain's 2008 campaign (which has a couple paragraphs about Hagee). In writing this article, dozens of decisions were made about what the most important things in his life are, and those that aren't quite as important don't make the cut. Right now, some of us think it would be more appropriate to add more about his Vietnam service before the shoot-down, or more on McCain-Feingold, or more on his relations with the Republican Party in the early 2000s, as compared to more about Hagee.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone who supports neutrality in Misplaced Pages's articles ought to be troubled by the fact that Hagree isn't even mentioned ONCE in the main McCain article. Hagee made outrageous, bigoted, offensive and downright crazy statements (like saying Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath for gays). And McCain SOUGHT this nutcase's endorsement. What I see is a troubling trend on Misplaced Pages: the main Obama article rounds up every single fringe nutcase/HateWing radio allegation ever made against Obama. And meanwhile, the McCain article is carefully sanitized. We saw this same trend once before in the 2004 election. And the main article on Bill Clinton rounds up every nutcase allegation ever made against him, while the Bush article is sanitized (in fact, before I myself raised this issue, the Bush article incredibly omitted ANY mention of the Plame case). I see this sort of right-wing bias is being repeated here with the McCain article. It's sad how Wikipeda has allowed the right-wingers to inject their bias into what is supposed to be a neutral reference resource.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- There’s nothing in the Obama article about his longstanding and close relationship with Bill Ayers. There’s nothing in the Obama article about Obama accepting the endorsement of NYC Councilman Charles Barron, who defended a staffer after the staffer threatened to kill another councilman; nor is there anything in the Obama article about his invitation to "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who has claimed that gays are "trying to kill our children", to perform at a gospel concert in South Carolina. The only difference between all of those characters and Hagee is that McCain has repudiated Hagee, whereas Obama has not repudiated those characters. If we were to turn these Misplaced Pages articles into guilt-by-association games, then we might also have the Obama article mention Chesa Boudin, Bernadin Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Michael Phleger, Ali Abudimah, Shepard Fairey, et cetera, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- In every campaign, politicians get endorsements from people who turn out to say rude or offensive or stupid things. The politician then throws the person under the bus when the heat gets too heavy. It's pretty routine, unless the person is very close to the politician, which Hagee was not. Coverage of Hagee in the campaign article is warranted, but coverage here in the main article is not. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
SHOULD CONTROVERSIES REGARDING TORTURE/ SONGBIRD BE ADDED?
There is a great number of material available by a great number of reliable sources that have another version of some of the events... in many ways it came from John McCain himself. I think this material should be mentioned or at least that there are some conflicting opinion in regards to what happened. Here are some links.. if someone want please read through it, I am not that familiar with[REDACTED] so someone more familiar maybe can go through the stuff and make a suggestion. I do understand that the main opinion should be predominant, but in the interest of presenting a complete picture that might surface in the election in the future, I think it is ok to mention conflicting opinions and contradictions. Here are a number of sources/links. Some links seem less believable others are very.. but I feel some mention of the very large number of materials should be made. Here are teh link, look forward to a discussion between people who've gone through it all... hopefully we can keep this non political.. nailed to the facts. http://www.infowars.com/?p=109 http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06132008.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513224/My-years-hell-John-McCain-recalls-life-prisoner-war-Vietnam.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/17/in-1992-pows-accused-mccain-of-collaborating-with-vietnamese/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542277/How-war-hero-John-McCain-betrayed-Vietnamese-peasant-saved-life.html http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020708_never_tortured.htm http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-03-25/news/is-john-mccain-a-war-hero/ http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html many more links to be found by googling "songbird mccain"
Lots of real people real sources.. including video interviews.. anyway I find it warrants a small mention on McCain that there are contradictions or that some of the events are questioned... obviously I believe it should be very small, since f.e. other military heroes like john kerry.. the controversies were mentioned there as well / still are, so in order to paint a full and neutral picture I would suggest to make a small mention as well maybe even provide a few links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SS. This article merely summarizes what's in other articles. You should probably go to Early life and military career of John McCain to discuss this.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Long discussion there, but the short answer is, no, none of this should be included either there or here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Told was going to make (rear) admiral
Ref. 63 says that Secretary of the Navy John Lehman told Captain John S. McCain III that Captain McCain would be promoted to admiral. I know enough about Navy protocol and procedures to where I doubt that the SecNav would ever call a captain into his office and give the officer advance information about the results of a selection board. It addition, the reasons adduced in ref. 62 why McCain would not make four-star (he had not had a sea-going command, in particular) would have applied in full measure to promotion from captain to rear admiral. I suggest that an additional source is required to support the story, preferably one that does not come from the office of Sen. McCain.
Peter.zimmerman (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- The cited New York Times article says: "At a meeting in his Pentagon office in early 1981, Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman told Capt. John S. McCain III that he was about to attain his life ambition: becoming an admiral....With Mr. Tower’s encouragement, Mr. McCain declined the prospect of his first admiral’s star to make a run for Congress, saying that he could 'do more good there,' Mr. Lehman recalled."
- Maybe Lehman merely predicted the promotion, or maybe he purported to guarantee it. In any event, the main thing is that we accurately summarize what the reliable source says. Here's what this Misplaced Pages article says: "In early 1981, he was told that he would be promoted to rear admiral; he declined the prospect, as he had already made plans to run for Congress and said he could 'do more good there.'" This seems like an accurate summary of the cited source. Is there any reliable source that contradicts it? We're not saying that a selection board had already decided to promote McCain, and the New York Times didn't say that either, as far as I can tell.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- You miss the point, I think. The story does not ring true, so even if it was in the NYT, I would like to see a second source given. The NYT article gives no source for the story of this meeting. Is this a story from Lehman, or is it from a third party? Is from McCain; or is it just hearsay? Peter.zimmerman (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, the NYT article says "Lehman recalled". The NYT seems to have verified that John Tower encouraged McCain to decline the prospect. So, it seems like the NYT article had mutliple sourcing. I'm not saying it's 100% certain that the NYT article is 100% accurate, but rather that it's a reliable source that is being accurately characterized in this Misplaced Pages article. If there's another reliable source that independently reports the same thing, then of course we can cite it too. Likewise, if there's a reliable source that calls the NYT article into question, then we can cite it as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- There has been a lot of dispute of this. See e.g. quotes of Rear Admirals Booth and Batzler in this Huffington Post piece.Crust (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- See also this National Journal piece. According to Gary Hart (who was close to McCain and in fact a groomsman at his wedding) "It became clear that he was not going to receive a star and not going to become an admiral. I think that was the deciding point for him to retire from the Navy."Crust (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- The National Journal article pre-dates the NYT article. I think we would want an article subsequent to the NYT article that either rebuts or confirms it. Also, the National Journal article is by Linda Douglass, but it was before she joined the Obama campaign, so that's probably not a problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and edited this Misplaced Pages article, to make it sound a little less unequivocal (e.g. inserted the word "reportedly").Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Academic Achievements
I think it should be listed that McCain graduated as 5th from the bottom of his class. Right now it written a bit too rosy, fact is academic performance is measured in a gpa or at what level in your class one graduates, not as what subjects he liked and disliked. Plenty of sources everywhere for 5th from the bottom of his class. Thats also a rather neutral way to write it, rather then mentioning how many were in his class (I belive over 800). Any thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- This article currently says: "McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) that he did not aim to improve. He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math. McCain graduated in 1958."
- Saying "894 of 899" seems okay to me. Saying instead that he was fifth from the bottom could mean a lot of different things. For example, if there were six people in his class, it could mean he was ranked number two.
- It's important also to keep in mind that "class standing was not solely a function of academic performace" (Timberg, Americam Odyssey, 2007 printing, page 54). The class rank also reflects the number of demerits, among other things.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Refs
I just reverted an edit to the article. The article now says:
John McCain's personal character has been a dominant feature of his public image. This image includes the military service of both himself and his family, his maverick political persona, his temper, his admitted problem of occasional ill-considered remarks, and his close ties to his children from both his marriages.
Why is it better to say the following?
John McCain's personal character has been a dominant feature of his public image. This image includes the military service of both himself and his family, his maverick political persona, his temper, his admitted problem of occasional ill-considered remarks, and his close ties to his children from both his marriages.
A lot of time and effort went into matching up the footnotes with the material that each footnote supports. If they are all bunched together, then how will a reader know which footnote supports which statement?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to removing redundant footnotes, so that the same footnote will not appear twice in the same sentence. However, there is generally nothing wrong with mid-sentence footnotes. "Material may be referenced mid-sentence or at the end of a sentence or paragraph."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- i think bunching is the lesser of 2 evils. i understand your point regarding matching exactly every individual footnote to each fact but I think this is outweighed by the fact that readers will be turned-off by sentences that have got loads of references breaking them up. most recently promoted FAs are sensible in use of references e.g. Obama peer reviewer made reference to the 'sea of blue' the article had in over-referencing. It is not against wp:mos to have mid-sentence footnotes but there is a problem if there are so many of them it makes the article too hard to read. Tom (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think that you would have a stronger argument here if there were more than one footnote in a row in the middle of a sentence. That's the type of situation where things get hard to read. But that's not happening with the sentence in question, and additionally I think it looks horrible to have five footnotes in a row at the end of the sentence. Not to mention that it confuses which footnote applies to which statement. I really can't think of a better example of how to use footnotes in the middle of a sentence. I agree it can sometimes be a problem, but not here, IMHO. This article made good article then peer review, then good article review without this sentence being criticized; that doesn't mean you're wrong and I'm right, but I'm just mentioning that others didn't view it as a big problem. I have no objection to many of your other edits to this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- If there were only one or two mid-sentence footnotes that you put at the end, then I'd have no big problem with it; the amount of footnotes at the end of the sentence wouldn't be huge, and a reader would only have to hunt through two references to find what he needs.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed a bunch of redundant footnotes today. Also, there were several specific wiki-linked dates provided, which weren't really important, so I removed them.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence beginning, "A bipartisan legal review..." has two references in a row in the middle of it. In any case, even with just single refs in the middle of sentence, that still makes it hard to read. I agree it looks horrible to have many footnotes in a row and that is why it is normally good to combine several references into one footnote. I think there is a danger of looking at articles from the point of view of an editor rather than a general reader. Certainly this issue should not stop articles from becoming GA, so not a big problem in that context but it might stop it from becoming FA which is the kind of peer review I was referring to earlier re:Obama. when you go for FA this might be highlighted in peer review. Good work on the article and other Mccainery so far. i see you and someone else, 'wasted time' i think, have done the most edits on this article. Are you going for FA? What other things need to be done? would be nice to get it up to FA soon, so both candidates have equal high quality of article. I have worked a lot professionally on Excel charts and, at least to me, the default colours look bad including the grey background. text size is also too small, can talk with wasted time about sprucing them up a bit. Tom (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that consecutive mid-sentence footnotes should be avoided if possible. I've separated the two footnotes you mention.
- The sentence beginning, "A bipartisan legal review..." has two references in a row in the middle of it. In any case, even with just single refs in the middle of sentence, that still makes it hard to read. I agree it looks horrible to have many footnotes in a row and that is why it is normally good to combine several references into one footnote. I think there is a danger of looking at articles from the point of view of an editor rather than a general reader. Certainly this issue should not stop articles from becoming GA, so not a big problem in that context but it might stop it from becoming FA which is the kind of peer review I was referring to earlier re:Obama. when you go for FA this might be highlighted in peer review. Good work on the article and other Mccainery so far. i see you and someone else, 'wasted time' i think, have done the most edits on this article. Are you going for FA? What other things need to be done? would be nice to get it up to FA soon, so both candidates have equal high quality of article. I have worked a lot professionally on Excel charts and, at least to me, the default colours look bad including the grey background. text size is also too small, can talk with wasted time about sprucing them up a bit. Tom (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wasted Time R is on vacation, but I'm sure that he'll appreciate your comments when he gets back.
- As far as going for FA, I think it would be very good to have this article FA-quality regardless of whether we go for FA. One reason I have hesitated to nominate for FA is because the article has been gradually improving. Another bigger reason is that it seems like it might get mired in frivolous (perhaps politically motivated) objections during FA. For example, although this article has been very stable, there is a possibility that substantial new material will have to be added in November, and maybe in January, and some people may argue that that makes the article inherently unstable (a similar argument was used against the Hillary Clinton article).Ferrylodge (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I object to this change: "Also, there were several specific wiki-linked dates provided, which weren't really important, so I removed them." Two different issues: wikilinking dates, and giving precise dates rather than month and year. The former is going out of fashion, so that in the Elmc article FAC all the "March 10, 1981" instances were changed to just "March 10, 1981". That gets rid of the sea of blue problem. But to change these all to "March 1981" is unjustified in my opinion. Dates of major events such as his marriages, his shootdown and release, the Forrestal fire, etc. should be given precisely. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the charts, yes I can accept suggestions on how to improve them. Bear in mind that these are active charts that are periodically updated with the latest data, so improvements have to be in the basic chart settings and not in one-off post-processing. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nice to have you back. I have no objection to leaving the specific dates as they are in the sub-articles. But doing the same thing in this main article raises a couple problems. If a full date is presented, then people will likely feel an urge to link it, so we'll get into a linking-then-unlinking cycle. It seems that linking a full date is allowed. Also, even if full dates are never going to be linked in this article, still providing a full date suggests that the exact date is important for the reader to keep in mind, whereas it is often not important at all. To say, for example, that "Thomas Jefferson dined with John Adams later in January 1802" is fine, but I don't think we would need to say that "Thomas Jefferson dined with John Adams on 22 January 1802" unless we are also discussing other events of the same week. Giving a full date is sometimes fine, but it can often clutter up an article, espcially a summary article, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Layout and accessibility
Sorry for the bad news, but the WP:LAYOUT in the lead breaches WP:ACCESSIBILITY. (We want the visually impaired to be able to access the article, right?) The order of the items is off. Templates have to go *after* the text in the lead, but doing that in this case creates a mess, because the blooming infobox is so long, so a new home (in a later section) should be found for the template under the infobox.
Also, a WP:MOS#Images issue; the image of McCain as a cadet is looking off the page (the eyes are supposed to be looking in to the text). Again, I can't fix it because I can't just move the image to the right, because the infobox is there. Can it be moved to another section?
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, the cadet photo can't really go anywhere else, because the article's written chronologically. The best I could do would be to tamper with the photo by making a mirror image, but not sure that would really be kosher. What do you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not kosher. I'd just move it to the next section and put it on the right, and then find another place for the template in the lead, but no big deal. When you get time, ask Rick Block (talk · contribs) to remind you of the name of his editor friend who is visually impaired and uses one of those readers ... I forget the name ... he can look at the lead and tell you if that misplaced template is a big problem. I can't remember his name, too tired tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I've tried to rearrange things to conform with style requirements. The little box with wikilinks to other McCain articles is now in the footnotes section. The cadet photo is now under the infobox. I had to shorten the infobox, which I think needed shortening anyway. The military info that I removed from the infobox is already in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not kosher. I'd just move it to the next section and put it on the right, and then find another place for the template in the lead, but no big deal. When you get time, ask Rick Block (talk · contribs) to remind you of the name of his editor friend who is visually impaired and uses one of those readers ... I forget the name ... he can look at the lead and tell you if that misplaced template is a big problem. I can't remember his name, too tired tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, the cadet photo can't really go anywhere else, because the article's written chronologically. The best I could do would be to tamper with the photo by making a mirror image, but not sure that would really be kosher. What do you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sophisticated vandalism
In case anyone's interested, this article was subjected to some sophisticated vandalism this evening. Details here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Tortured or Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?
This line in the second paragraph reads...'He was held from 1967 to 1973, experiencing episodes of torture and ...'
I think it should read "He was held from 1967 to 1973, experiencing episodes of enhanced interrogation techniques and ..."
It sounds more proper and consistent with John McCain's stand on interrogation? What do other thinks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.194.16 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, I think McCain has pretty consistently said that the kind of treatment to which he was subjected is "torture." McCain’s left shoulder was crushed with the butt of a rifle and he was bayoneted in his left foot and abdominal area. His captors initially refused to give him medical care, and never provided treatment for his broken left arm. He was placed in a cell with George "Bud" Day and Norris Overly, who did not expect McCain to live another week. In late August 1968, the North Vietnamese used rope bindings to put him into prolonged, painful positions and severely beat him every two hours, all while he was suffering from dysentery. His right leg was reinjured, his ribs were cracked, some teeth were broken at the gumline, and his left arm was re-fractured. He was left lying in his own waste. His injuries left him incapable of raising his arms above his head to this day. He sometimes received two to three beatings per week because of his continued resistance; the sustained mistreatment went on for over a year.
- I'm not aware that McCain has ever suggested that prisoners of the United States should be treated this way.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- At all times, we need to keep the description of what happened to McCain in the 1960s divorced from the issue debates of the 2000s. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is whether the word "torture" is an NPOV description. That's an issue of what happened in the 60's, but it's also an issue of how we use the word today. In US political debates today, many are arguing that stress positions and denying medical treatment -- techniques used against McCain -- are not torture (as well as e.g. waterboarding and inducing hypothermia, techniques not used against McCain). Crust (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Those were not the only methods used against McCain and the other POWs. The rope bindings were not just stress positions, but muscle- and socket- and bone-rending positions. And the primary method used against McCain was old-fashioned beatings, using fists and kicks, to the point where his bones and teeth were broken or re-broken and he was screaming in pain. That qualifies as torture in anybody's book. Every WP:RS account of the American POW experience, and McCain's, uses "torture". Wasted Time R (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Minor error
The word "repaid" is misspelled "repayed" in the section entitled "First Two Terms in the US Senate".
I'd fix it myself, but of course the article is locked (and hooray for that).
I know it's a minor thing, but those sorts of minor errors tickle the OCD centers in my brain.
Jimhutchins (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- All fixed, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Panama City, No?
Senator McCain ws born in panama city, Panama. Hes not american, So therefore that should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.41.245 (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:RS we have state that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, not Panama City. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Book covers
The book cover for McCain's book Worth the Fighting For was recently inserted into the article. However, this same image was previously removed for "fair use" reasons.
Even if there weren't fair use concerns, still the image would properly be placed in chronological order (the book was published in 2002 whereas his bestseller Faith of My Fathers was published in 1999). Note that Faith of My Fathers was a bigger seller, was made into a movie, and is discussed in the text of this Misplaced Pages article next to the image. Aesthetically too, I like a bigger image of Faith of My Fathers so you can get a clear look at the photos on the cover, whereas the gallery format shrunk/shrank/shrinked the image.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Meeting Cindy McCain
I recently reverted an edit that emphasized McCain was still married when he met and began a relationship with his second wife. This is already clear from the paragraph in this Misplaced Pages article. To emphasize by repetititon is no better than emphasizing by ALLCAPS or by bold italics.
Also, since this is a summary article, we should probably try to stick with what's in that article that's being summarized. See Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain. There is a legitimate question about whether McCain was separated when he met his second wife, and so we ought to be careful to not imply otherwise. For more info about all this, see the long discussion here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
$54,000 Navy pension
Is that what they paying John McCain?! That's pathetic. Gridge (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC).
- There seems to be a peculiar fascination with this pension. We mention it in our McCain articles, but the amount of it seems irrelevant biographically, especially since we don't know the context of similar or different pension amounts. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- To much, too little? It's just good to know he's doing financially well and I think there is no need to put any weight on this. If I'm not mistaken, that amount doesn't count for up-to-date "inflation" and was a decent and deserved amount at the time it was determent. I didn't look (because I didn't felt the need for it in this case;)into this further than to the comment above, so I might be wrong in factual parts but not in my opinion. --Floridianed (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- It seems about right. When you retire from the armed forces, they take into account the years, your rank, and any disabilities that may have occurred during your duties. The disability ranking is based on a sliding scale, I'm not sure what the formula for it is, but I think it isn't an issue for someone of his rank and duration in the military. --Hourick (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- To much, too little? It's just good to know he's doing financially well and I think there is no need to put any weight on this. If I'm not mistaken, that amount doesn't count for up-to-date "inflation" and was a decent and deserved amount at the time it was determent. I didn't look (because I didn't felt the need for it in this case;)into this further than to the comment above, so I might be wrong in factual parts but not in my opinion. --Floridianed (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Featured article nomination
The new nomination is indicated at the top of this talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
A suggested source
I just read this article by Amy Silverman about her career covering John McCain, & it appears to have some useful information in it. While it may not be possible to integrate this source with this article at the moment, I'd like to suggest that it at least be added to the "Further reading/External links" section. (I'd do it myself, but there seems no obvious category to place it in.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- The "Bibliography" section would be the place for something like this, except that it's not a book. We've been trying to limit the Bibliography to just books. If there's something particularly notable in the Silverman article that isn't already covered by this article or its sub-articles, then of course we could include the Silverman article in a footnote (either here or in the sub-article or both). It's pretty clear that Silverman dislikes McCain, but we've still included some of her stuff, e.g. at House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I read the article yesterday too. It doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know from a biographical perspective, although it might add to a character study somewhere. For all the favorable national press McCain has gotten (especially from the mid-1990s to mid-2000s), he's always had a rocky relationship with much of the Arizona press, Silverman and the Phoenix New Times included. And we can't feasibly put it in a bibliography section, because there are dozens and dozens of these magazine or long newspaper profiles or retrospectives on McCain. But I've put it in my url list of useful stuff, to go back to if warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. Any problem with crating a "Further Reading" section? I've used this in other articles with the intent of providing places for other editors to start in performing further research -- either to improve the Misplaced Pages article, or for their own research. In any case, this article is useful at the least as a "one-stop" description of McCain from Silverman's POV, with links to her other articles. -- llywrch (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Her POV is already somewhat represented in the bibliography, e.g. by Schecter's book. And of course, the actual biographical material that she discusses is already covered in the article to the extent that it's notable material. The problem with creating a "further reading" section would be that it could well grow without limit; at least now we can say "books only" in the Bibliography. Thanks for the suggestion though. I hadn't been aware of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't conflate Schecter with Silverman. I haven't read Schecter, but by what I've seen from the title and a few excerpts, it isn't worth much. Silverman is sometimes worth something, if you adjust for her viewpoint a bit. That said, there are many more famous magazine and long newspaper pieces than hers, starting with the Michael Kelly NYT Magazine piece in 1997 or so. It just isn't practical to start listing them all. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikilink dates in infobox?
I've removed the wikilinking from the dates in the main text. I guess it's okay to leave them in the infobox and footnotes.
However, please go easy on restoring exact dates. Giving an exact date is often not necessary in this main summary article, and providing an exact date is often distracting to a reader, because the reader will be trying to figure out why the exact date is important, and will be trying to memorize the exact date. Just month and year is often sufficient.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I believe we had the correct balance of exact dates and general dates before. These are important. And who on earth would be trying to memorize them? There's no quiz that comes with reading a WP article! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- When you give an exact date, presumably you're giving it because it will have some significance later in the article. Why give exact dates if they're not important to remember?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- First, I see that some of the exact dates in the recent Senate sections were unnecessary, and should indeed go, such as this edit that you did. But exact dates are given for important milestones because they were very important days. Nobody ever wrote that Pearl Harbor was attacked in early December 1941, or that the U.S. was attacked in mid-September 2001, or that JFK was assassinated in late November 1963. Is it important to memorize those exact dates to understand WWII or JFK's presidency? No, but that's not the point. Look at the FA Ronald Reagan article for many, many uses of exact dates. Do you have to memorize them? No, but that's not the point. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- The dates in your three examples are to be remembered, and never forgotten. I never suggested that this article should provide no exact dates at all. As for the Ronald Reagan article, I won't say anything disparaging, since Happyme22 is probably following this conversation. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Ferrylodge :-) To me, it's a minor issue. I agree with both of you: Ferrylodge makes sense when he says that exact dates can have meanings, though not always; WTR is correct that political campaigns are important, thus the exact dates can be notable, though not always. To me, it depends on the event we are dating. I doubt that anyone reading through this will try to memorize each and every exact date, however.Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is a very minor issue. All I ask is that we try to use exact dates a little less than before, and WTR seems to be doing that. To me, giving exact dates is kind of like giving full middle names for everyone...too much information!Ferrylodge (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Image
I am going to swap out the image at the top of the article. Wasted Time R didn't like the greenish background, because we used it to replace the black background in the original. Most people preferred the greenish background to the black background, for aesthetic reasons (e.g. you can see the guy has shoulders with the greenish background). Nevertheless, in order to address the concerns of WTR, a new image is now inserted, using a background that has been "vetted and approved" by the U.S. Government Printing Office. See here. This new image has been kindly provided by User:Navy_Blue at the Misplaced Pages Graphics Lab.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Removal of book cover
User:Calliopejen1 removed an image of a book cover, with this comment: "rm unneeded non-free image - another free image could easily accompany this section of the article." Actually, I think this removal is mistaken, so I'll revert. The image accompanies the following text:
In August 1999, his memoir Faith of My Fathers, co-authored with Mark Salter, was published. The most successful of his writings, it received positive reviews, became a bestseller, and was later made into a movie. The book traces McCain's family background and childhood, also covering his time at Annapolis, and his service as a naval aviator before and during the Vietnam War, concluding with his release from captivity in 1973. According to one reviewer, the book describes "the kind of challenges that most of us can barely imagine. It's a fascinating history of a remarkable military family."
I think it's very normal, when the subject of a Misplaced Pages biography has authored a bestseller, to include an image of the book. For example, the Obama article was kept as a featured article on April 15, 2008 at which time an image of a book cover was included. It's very typical for book cover images to be included in Misplaced Pages articles. For example, see Rachel Carson, Robert_A._Heinlein, Natalie_Clifford_Barney, et cetera.
I agree that book cover images should not be used frequently in a single Misplaced Pages biography, and I have deleted another McCain book cover image from this article. We had a talk page discussion about it. But in this case, the book is discussed at length in the article, it was a bestseller, subsequently made into a movie, and it is the only book cover included in this article.
It's also worth briefly noting that inclusion of the present image of the McCain book cover led to removal of another image like the one on the book cover. So, removing this book cover image would lead to rearranging other parts of this article in order to re-include that other image.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I should also note that the issue of book cover images (and this image in particular) was discussed during peer review.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it is "normal" to include such photos, their inclusion must be judged according to WP:NFCC. In this case, I strongly believe this fails #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't see how omitting the book cover is detrimental to readers' understanding of John McCain. There are a couple photos of McCain at book signings on flickr (though it's not entirely clear at least to me what book he's signing)--these would be fine photos in a similar vein assuming a photo related to the book is even necessary (which I don't think is the case). I am also going to be removing at least a couple other book covers that you pointed out as in violation of policy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Another couple thoughts in anticipation of rebuttals: just because the book is significant, doesn't mean the book cover is significant. Non-free images are not permitted for the reason of emphasizing or drawing attention to one section of an article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- We've had frustratingly inconsistent decisions on this. During the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC, the book cover images for It Takes a Village and Living History were removed on WP:NFCC grounds, both of which are arguably more famously associated with her public history and her popularity among her supporters than Faith of My Fathers is with McCain. But the McCain peer review reached the opposite conclusion. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- The best rationale for including the image is probably as follows. Including the image increases readers' understanding of how McCain is presenting himself through this key campaign autobiography. The cover is not simply decorative, but rather shows McCain advertising himself as a war hero and heir to a patriotic family, just as he was gearing up for the 2000 presidential race. As the NY Times has written: "The appearance of John McCain's Faith of My Fathers seems to have been timed to the unfolding Presidential campaign in which Senator McCain, an Arizona Republican, is a candidate. But this book is not your typical campaign autobiography, and this is because Mr. McCain has not had the experience of your typical candidate." Would further explanation of this point in the text (and/or in the free use rationale) make the image more acceptable?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I went ahead and expanded the fair use rationale.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the article's quality is improved by inclusion of this cover. But whether that rationale is sufficient for the NFCC rules, I dunno. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Regardless of whether the fair use rationale is adequate (and I suspect it is), it is doubtful that this image of the cover of Faith of My Fathers is even protectable by copyright. In other words, it may be eligible for the {{PD-ineligible}} tag, being ineligible for copyright and in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. The image of McCain, as well as the image of his relatives, are both public domain. See here and here.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Bitterness
I reverted this edit, because I don't think the cited source really attributes any of McCain's policy positions to bitterness. I could be wrong, but please point out where the source does that. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I see, WTR, that you have revised the language so it now says: "The differences with Bush on ideological grounds were exacerbated by the considerable bitterness between the two remaining from the previous year's campaign." You cite the following sentence of the source, in your edit summary: "During Bush's first eight months in office, virtually every high-profile position McCain took seemed designed to antagonize the new President...."
- WTR, this quote from the source is merely speculation on the part of the reporter ("seemed"), and it mentions nothing about McCain being a "bitter" old man. The source does speak about McCain being "bitter", but in completely different parts of the article:
- "In a business of bitter rivalries and awkward alliances, few political relationships have been more bitter, awkward or downright tortured than John McCain's eight-year entanglement with George W. Bush....'Bush could beat him twice,' says a friend who knows McCain well. 'Imagine how bitter he feels.'"
- So, I feel like you are turning a reporter's speculation into fact, and then importing words from another part of the article to characterize McCain as "bitter." And I don't think the two occurrences of the word "bitter" in the article are significant; both are undermined by the reporter's statement that Bush and McCain had a "rapprochement" in 2004, and the latter is based on the assumption that McCain thinks that he is going to lose this presidential election.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- There are lots of sources for bitterness between McCain and Bush at the start of 2001. See the subarticle: "Following the 2000 presidential election, there was a large amount of lingering bitterness between George W. Bush and McCain and between their respective staffs. McCain was also upset that the Bush administration hired few if any of his aides for White House positions; an unofficial Bush policy blocked McCain staffers from thousands of administration jobs." The subarticle also covers the rapprochment later. I'm just trying to convey a little of that here, because it's an important part of McCain's political career in the 2000s. And where you get "bitter old man" from I don't know. This has got nothing to do with age. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Whether they had bitterness toward each other or not, you are trying to have the Misplaced Pages article say that the bitterness affected (or infected) McCain's policy positions. That may be true, but the cited source does not say so. I've modified the Misplaced Pages article accordingly. The cited source says "seemed."
- I would prefer to just take it out of this article. Your edit summary says that you're relying on this in the cited source: "During Bush's first eight months in office, virtually every high-profile position McCain took seemed designed to antagonize the new President...." We can do much better than putting speculations into this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I've decoupled the two. Implying causation wasn't my actual purpose, but rather to indicate the bad feelings between the two. Readers can decide how much that played in McCain's stances of the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. The subarticle has more space and can give the "John did what he thought was right. If it happened to be something that ticked off Bush, so much the better." quote, which captures it pretty well. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Confusing sentence
I find this new sentence in the article very confusing:
- Despite initially being considered the front-runner for the nomination, McCain began 2007 second in national polls to former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani.
- Claiborne, Ron. "Analysis: How McCain Could Still Win", ABC News (2007-12-10). Retrieved 2008-08-11.
If McCain was behind Giuliani in polls at the beginning of 2007, then why was Giuliani not considered the frontrunner at the beginning of 2007? That question would need to be addressed in order for this new sentence to be understandable. And I think the whole matter should therefore be left for the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to give a capsule description of the nomination race. It's easy to forget now, but Giuliani was the polls leader during most all of 2007. At the start of the year, pundits still thought McCain was the front-runner (because they didn't think Rudy would last, given his social views); I've clarified that. So it's important to mention Giuliani up front, to motivate mentioning his withdrawal after Florida and endorsement of McCain. McCain's comeback in this nomination race is really one of the most remarkable in recent American political history, and I'm trying to briefly do justice to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you've really succeeded in clarifying this matter. The Misplaced Pages article now says, "Despite initially being considered the front-runner for the nomination by pundits, McCain began 2007 second in national polls to former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani." This is still confusing on a number of counts. When you say "initially", does that mean the beginning of 2007? Why bother discussing the beginning of 2007, if McCain didn't even announce until months later? Why stress the significance of an initial Giuliani lead in December 2006, when actually the lead was not much, and some polls did not have McCain behind at all (see Dec. 11-14 2006 poll by USA Today/Gallup showing tie, and Dec. 5-6 poll by Time showing a 3-point McCain lead). I will try to fix this.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed it to: "Despite being considered the front-runner for the nomination by pundits as of December 2006, McCain at that time was very close to former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani in national G.O.P. polls."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- You've misunderstood what I was getting at here. McCain was considered the front-runner as 2007 began, but Giuliani was already ahead in the polls. Rudy's lead widened (see Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2008 presidential candidates) as the year progressed. So McCain was already in trouble, even before the immigration and excessive spending stuff hit. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your new version looks okay and is very understandable. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Staff turnover
Regarding the 2008 section, I'm not quite sure why this article is emphasizing staff turnover so much. Much of it is normal and to be expected. It seems to be undue weight to explain every change in top personnel, while excluding other important campaign info such as the fact that McCain invited Obama to participate in a series of joint town-hall style meetings.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Top staff turnover is generally not a good thing. Most successful campaigns don't see it (Obama 2008, Bush 2000 and 2004, McGovern 1972, Carter 1976, Clinton 1992, etc.) Plenty of unsuccessful campaigns do see it (Hillary 2008, for example). It's notable that McCain survived his mid-2007 implosion and turnover, and it will be additionally notable if he wins in November despite the mid-2008 turnover. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- You may very well be correct, but beware of doing original research here. If you're focussing this Misplaced Pages article on staff turnover because you think it's a significant danger to McCain's chances of success, you have to cite sources that think so too. You can't just rattle off staff changes, assuming that everyone knows and agrees they are as important as you think they are. Some experts may think that fundraising is much more important, or polling, or the percentage of waking hours spent campaigning, or political positions, or whatever. Personally, I am a bit skeptical that McCain's staff turnover deserves the weight it's being given here in this Misplaced Pages article, and it's at the expense of other important info (e.g. McCain's rejected invitation to town-hall style debates). Even if you're correct about how important the staff turnover is, it's kind of inside baseball (wherein the baseball is made of crystal).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I condensed this material a bit, without removing any refs or other major info.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)Debate debates are far more meaningless and inside baseball. Basic formula: The guy who's behind always wants more debates, the guy who's ahead always wants fewer. In 1996 Clinton was a much better debater than Dole, but after the planned debates were over, Dole still wanted another. A trailer always hope the front-runner will say something utterly stupid in a debate and change the dynamics of the race. As for original research, every sentence we put in this article is based on our knowledge and assessment that it's important. For example, you just added "Another reviewer observed that, "The appearance of John McCain's 'Faith of My Fathers' seems to have been timed to the unfolding Presidential campaign...."" Is it original research on your part to assume that a best-selling book is at asset to a campaign? No, nor do I think you need to cite a source that says so. This is what we do here as editors, figure out what's important and what isn't. That's our value-add. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're mistaken about debates. McCain wasn't merely urging debates. He wanted town-hall style meetings in order to cut out the MSM, with ordinary uncommitted independent citizens asking the questions. McCain also saw this as an opportunity to do what almost happened in 1964, had Kennedy lived: Pres. Kennedy and Arizona Senator Goldwater had arranged to travel the country together, much like Lincoln and Douglas did a hundred years before, in order to elevate the discussion away from paid adevrtisments to something more substantive. As far as I know, McCain hasn't asked for more than the three currently-planned debates, which will be MSM-controlled sound-bit sessions.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)Your condensation lost some meaning; restored, but still more concise than before. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're right that the town-hall aspect was potentially a new wrinkle (they too might have devolved into sound bite contests, but we'll never know). Since you feel strongly about it, I've restored them. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Many of McCain's top aides have not left, e.g. chief campaign adviser Charlie Black, and chief executive officer Rick Davis. I'm going to try to tweak the language so it doesn't give the impression of repeated exodus. Also, I'm not sure why it matters whether staff left to avoid coi, as compared to staff leaving in response to new coi rules, but I'll leave it since you seem to feel strongly about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- It shows that the campaign was trying to fix the problem, rather than just dumping people under criticism. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- And while Rick Davis hasn't left, his daily operational function was substantially reduced when Steve Schmidt took over. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- The current language of the article on this subject looks okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Keating five
I agree with the above comment that the sentence involving the Keating Five needs to be separated from Campaign Finance reform by at least a period. The two are different items. ( Martin | talk • contribs 23:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC))
- As an editor mentioned above, "McCain's push for campaign finance reform was in direct response to his experience in the Keating Five scandal. See the cite given, , in the article body text." Have you looked at this cite? It says:
- "Sen. John McCain, held up to national scorn and ridicule as a member of the KEATING Five just a few years before, reinvented himself in the 1990s as one of the leading critics of money's corrupting influence on U.S. politics.
- "In doing so, he created rifts with deep-pocketed special interests on the right and the left and helped set the stage for an insurgent 2000 presidential campaign.
- "Detractors called McCain's newfound passion for reform a bit high-handed, especially coming from a man who accepted $112,000 in campaign contributions from Charlie KEATING and his pals.
- "They also noted that McCain's stand on campaign-finance reform had not prevented him from working Washington, D.C., for campaign cash or accepting tens of thousands of dollars from corporations that are under the oversight of the Senate Commerce Committee, which McCain formerly ran and still sits on.
- "The panel holds sway over a number of key industries, overseeing issues such as cable and satellite television rules, airline deregulation and access to telephone long-distance markets.
- "McCain admits that his own involvement in the KEATING embarrassment made him take a hard look at the way congressional candidates finance their campaigns. If nothing else, politicians who grovel for special-interest money tend to disgust the public, he says."
- So, it's pretty clear that the two items are closely connected. Also, please note that the lead paragraphs merely summarize the rest of the article, and it seems adequate to specifically mention Charles Keating Jr. later in the article rather than in the lead (i.e. mentioning the "Keating Five" is enough for the lead).
By the way, I don't understand why John Glenn was mentioned in this edit summary.Oh, I see, you removed Glenn after inserting Glenn, which is fine.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- So, it's pretty clear that the two items are closely connected. Also, please note that the lead paragraphs merely summarize the rest of the article, and it seems adequate to specifically mention Charles Keating Jr. later in the article rather than in the lead (i.e. mentioning the "Keating Five" is enough for the lead).
- I agree with Ferrylodge ... except that he left in one bit, changing "investigated" to "investigated and cleared". This is a bit of a recipe for trouble, since it leaves out that he was rebuked for poor judgement. I don't know how to work that into the lead concisely enough though. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of "investigated and cleared" we might try "cleared of all charges", since he wasn't charged with poor judgment (and no Senator would plead innocent to ever having exercised poor judgment). Or, we might try "cleared of acting improperly". The latter seems like the safest bet.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Or we could just change it back to "investigated" despite weaseliness.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Or "largely exonerated" which seems to get the whole thing across pretty well.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'd go for "investigated and largely exonerated". K 5 had a big impact on him ("worst mistake of my life", etc.) and so I wouldn't leave out the "investigated". Also, I think that the sentence in the lead has parsing problems — if you don't already know what the "as a member of the 'Keating Five'" clause means, you might think it was a group that worked on campaign finance reform. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Saying "largely exonerated" would be accurate in a context where the charges had been stated and we could elaborate on the details. As it is, it's more than a little confusing. It's also both too harsh on McCain and too kind to him -- too harsh because it implies nonexoneration on at least one formal charge (which wasn't the case, only the "bad judgment" thing), and too kind because it omits the hit he took from the bad publicity, which was a significant aspect of his career. Of course, the problem is how to give a good terse statement of all this in the introductory section. I suggest this:
McCain was one of the "Keating Five", Senators who were caught up in a political influence scandal of the 1980s. He was exonerated of the formal charges against him, but his image was badly tarnished. Thereafter he made campaign finance reform one of his signature concerns, which eventually led to the passage of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002.
- It's only a few words longer than the current version and I think it gives a more accurate picture. JamesMLane t c 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I don't think we should say in the lead that it badly tarnished his image. After all, the article says: "In his 1992 re-election bid, the Keating Five affair was not a major issue, and he won handily, gaining 56 percent of the vote to defeat Democratic community and civil rights activist Claire Sargent and independent former Governor Evan Mecham."
Also, the "largely exonerated" language is supported by reliable sources that use that exact language..
Additionally, I wouldn't worry about the "largely exonerated" language being too hard on McCain. This same language has been used by his own campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The "image is badly tarnished" part is problematic. It's hard to quantify, and he didn't have the trouble getting re-elected in 1992 that many had predicted. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
McCain Aide and Accusations they provoked Georgia to attack S. Ossetia
I'm not going to get involved in this article but I think you all should be tracking this story about Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser having been a lobbyist for the govt of Georgia who's brought McCain over there. Wash Post and Wall Street Journal. And Politico.com's accusations McCain and assumedly Scheunemann actually encouraged Georgia to bomb the heck out of S. Ossetia.The article on the topic, says in part:
- McCain, who publicly confronted Putin in Munich last year, may be the most visible — and now potentially influential — American antagonist of Russia. What remains to be seen is whether the endgame to the Georgia crisis makes McCain seem prophetic or headstrong and whether his muscular rhetoric plays a role in defining for voters the kind of commander in chief he would be....To critics, McCain’s stance is grandstanding with little effect beyond riling a nuclear power. ...McCain has led the harsh denunciations of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, though neither he nor any other leader has suggested that the West has any real way to blunt Moscow’s ultimate intentions. He’s also faced the accusation that his encouragement of Georgia’s dramatic defiance of Russia helped trigger the crisis. (A McCain aide dismissed that notion, saying Russia’s provocations forced Georgia’s response.)
Note that Obama supporters have accused him of a conflict of interest; I haven't yet seen a direct accusation he encouraged Georgia to bomb S. Ossetia, but that may yet come out. Carol Moore 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- McCain's positions on Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia are good and valid topics for the foreign policy sections of the Political positions of John McCain article. However, the notion that Georgia's actions in South Ossetia were based on something a U.S. presidential candidate (who's trailing in the race) advocates is silly. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed -- I'm sure the Russian and Georgian editors who have been feuding on 2008 South Ossetia War would consider the idea the height of America-centrism! Coemgenus 11:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- It seems naive to think that neocons and McCain would not influence foreign politicians, esp. since a McCain aid was a $200,000 a year lobbyist for a foreign power. Will forward links to that article. More articles on this topic today: Associated press, another Wash Post, Robert Scheer, SF Gate, Georgia War a Neocon election ploy, CBS: Getting Georgia's war on Carol Moore 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- The first two pieces are from legit news orgs, and discuss legit questions about Scheunemann, his possible conflict of interest within the campaign, and whether McCain's very pro-Georgia stance is influenced by Scheunemann's prominence. The second two pieces are opinion columns by very opinionated writers, and thus not WP:RS. There's still no WP:RS to suggest that Georgia got in a war with Russia because of the views of some Americans who have a 35% chance of being in office half a year from now. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- It seems naive to think that neocons and McCain would not influence foreign politicians, esp. since a McCain aid was a $200,000 a year lobbyist for a foreign power. Will forward links to that article. More articles on this topic today: Associated press, another Wash Post, Robert Scheer, SF Gate, Georgia War a Neocon election ploy, CBS: Getting Georgia's war on Carol Moore 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- Indeed -- I'm sure the Russian and Georgian editors who have been feuding on 2008 South Ossetia War would consider the idea the height of America-centrism! Coemgenus 11:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- MORE just to keep on top of this as relevant info breaks:
- NY Times - McCain to Send His Wingmen to Georgia - he also denies he encouraged the war.
- NY Times: In Split Role, McCain Adviser Is Sometimes a Lobbyist
- Reuters: Quotes by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili including complains that McCain is just words and not actions. (What other revelations might follow?) Carol Moore 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
- Saakashvili's saying that McCain's words are just words and not actions is quite true, and moreover it helps disprove your original assertion, that somehow McCain's views helped lead to the war in the first place. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think it shows he's disappointed McCain didn't come through on what Saakasvili thought were promises; also could be a threat to reveal some secret communications between McCain's aide and himself. But that's all just speculation. We are waiting for more facts to be revealed and if there aren't enough it won't go in the article, will it?? Carol Moore 17:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- Uh, exactly how is McCain supposed to have "come through"? He's just a senator; he's not in the executive branch; his ability to affect U.S. foreign policy is zilch. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- You and i know that but that doesn't mean that someone like Scheunemann might not have been convinced by recent joint US military operations, McCain being Bush's boy for president, etc. that someone McCain would put the fix in. Of course Scheunemann and the neocons just were setting up Georgia to provoke the Russians to make them look bad to support more US ABMs in the region. But that's all speculation. So let's wait and see if any further facts come in. Carol Moore 14:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- Uh, exactly how is McCain supposed to have "come through"? He's just a senator; he's not in the executive branch; his ability to affect U.S. foreign policy is zilch. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think it shows he's disappointed McCain didn't come through on what Saakasvili thought were promises; also could be a threat to reveal some secret communications between McCain's aide and himself. But that's all just speculation. We are waiting for more facts to be revealed and if there aren't enough it won't go in the article, will it?? Carol Moore 17:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- MORE just to keep on top of this as relevant info breaks:
Hensley & Co.
The article used to say the following (until today): "In April 1979, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co." The next section provides further info about the company (a large beer distributorship), in connection with McCain going to work there. I don't think the company needs to be described twice, as Rosspz suggested.. On the other hand, it does seem a little bit odd to mention that she's the daughter of the founder of a named company without mentioning what kind of company. Nevertheless, we don't need to suggest that McCain was marrying a beer distributorship. Any thoughts?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed it to, "In April 1979, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, whose father had founded a large beer distributorship." Details like the name of the company are provided in the next section. And saying that she is an only child is unusual when describing a spouse, and smacked of "sole heir."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
supposedly plagiarized[REDACTED] on speech about georgia/russia war
people have been noticing similarities between his speech and the wikipedia articl about the nation of georgia. problem is, who knows where the wikipedia article got its' language from?[REDACTED] contains plagiarized paragraphs and sentences too, you know? if[REDACTED] and mccain used the same original source, say a history book, of course it will be similar. until that is investigated, maybe people should chill out a little bit.
- If only he had recycled from one of our McCain bio articles! Then we would truly have a loop. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
America's 10 Best Senators
McCain was listed as one of America's 10 Best Senators by Time magazine Sunday, Apr. 16, 2006. Almost every Senator on this list has it mentioned on their[REDACTED] page (same with the 5 Worst Senators list they did) but McCain has no mention. I feel it should be added to the article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- If so why don't you give us a citation and we'll fill it in (since you seem to prefer someone else should do it... don't know why). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've added it both here and in longer form in Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present. Others can tweak the location in this article if they wish (there wasn't a single obvious place to put it). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking someone else to do it User:Floridianed, I just felt uncomfortable adding it myself since I don't normally work on this article, and was expressing that I thought it was noteworthy to see if others felt the same. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Understandable. I might have done it the same way, or as a matter of fact, I mostly do it this way. So another big oops from my side but that's just the way I am :) . Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Involvement with lobbyists etc. in International Republican Institute
McCain's 15-year leadership of the International Republican Institute should be discussed, with description of the organization, its activities and membership. Mike McIntire of the New York Times wrote a story on the group and McCain which appeared on July 28, 2008: "Democracy Group Gives Donors Access to McCain." The story contrasts McCain's image as a reformer with his interaction with corporate and foreign lobbyists as leader of the institute. At the very least, the story relates to other commentary during the presidential campaign that connects McCain to lobbyists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.195.29 (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- The IRI has long been mentioned in the House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000 article, and I've added this NYT story as a cite to that along with a mention that his association with IRI helped his future fundraising prospects. When I first read the NYT story, I didn't find the attempt to highlight lobbyist linkages very compelling. On the other hand, I don't have a good feel for exactly what IRI (or its Dem counterpart) does. Furthermore, the International Republican Institute article itself is something of a mess, with bad formatting, inadequate sourcing, and lots of edit warring including from IRI IP addresses. The interested reader should probably start with improving that article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with WTR. However, an editor named User:ObjectivityAlways has just edited this article to insert a great deal of info about this organization, without any talk page discussion (unless ObjectivityAlways is 207.200.195.29).
- McCain's role in this organization does seem like something that could be mentioned briefly in this article, but putting in a whole paragraph plus a whole new section in external links is way overdoing it. External links are generally for stuff that isn't already linked in the main text. And, why so much in the main text? The sub-article is House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, and we now have more in this article than in the sub-article. Please see WP:SS. As the sub-article mentions, McCain was named at the same time to be head of recruiting and fund-raising for Republican senatorial candidates, but that needn't be mentioned here in this article. Not everything in the sub-article needs to be repeated here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Which religion?
According to the article it calls him a "Baptist" in the info box. The LA Times reports: "McCain, an Episcopalian, attends North Phoenix Baptist Church but has not yet converted to the Baptist faith."
It is misleading to call him a "Baptist" when McCain himself says: "questions over whether he identifies himself as a Baptist or an Episcopalian are not as important as his overarching faith. 'The most important thing is that I am a Christian', the Arizona senator told reporters" (source). We66er (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please see the section above titled “McCain’s religion”. This issue has already been discussed, a consensus was reached, and the article was edited accordingly. Your two links both go to an ABC News article dated September 17, 2007. That ABC News article quotes McCain as saying: “I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist.” So, I'll revert the change you made, and please try to convince others before changing stuff that's already been discussed. If you're right and this Misplaced Pages article is wrong, then you should be able to convince us. All you have to do is provide reliable sources that contradict the sources that we've already reviewed. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, now you just inserted a cite into the article to a very recent LA Times article that says: "McCain, an Episcopalian, attends North Phoenix Baptist Church but has not yet converted to the Baptist faith." That's a good source. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I did give the wrong link on this talk. The ABC News article above is cited in the article and from 2007. However, this LA Times one is from today on tonight's McCain interview about religion (that means its one year more recent). The LA Times reports: "McCain, an Episcopalian, attends North Phoenix Baptist Church but has not yet converted to the Baptist faith." While he might call himself a Baptist, he has never converted. We66er (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. That's why it's best to suggest your changes here at the talk page first, so we can edit the article once and get it right the first time. I see that you've also now added a new paragraph to the section on his cultural and political image. That section merely summarizes what's in the sub-article Cultural and political image of John McCain. Therefore, I'd suggest you correct what's in that sub-article instead of adding this new paragraph here in this article. We decided to leave out his religion from this section of the article, because McCain isn't really known by many people as either a Baptist or an Episcopalian, plus the matter is already well-covered in the infobox and accompanying footnote (as well as in the sub-article).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(od) To me, the definitive statement here is still this AP story from 2007, where McCain says "By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist." In WP generally go with what people self-identify as. Whether he's gone through some specific Baptist conversion process or ritual is another matter, which I think is what today's LA Times article is referring to. Why doesn't our top-of-article footnote on religion include this quote? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- We've already got two refs in the footnote, one of which is quoted as saying "McCain...now identifies himself as Baptist." You can insert the McCain quote too if you want, but it merely confirms what we've already got in the footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- WTR, are you suggesting that the infobox should not mention Episcopalian? Incidentally, I think the official conversion process probably involves being baptised, which McCain has said he has not been.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should say convey some formulation of "he used to be an Episcopalian, now he's a Baptist". Just like we list both spouses, we can list both denominations. And then we can give the footnote with all the details. That's the way it used to to appear, in fact, then it got changed along the way. The current "Episcopalian and/or Baptist" formulation seems a bit unfortunate to me: it possibly suggests that McCain himself doesn't know what he is, which, according to the quote I gave above, does not seem to be the case. But whatever ... I think in many religions, denominational affiliation can be a lot murkier than our infobox pigeonholing would like it to be. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- WTR, you say "That's the way it used to appear." Can you please provide a link? I looked for that version but couldn't find it. It may be well worth restoring.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- It was like that way just before the big split out (without the footnote yet), don't remember how much longer it stayed like that. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've tried to edit the article accordingly. See what you think.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- The infobox part looks ok. The footnote is already out-of-date – the LAT story was rewritten overnight and that quote's not in it. Perhaps it was the "has not yet converted to the Baptist faith" part being objected to ... I seem to remember a previous talk thread where someone said that not all kinds of Baptists require a baptism or a formal conversion process, but now I can't find the thread. I really know less than nothing about this subject, so I can't say much more. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info about the overnight change in the LA Times article. I've adjusted our footnote accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- What's the best way to suggest that McCain is Baptist through self-identification? To say that while McCain may not formally be a Southern Baptist, he's a congregant there? A snippet (although it's lacking any footnote) from the WP article on Baptists says, "Some churches, especially in the UK, do not require members to have been baptised as a believer, as long as they have made an adult declaration of faith - for example, been confirmed in the Anglican church, or become communicant members as Presbyterians." So somebody can even be a member of certain Baptist denominations without a traditional Baptist baptism. In McCain's case, he was raised Episcopalian but his present self-identification is more Baptist and he expresses his Christian beliefs through such means as attending a Southern Baptist church although he reportedly hasn't sensed any call or felt an imperative to formally join the group via the Southern Baptists' "believers' baptism" by full-immersion. Hey, I myself self-identify as Unitarian-Universalist but have never even attended a UU services in my entire life. Would I be alone in this? Go to Adherents.com. I live in New Jersey so we go down to the two New Jersey entries to find there were 3,602 UU members in New Jersey in 1990; however, a phone survey of New Jerseyans estimated there were nearly twice as many folks such as myself who self-identified as UU in 1990, counting U/U's by belief whether or not we're actual members. Justmeherenow ( ) 09:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Justmeherenow
Not liking maths, duh
'McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) which he did not aim to improve. He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math'
I mean, wtf!!! The onle fact in the above aforementioned sentences is the FACT that his rank was 894 out of 899. I mean, insinuating that he studied enough to pass subjects he disliked like math is an opinion more than anything else. A couple of quotes about it from McCain or anybody doesnt make it a fact. He may have not liked math but the truth is the reason why he didnt like math could have probably been because his IQ may not be that high. Since when is doing well in math a matter of choice - the only real subject they use for IQ tests. Using that logic, anybody here can be a bloody Einstein.
- This is a somewhat complicated subject. The Early life and military career of John McCain article tries to explain it more fully: "Possessed of a strong intelligence, McCain did well in a few subjects that interested him, such as English literature, history, and government. There was a fixed Bachelor of Science curriculum taken by all midshipmen; McCain's classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities on mathematics, science, and engineering courses and thought his low grades were by inclination and not ability. His class rank was further lowered by poor grades for conduct and leadership, which reflected his sloppy appearance, rebellious attitude, and poor relations with his company officer." McCain's IQ is known – it was measured at 128 and then later at 133. (See Alexander Man of the People p. 207 or this Time article.) I'm not a big believer in IQ as a metric, but while not at genius level, those are still strong scores. So why was his class rank so bad? Without studying his transcript, and knowing the weighting of academic vs. conduct/leadership grades, we can't know for sure. But for us to just report his 894/899 rank and nothing else would give an incomplete portrayal; his other biographers have tried to understand what went into that, and so have we. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Relationship with children
There was an objection above regarding the cultural image section, which discusses his "close ties to his children from both of his marriages." The objection is not that that is untrue, but that we have "left out of this article the also sourced item that his children were so upset with his abandonment of their mother that they did not attend his wedding; we have it in the subarticle, I know, but in this article you are telling only half of the story regarding his relationship with his children - the good half."
It's true that his children from his first marriage did not attend his wedding with his second wife. They later reconciled, and I think one of the kids from the first marriage is now an executive at the company run by the second wife.
It does not seem correct to give equal weight to an apparently brief period in 1979-1982, alongside decades-long periods that followed and preceded 1979-1982. If we did detail the reactions of his children to the divorce, here in this main article, it would properly be in the chronological section about his early life, rather than in the cultural image section. The main article on his early life says, "McCain's children were upset with him and did not attend the wedding, but after several years they reconciled with him and Cindy." I just don't think this is notable enough, since it's a very typical and expected reaction under the circumstances. I very much sympathize with the desire to include more material from the sub-articles, but we are already bumping up against the limits of WP:Size. If this were a real problem about undue weight, then I would agree, but it's not.
In fairness, if we did include the children's reactions to the divorce, I think we would also have to include their statements that they did not blame Cindy, but rather blamed their father. Plus we might want to also include a quote in which he accepts the blame. But, all in all, I think there's currently no undue weight in the article regarding the children. If people disagree, then it might be best to remove the children from the cultural image section, rather than enlarging the article further. I hope we don't do that, though, because his current harmonious family relationships help put his alleged temper in better context, and also his large family is an important part of his image.
Incidentally, I'd take issue with the "abandonment" characterization. An uncontested divorce with a substantial settlement is not typically considered abandonment, and I'm not aware of reliable sources that characterize this situation that way. Not that I'm particularly trying to defend McCain here, but where is there a reliable source that says he "abandoned" his first wife?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm thinking about doing a 180 on this. The present article currently says, "McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980, with Republican Senator and future Secretary of Defense William Cohen serving as best man, and Democratic Senator Gary Hart as a groomsman." We could instead say, "McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980, with Senators William Cohen and Gary Hart attending, but McCain’s children did not attend and would not reconcile with him for several years." Same number of words. What do people think? I do suspect it may be undue weight to mention Cohen and Hart but not the children. I'll be bold and change this, and see how people react.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think what happened here is that when I did the cutdown of the main article during the big split-out, I was being very aggressive in size reduction and removed both the children being estranged (in the bio section) and the close ties later on (indeed I removed all of the "Cultural and political image" section, leaving only a tiny summary text). Subsequently the "Cultural" section's summary text was expanded significantly, including mention of the close family ties, but the initial estrangement was never restored in the bio section. I agree with Tvoz that it should be there. It's not undue weight; McCain said the other night at the Saddleback thing that the greatest moral failing of his life was the failure of his first marriage, and this was no doubt an important manifestation of that. The Ferrylodge wording above is okay, except that it needs to say Cohen and Hart were in the wedding party (otherwise not worth mentioning) ... but it looks like that has been added since the above was written. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Featured article!
Congratulations to all! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nice work! Congrats especially to Ferrylodge and WastedTimeR. Now, no matter how the election turns out, the 43rd President's article will be featured (unless Nader pulls off a massive upset!) --Coemgenus 11:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Credit to Ferrylodge for putting it up. I agree that it's very important to WP's credibility that its best article classification include subjects like these. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- All three of you have been immensely helpful, WTR especially (who has done at least as much work on this article as I have). Let's see how long we can keep it in good shape, neutral, well-sourced, and concise.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Left cheek
Why no mention of the growth there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnamus (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
McCain's rescuer Mai Van On written out of McCain's history / "cross in the dirt" controversy
I think there needs to be mention of Mai Van On, the Vietnamese man who rescued McCain from the lake in 1967, and how John McCain later gave him the cold shoulder. There are a couple of articles that could be referenced: Vietnam rescuer talks and How war hero John McCain betrayed the Vietnamese peasant who saved his life. I think Mai Van On should have his own[REDACTED] entry too.
- Mai Van On is briefly mentioned in the Early life and military career of John McCain article. Our footnote there reads: "A number of Vietnamese have claimed to have led the McCain rescue effort in Trúc Bạch Lake, but the one most often credited, including by the Vietnamese government in the 1990s, was Mai Van On. He and McCain met in Hanoi in 1996, but McCain did not mention him in his 1999 memoir and it is unclear whether McCain believed On's account. On's story also does not completely coincide with the well-known photograph showing a number of Vietnamese pulling McCain ashore. See "McCain's Vietnam rescuer talks", Associated Press (February 24, 2000). Retrieved on June 28, 2008. ; Alexander, Man of the People, pp. 47–49; and Parry, Simon (June 27, 2008). "Wartime rescuer of John McCain dies a forgotten hero", Deutsche Presse-Agentur for Thaindian News. Retrieved on June 28, 2008." Wasted Time R (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The marked comparison of McCain ignoring his real Vietnamese savior in his 1999 book Faith of My Fathers while promoting a story in that same book about a Christian guard has been noticed in reference to the controversy over McCain's "cross in the dirt" anecdote which may not have happened at all but instead be apocryphal to Solzhenitsyn or taken directly from Solzhenitsyn's own writings (is thought to be in Gulag Archipelago or First Circle, but I don't think the actual text has been found as I write this). I think the "cross in the dirt" controversy is worth summarizing in McCain's[REDACTED] entry as well. One source for that is Andrew Sullivan's 3/18/08 blog The Daily Dish, "The Dirt in the Cross Story, Ctd." ; there are many others.
Thanks Thatvisionthing (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- The cross in the dirt story is given in Early life and military career of John McCain too, along with another long footnote indicating the dating of it is unclear. The 'controversy' about it is being discussed in Talk:Civil Forum on The Presidency. Bottom line: nothing to say more about. And Andrew Sullivan is not even remotely close to being a WP:RS; he is obsessed with some kind of "Christianist" involvement in all this. And note the Solzhenitsyn writing angle has already been discredited, per . Wasted Time R (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Under these circumstances, McCain is not a reliable source. Our article should not unquestioningly repeat this tale as if it were established fact. It should be attributed to McCain as his assertion, but we can take up that issue at Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain. Neither the story nor its debunking belongs in the Civil Forum on The Presidency article. JamesMLane t c 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
az-powwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
hub-453was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/022400/gen_rescuer.shtml McCain's Vietnam rescuer talks, AP Thursday, February 24, 2000
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542277/How-war-hero-John-McCain-betrayed-Vietnamese-peasant-saved-life.html How war hero John McCain betrayed the Vietnamese peasant who saved his life Daily Mail online, last updated at 01:10 23 March 2008
- http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-dirt-in-the.html The Dirt In The Cross Story, Ctd, August 18, 2008
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
- Old requests for peer review
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
- Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
- Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- United States presidential elections articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- FA-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (military) articles
- Mid-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- Old requests for Biography peer review
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class military history articles
- FA-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- FA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- FA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- FA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- FA-Class Vietnam articles
- Mid-importance Vietnam articles
- All WikiProject Vietnam pages
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- FA-Class Arizona articles
- Top-importance Arizona articles
- WikiProject Arizona articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press