Talk:Political positions of John McCain

Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

• It appears that a number of the United States presidential candidate biographies or presidential campaign pages on Wikipedia have an associated "Political views of ____" article.
• There is a discussion of the merits of changing the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name.
• In case you're interested, go to Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.
  
• The conversation there might influence other "Political views" articles.

-- Yellowdesk 06:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The section about abortion covers several other issues as well. Someone should rename the title or split them up.

Gun Control

I am a Ron Paul supporter. But I think the reference to him here was unnecessary. I removed it.Kylebrotherton 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

References

It appears all the references are gone. The last I see them is here: [1] I don't know how to bring back just the references without reverting all edits since then. Can someone do this? --209.162.40.183 02:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Immigration stance

Does anyone still have problems with this? Can we remove to flag?

Glitch

Strange... the article is cut off part way through the Immigration section. Aelffin 16:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

evolution vs. creationism?

can we get some references for Mccain's position on that? thanks. ThuranX 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe in the first Republican debate, he did not raise his hand to say he did not believe in evolution. I did create a section on his views related to religion and politics, but evolution vs. creation isn't really a political view unless a politician has tried to create laws regarding that belief.--Gloriamarie 03:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well put.Benjamin.s.quigley (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Medical marijuana

In New Hampshire, McCain said that medical marijuana did not help patients (he said this to a woman with multiple sclerosis who said it helped her) and the resulting footage of him saying it didn't help the "dead" or something to that effect was replayed in the news media. Here is one article mentioning it. It should be mentioned either under "War on Drugs" or possibly in a new Healthcare section... I'm surprised there isn't one already created.--Gloriamarie 03:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Removing this section. See the First Amendment for reference.Paisan30 (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How political figures interpret the First Amendment, and other issues surrounding the intersection of religion and government, is highly relevant. No reason to remove this section; I've restored it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No other "Political positions of XXX" page that I've seen has a Religion section - not even ordained minister Mike Huckabee. It is not a topic that should be filed under "political positions". Paisan30 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are sections that deal with the intersection of religion and government, such as Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_religion_in_public_life and Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani#School_prayer. The McCain statements here are a bit more philosophical than those. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have a point. I will add a similar section to Huckabee's page. Paisan30 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In the light of the Obama pastor controversy, I think it only fair we should have more info on McCain`s own church attendance. Weekly? Where?Andycjp (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the biographical articles, they describe his slow evolution from Episcopalian to Baptist and the church he attended during that process. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Views on Health Care section?

Health care is a major issue in this election and it has sections in Political positions of Hillary Clinton and Political positions of Mitt Romney, which were the two random candidates I thought of. In this article, health care gets barely a passing mention. I don't know enough about it to write it up, but someone should add a "Health Care" section. Oren0 (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a definite outage. I added a start of a section based on the one cite that was already in the article; others can expand. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone expand this section by summarizing this new article? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9940.html McCain's new position seems to be a lot different from the one cited from last October. I'd summarize it, but there's no way I can directly relate it to the current paragraph, and no way for me to write it without using weasel wording (since I hate McCain). Word to Mother (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can do it, doesn't matter whether you like or dislike the political figure involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like other people were quicker to edit it in (and much more eloquently than I could've summarized). However, I did add the estimated annual cost as well as my reference since nobody else mentioned it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Word to Mother (talk • contribs) 01:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gang of 14

I'm a little concerned about this edit. Seems to me, the Gang of 14 deal made it more likely (not less likely) that Alito and Roberts would be blocked by filibuster, as compared to the situation where the nuclear option had been executed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Think of three possible outcomes: Dems filibuster any judge they don't like, Dems filibuster only "extraordinarily" bad (from their view) judges, Dems can't filibuster anyone because the judicial filibuster has been nuked. Prior to the G14 deal, #1 was likely unless #3 happened. While Roberts wasn't in peril of #1, Alito certainly was. Would the Repubs have gone to #3 in that case? Who knows. But after the G14 deal, #1 and #3 were both off the table. Thus the Dems wouldn't successfully filibuster Alito unless he was "extraordinarily" bad. In fact, some Dems did try to buster him, but failed 72-25. The actual confirmation vote was much closer, 58-42. Would the filibuster vote have been much closer, and possibly successful, if the G14 deal not happened, and #1 been in effect? We can't know for sure, but that's the argument of G14ers who supported R and A, including McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article currently says, "The agreement also helped forestall any Democratic attempt to filibuster the subsequent nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court." It could be clarified. Something like: "The agreement made it less likely that a Senate minority would defeat the subsequent nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, although such a defeat by a Senate minority would have been impossible if the so-called 'nuclear option' (also know as the 'constitutional option') had been successful." IMHO, we need to get across the point that the agreement did not necessarily make it easier for Alito; it may well have made it harder for Alito.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with that wording. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For possible future reference, this post gives arguments for G14 protecting Alito, and has pointers to other arguments for and against. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Andrew McCarthy argues that:

It is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc for the Whites to contend that the Gang of 14 deal had anything to do with the confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Supreme Court appointments are of a different dimension than nominations to the lower federal courts, even the Circuit Courts of Appeal. The public is far more engaged in them, and the political price of obstructionism is certain to be markedly higher. As exhibited during their hearings, these two jurists were so patently qualified, it would have been suicidal for Democrats to try to block them by filibuster. They waved the flag for the base by asking nasty questions, raising inane objections, and casting futile votes against confirmation, but there was no way they were going to block a vote. The filibuster strategy, preserved by word and deed in the Gang of 14 deal, has been highly effective in thwarting qualified nominees, but it depends on public apathy. If it had been used it against Roberts and Alito, that would have called great attention to its use against Court of Appeals nominees, which might have cost Democrats dearly. That and the undeniable merit of the two justices involved, not the Gang of 14 deal, is why the high-court nominees were confirmed.

Do you think we need to modify this article's statement that the Deal made filibuster of Roberts and Alito less likely? Maybe we could say "may have made" filibuster of Roberts and Alito less likely. Not that many readers will perceive such a subtle change.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You quoted one side of the argument. The other side, from my original reference, is:

3. Roberts and Alito: You suggest that the G14 deal did nothing to help the Roberts & Alito confirmations. We respectfully disagree: Had the Democrats succeeded in killing the nuclear option in an up-or-down floor vote, they would have asserted themselves much more aggressively on the Supreme Court nominations. Without the protections of the G14 deal, we believe that President Bush would have thought twice before nominating the controversial Alito to the second of two simultaneous vacancies. Instead, he likely would have picked a much less controversial, more-favorable-to-Democrats nominee like Alberto Gonzales (prior to DOJ scandals, of course) or Orrin Hatch. In short: You think that absent the G14 deal, Roberts and Alito would have been nominated and confirmed. We think that absent the G14 deal, Alito probably wouldn't have been nominated at all. (Roberts, though, surely would have succeeded.)

This brings up a point that I didn't make yesterday, that absent the G14 deal, the nuclear option might have failed. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another way of looking at this is, Roberts was a genial guy replacing someone of similar legal outlook, and the Dems didn't put up much of a fight. Alito was a not-so-genial guy replacing someone of a sometimes significantly different legal outlook, whose confirmation would reverse the court's makeup on a range of issues. Yet the Dems never put up the full scale battle royal holy war opposition to him that many expected; what happened? I think G14 was part of why the Dems rolled over. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, and I suspect that you're right. However, some people (e.g. McCarthy) disagree.

I think we may need to modify what the article currently says:

The agreement made it less likely may have affected the likelihood that a Senate minority would defeat the subsequent nominations of John Roberts and and/or Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court., although Such a defeat by a Senate minority would have been impossible if the so-called "nuclear option" (also known as the "constitutional option") had been successful, but such a defeat could have become more likely if the nuclear option had been voted down (or if the nuclear option had never been proposed).

Any thoughts?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, OK I guess. I doubt 10% of readers will be able to follow this ... Wasted Time R (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. And feel free to make it more "followable".Ferrylodge (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For the further record, here is McCain's defense of G14, although it's more focused on the appeals court judges than R and A. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this entire thing is undue speculation and original research on its face. Why not find a source that says which scenarios would be less and more likely and cite accordingly? The situation was adequately covered by the media so it seems unnecessary for us to argue and speculate over the ramifications of various scenarios. I also agree that the current version is fairly muddled and confusing. Oren0 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We can find refs if you like, but it's pretty much common knowledge that filibustering nominees would have been less likely if the nuclear option had been successfully implemented. After all, the whole point of the nuclear option was to completely get rid of judicial filibusters.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow Senate politics closely enough for that to be common knowledge to me, but maybe that's true. It just seems from the talk above that the idea is confusing and thus I think a cite is a good idea. Oren0 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we'll get a cite for it. Maybe will take a day or two, since my job is beckoning.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of interest groups ratings

User:Grumblepunk has removed all of the interest group ratings from the article, with the edit comment: "Removal of interest group ratings, due to bias and inaccuracy of 3rd party data. If these are to be used, please do so for all candidates."

I do not understand the objection to this data. These groups assemble a list of votes they care about, then measure and rate how well officeholders meet their desired position on those votes. Of course these interest groups are "biased"; that's the whole point. The resultant rating gives measure of a political figure's positions relative to that group's goals. If an officeholder has a 0% NARAL rating or a 90% LCV rating, that tells you something. The cite that goes along with each rating allows the interested reader to see exactly which votes and which positions are being measured, so there's no "inaccuracy" involved (that is, it's transparent which votes the interest group is measuring). And many of the other candidates' articles do include this information in one place or another. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Interest group ratings are relevant when there is some doubt about a matter - whether McCain is a conservative (or a conservative Republican), for example. (That's not a policy,so it doesn't belong on this page, but it's a good example.) On the other hand, if he has repeatedly declared (I'm making this up) that he's against widget sales and consumption in the U.S., then a rating by the pro-widget group Widgets-For-America-USA is irrelevant and doesn't belong in the article, because it doesn't really add any value: McCain presumably has consistently voted against widgets; a 0% rating just takes up space. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source?

The article currently has this link used as a source. Does this anonymous, context-free page really meat Wikpedia's WP:RS guidelines? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See this page for this context. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That page doesn't tell me much. If I look at the "About" page, as far as I can tell, the linked reference is just self-published work by Eric M. Appleman. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, yank it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's gone. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the whole statement plus cited source, why not keep the statement but cite a better source? Like this.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unions?

John McCaine is widely percieved anti-Union. Nothing about unions on this article. 68.230.64.32 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So research it and add it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol?

How is that information relevant? It is not like it has anything to do with his policies or that it makes any difference whatsoever. Contralya (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but only to the point of the issue itself. If we had a section about his thoughts on alcohol policy then we should include this. However, it should not have undue weight vis a vis other issues I feel that most others feel is more important such as foreign and economic policy. Arnabdas (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be his position on the alcohol not to have a position, so it fits under this article. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am ok with the edit as is. Just keep it brief. Arnabdas (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Content-free sentence

"McCain's stances on global warming and other environmental issues have put him at odds with the Bush administration and other Republicans.[56] He has also stated ..."

OK, but what *is* his stance on global warming and other environmental issues?  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.62 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Research it and add it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a POLICY Page

The point of this page is to highlight policies put forth by McCain and also write any criticisms of said policies. I think incidents such as Iseman et al are noteworthy, but they have nothing to do with his actual policies, pro or con. These are character questions of him as a person, not his positions. They belong on the John McCain page in one of the sections. The Iseman situation can be on the 2008 Presidential Campaign article too, since it was raised during the campaign. They do not belong in THIS article. Arnabdas (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lobbying is a major political issue, and McCain's work with lobbyists shows his positions on that issue. SteveSims (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a relationship or relationships with lobbyists has to do with his actual policy position regarding lobbyists. If you said "McCain's position on lobbying is..." and then cite it with a reliable source then that is acceptable. After which, should you choose to throw in the controversy worded accordingly in NPOV then that would work. Just throwing in the controversy without context is just POV pushing. Arnabdas (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Phil Gramm as advisor

RE: McCain's economic policies: Would someone please comment on McCain's reliance on Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican, as his economic advisor? Gramm played a huge role in the current subprime crisis because of his backing of the "shadow economy," pushing through legislation to make some of these rotten "financial instruments" law and not subject to lawsuits. Gramm is just a greedy tool of Wall Street, and if McCain is relying on him, the public should know about it.Ketsitsos (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Budget

"The Arizona senator has no proposal for arresting the growth in America's national debt, much of it owed to China and other foreign creditors, which has nearly doubled under President George W. Bush, to almost $9 trillion (U.S.)." [2] This is from the business section of the Toronto Star, a Reliable sources. Please provide a valid reason for not including this material. Thanks, --Dr.enh (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece. The fact that the newspaper is a reliable source is irrelevant. You could not use a Wall Street Journal or NY Times editorial in the way that you are attempting to use the Toronto Star editorial, either. Paisan30 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a business piece, not an editorial. Read the section heading of the source. --Dr.enh (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an editorial. Read the last line of the article, in which the author suggests that McCain take his name off the ballot. The author, by the way, is listed as a "Columnist" on the web site. Columnists write their opinions - NOT news stories. Paisan30 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece that runs in the business section, and shouldn't be used. Try to find some more straightforward sources that describe McCain's plan for the deficit, if any. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The business sections of the Toronto Star, U. S. News and World Report, and Reuters are all opinion pieces? That sounds a bit far-fetched. from the business section of the Toronto Star, a Reliable sources. Please provide a valid reason for not including this material. Thanks, --Dr.enh (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Reuters piece is fine to use. The USN&WR piece is shaky — it's a blog commentary on other press reactions. The Toronto Star piece is an editorial rant — can't you tell the difference in tone and approach between it and the Reuters piece, for example? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the business section of a newspaper does not constitute a news story. Again, the man is a columnist. Just like Pat Buchanan, Christopher Hitchens, Robert Novak, etc. You could not use any of their pieces as a sole source, and the same holds true for the Toronto Star. And once again, the last line of the story suggests that McCain withdraw from the race. I think that says enough about its POV. Paisan30 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Including this would be ridiculous. This page is about McCain's stated positions, not a criticism page. Only reason why criticism would be valid is if it was for a specific policy already stated by McCain. If we included everything a candidate didnt address, we would have criticism from people saying the candidate has no plan for a defense against an alien invasion from outerspace. Arnabdas (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is about McCain's stated positions, not a criticism page.. Please read WP:NPOV. In no way, shape or form does that say that criticisms or negative information should not be in an article, or that criticisms belong in a separate article.

In fact, reactions by experts, as cited in particular in the Reuters news article, which I am putting back into the article, are precisely on point. If a candidate takes a position that experts think is wrong, it's absolutely necessary to cite those experts (and provide the link for readers) in order to present a balanced (NPOV) picture. Also - Paisan30 - please use edit summaries; leaving the summary blank is quite inappropriate when making an edit that you know other editors are likely to disagree with. (Some editors - like me - sometimes simply revert unexplained deletions as quasi-vandalism.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

John, based on Political Positions of John Edwards and Politics of Bill O'Reilly, this is untrue. You are confusing what I said completely. Of course cited and sourced criticism is valid, but my point is it should be on the issue McCain espouses, not on something he hasn't addressed. Saying "he has no plan on x, y and z" would serve no end. See my example on alien invasions I wrote in my last statement. Now, we know McCain has said he feels we should continue the surge in Iraq because he feels that's working. If we had a criticism of McCain's position, then that should be included (as opposed to a criticism of the surge or of general pro-war thought). Arnabdas (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The main purpose of the "political positions" articles is to describe a political figure's views. We do not want to argue the issues here! By definition, whatever position somebody takes, there are arguments against it. That goes for finance policy, Iraq stance, climate change, abortion, you name it. If we introduce all the arguments for and against McCain's views on each of these, the article will be a thousand pages long. We can point out where McCain's positions have changed over time (as is certainly the case with budget/taxation, for example), and we can point out where his positions might be internally inconsistent, but that's about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid point about it getting long, but if Mac did say something that was flat out factually untrue, I think it should be noted. You do have a point though about his opinions being challenged. What are other's thoughts? Arnabdas (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting there's a hard-and-fast line here, or that WP rules give clear guidance to this kind of article, because I think they don't. With due respect to John Broughton — who literally wrote a book on all this — I'm leery of this statement of his: "If a candidate takes a position that experts think is wrong, it's absolutely necessary to cite those experts (and provide the link for readers) in order to present a balanced (NPOV) picture." In most cases, there will be experts on both sides of whatever McCain (or any politico) says, and to introduce citations to those experts will end up in us arguing the issue here. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, regarding Saying "he has no plan on x, y and z" would serve no end. See my example on alien invasions I wrote in my last statement. - If the media were discussing why McCain had taken no position on alien invasions, and the Democratic nominee was attacking him for not taking a position, then that would be newsworthy, precisely because it was in the news. On the other hand, if an editor decides that McCain should have a position on (whatever), and it's of no interest to the media and his opponent, then raising the issue without a citation is a WP:NOR problem, and including a discussion when something is not newsworthy is an WP:NPOV problem (space and weight). All I was trying to say (apologies for misinterpretations) is that the article should go where the media goes (to some extent, at least), because that's a big factor in how we should determine what is important and what is not. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Added section on projected 2013 Defict under McCain's economic plans from Think Progress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And you think a site which contains the language "McCain’s 'magic carpet ride' speech ... after McCain’s four years of Bush-style fiscal irresponsibility, tax breaks for corporations, and more tax cuts for the wealthy ... John McCain’s 2013: More of the same, but worse." is a WP:RS because ... ? Wasted Time R (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Because its frequently sourced by even nonpartisan and moderate sites, not to mention its part of the center for American progress action fund, andbases its data off of CBO data, until you prove that its a fringe group or inaccurate, i'm adding it back, just because you don't like that they are attacking McCain's plans, doesn't mean their data is inaccurate. Also I added a link to the .pdf file of the report so you can look at the methodology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Added reference to Washington Post fact checking of McCain's economic plans with citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Including criticism

I have reverted this edit, which removed criticism. Apparently the critic cited, being "liberal", was not acceptable to the editor. That's wrong - "selective" criticism IS acceptable to Wikipedia - unless there is a policy or guideline (which I'm unaware of) that says that criticism may only be cited if it is from a neutral source. (If the editor is proposing that all comments by members of the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institute, the AEI, and numerous other conservative think tanks be removed from all Wikipedia articles, a good place to start would be at WP:VPPR.)

Further, the removed information including a link to a Reuters article discussing (see the article title) the views a number of critics, not just a single one. If an editor doesn't like the one that was in the article, he/she is free to select other text that faithfully reflects the tenor of the article but seems more neutral. Wikipedia isn't a game of whack-a-mole - if you don't like something, modify it, don't delete it. That's one of the ways that consensus can be reached. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the critic is from a liberal policy group (as described in the source article) is not the main issue. The main issue is that it is merely the opinion of one economist out of the many who exist. Paisan30 (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

John, you haven't engaged the main question, which is what is the rationale for including criticism in any of the "political positions" articles. By definition, every position a politician takes is opposed and criticized by others (unless it's a completely vacuous motherhood-and-apple-pie sort of thing). If we say that politician X is for the death penalty, do we really want to introduce all the arguments against it? and then for it? Where does that get us? If we say that politician Y supports higher farm subsidies, do we really want to get into a discussion here of all the points of view about whether farm subsidies are beneficial or counterproductive? I think most of the time, it's best just to say what these politicians' views are on these issues and leave it at that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. It seems like we'd be inviting the next person to introduce a source which quotes a conservative economist who agrees with McCain's plan. And then another to refute those opinions... and then... and then... Paisan30 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I've been thinking about this. Let me propose some principles for discussion:

(1) This article isn't the place for a to-and-fro debate about a the merits of common political positions. By "common", I mean things like being in favor of or opposed to Net Neutrality, or gun control. Wikipedia articles specifically about those topics are where the merits or lack thereof of such a position should be debated, not here. So it's incumbent upon us, as editors, to clearly link to such Wikipedia articles, and then to remove attempts by either side (arguing for or against McCain's position) to expand the discussion. (To put it more positively, the goal should be to channel the energy of editors interested in such issues into the Wikipedia articles about those issues.)

(2) By contrast, where McCain has proposed something that is much more personal - for example, taxation and deficit reduction - the views of critics are relevant. But the real value to readers comes in providing links to articles that discuss such political positions in depth, so we should be brief (a sentence or two for a given source, plus a link).

(3) Similarly, where McCain has made a contested causal claim (as opposed to expressing a value, as in (2)), then including criticism (and support) is appropriate. By "causal claims", I mean things like "if we reduce taxes, tax revenues for the U.S. government will actually increase, not decrease" - something I don't think McCain has said, but something universally derided by experts.

(4) Where including criticism is appropriate, per (3), citations should be to articles where McCain's views are being discussed, not to articles with generic counterarguments. So, for example, if McCain said "the earth is flat", the article should NOT then note that scientists think it's round; rather, only criticism of McCain specifically, on this point, should be in this Wikipedia article. That again will help keep this article from turning into a debating forum about issues.

(5) To elaborate on (4) - as tempting as it may be to find an article by an expert who is either criticizing or supporting McCain's non-common political positions, or causal claims, and then cite that expert, we should try to minimize that. The preferable source is a newspaper or magazine article about an issue, because this minimizes any arguments here about POV-pushing (do we cite one liberal economist and one conservative economist, or two liberals and one conservative rebuttal, etc.) That doesn't mean just saying "critics have disagreed", plus a cite - including specifics in the article makes it interesting. But it does mean we should try to be concise, which in turn means that linking to pay-for-viewing content, for example, should be avoided, because readers then can't get details easily.

(5) We shouldn't quote opponent's views, including views of Democratic party officials, nor the views of political supporters. If such views are making the news, they belong in the Wikipedia article about the presidential campaign, not this article.

(6) We want to include positions, not platitudes. As a rule of thumb, if no reasonable person is likely to oppose something it's not a position, it's a platitude. ("McCain is in favor of strong families", or "McCain believes that every child is entitled to a good education" - and again, I'm just making these up, without looking at the campaign site - aren't worth an editor's time to cut-and-paste into the article; if nothing else, they make the article boring for readers.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't understand your distinction between "common" and "personal" in 1 and 2. To me, budget/finance/tax policy as just as much a "common" issue as your examples of Net neutrality or gun control. I'm sure you can find WP articles that cover the debates about effects of tax cuts, effects of prolonged budget deficits, etc. So I must be missing what you're getting at. Without understanding this, I can't comment much on the rest. However, I think your blanket assertion in 3 would get challenged — there are probably some economists would support the notion in general (if not many), and more who would say that increases in revenue after tax cuts are possible in certain situations, such as maybe when the top marginal rate is so high (90% has been known in Western countries in the past) as to discourage some kinds of basic investments and behavior. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What I was trying to get to was that that if the pros and cons of a position of McCain's are covered at another page on Wikpedia - as with net neutrality - then we shouldn't replicate the debate here. Which includes criticisms; rather, we want to point the reader to the other Wikipedia article. By contrast, when McCain takes a position or makes an assertion that's unique - such as claims about what his plan for tax cuts and spending cuts would accomplish, then this article is the right place to discuss (at least briefly) the pros and cons of that, assuming that it's not covered somewhere else. That "uniqueness" approach is useful, for example, concerning comments about McCain changing his position on an issue over time - while they might also show up article on McCain's campaigns, they are most relevant to this article, because this article has better context. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem comes when only the pros or only the cons are mentioned. Presenting only one side is POV, by definition. Paisan30 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if the pros are mentioned in the article, then the cons should be mentioned too, and vice versa. But only if the pros and cons come from Reliable third-party sources. For example, if every reliable source says that McCain's bugdet numbers are $200 billion away from adding up, then Wikipedia should not include unreliable self-pulished sources such as think tanks publishing their own work or McCain's own website in an attempt to "present the other side" that perhaps his numbers do add up. Same thing when all reliable sources say that McCain has reversed his position.--Dr.enh (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality of the article

The existing content is a good start, but there is still too much unsourced text, too many footnotes that don't fully follow WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE, and too many cases where sourced text in the article could be better. (For example, I think it's generally better to quote a sentence or two of what McCain has said or wrote, if that is available in the source and gets at the heart of the matter, than to make a personal interpretation.)

This is an article that is getting roughly 1000 page views per day - it would be great if several editors could remove some of the imperfections. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the quality of most or all of these "political positions" articles isn't very good, for similar reasons. I know that while I've worked heavily on the McCain and Hillary main articles and biographical subarticles, I haven't put much time or effort into these articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Speeches

I didn't know how to reference this, but according to one of his speeches, McCain opposes ethanol subsidies. He goes on to talk about his opposition to subsidies in general. Link to speech http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/05b932cd-b2e4-4863-a22f-6b84c893121a.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.160.72 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Should the article include a paragraph about a single vote?

I again removed the following information: McCain voted in support of the USA PATRIOT Act, as did all but two of the Senators.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313]</ref>.

To quote my edit summary the first time I removed it this text and its source: Removing a sentence about a vote on a bill that passed 98-1-1; per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information; vote was NOT a news story.

The editor who put the sentence back in, said, in the edit summary: Restore; it is a political position, and one he still holds, unlike some of the 98.

I note the following issues:

• My point about WP:NOT has not been addressed. McCain has made literally thousands of votes in the Senate and House. Editors should not simply add facts to a Wikipedia article because they personally think they are important. (I agree that this is a "political position"; but that isn't the threshold criteria for inclusion in the article.)

• My point about the lack of a news story about McCain's vote has not been addressed. Clearly it wasn't controversial when it occurred, so there wouldn't have been stories then. If in fact the relevant thing is that McCain still holds this position, and that is controversial or newsworthy, then what is appropriate is to put that information into the story, appropriately sourced to a news story. (A citation for the actual vote, in that case, isn't really relevant - no one is disputing that he in fact cast the vote.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would include it, and then follow it with his position on the 2006 renewal of it. That's what Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Anti-terrorism_and_domestic_surveillance does. The Patriot Act is a major piece of legislation, so even if he voted with the majority both times, it's still notable. He may have also had a hand in shaping it, either the first time or second time, which would also be notable (I don't know, I'm just saying if). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I originally added the reference to the Patriot Act because I saw it on Mrs. Clinton's page and its absence on Mr. McCain's page struck me as POV. If you want to remove it from both places, that would make me feel a little better. But I do think that it is relevant to reference such a vote on pages related to their political stances, as it would be for any of the senators who voted in favor of it (or against it). Therefore I will be restoring the reference on the act to this page.

The Patriot Act is one of the most polarizing and important pieces of legislation in a generation. Mr. McCain's vote for it put into question his stance on fundamental human rights and civil liberties and his stance on the constitutionality of such issues as warrantless wiretaps or the use of National Security Letters in libraries. His vote for the act also places in question his view of the United States Constitution as some of the Act’s provisions have been struck down as unconstitutional. Mr. McCain has also made a point in his campaign for president out his strong antiterrorist stance. His reaffirmation of the Patriot Act emphasizes this point.

This information is hardly indiscriminant. I certainly acknowledge the political nature of this page, and that calling attention to Mr. McCain's vote may have political repercussions. However, this concern is at least in part alleviated but noting that he was in the vast majority of senators voting in favor of passage. I will also say that whether Mr. McCain's vote was controversial is a particularly poor way of deciding whether or not his vote is relevant to this page, which is meant to inform about facts, not the press' opinion about something.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss my objection entirely (I have no idea why "political repercussions" are being mentioned, for example). I mentioned "controversial" as a shorthand way of saying "discussed in the media". I think you need to review WP:NPOV, which makes it quite clear that the space and weight given to an aspect of a topic should be proportional to its importance. And importance is NOT defined as what you or I or any other single editor thinks, but rather - because there is no other way to decide things - the extent to which reliable sources discuss something.

The critical thing is the need to include citations which provide the context you keep mentioning - polarizing legislation, human rights, view of the constitution, etc. My suspicion is that these things show up in blogs and discussion boards, not in news articles. And I again refer you to WP:NOT - if the only thing that the press has reported about McCain's vote is the vote itself, then that is simply an indiscriminate fact. If the press has reported (say) the reaction on blogs and discussion boards, then fine, include both the vote and the discussion of it by the press.

WP:V is relevant: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. You have a strong opinion about that vote (that is, about what the vote really means) - and that's irrelevant to what this article can and cannot include, if policy is followed.

Finally, since there now is a bit of context in the article, I'm not going to delete the mention of the vote, again. But I certainly encourage the addition of more context, if it's available. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Herbert as a source

By this edit, Wasted Time R removed a link to a column by Bob Herbert, commenting, "an op-ed columnist is not a reliable or neutral source".

Not reliable? He has a regular op-ed column in The New York Times. He's had it for years. Do you think that, just because it's op-ed, he could or would simply make stuff up? He wouldn't still have the column if he did things like that. Your comment suggests that it would be reliable if some cub reporter for a small-circulation weekly heard McCain speak at the local high school, misunderstood something he said, and reported it in a news story. As between these two sources, I would consider Herbert far more reliable.

Not neutral? It doesn't have to be. We frequently cite publications like The Wall Street Journal that have a pronounced agenda. Indeed, I see at least one such citation in this very article. An opinion shouldn't be presented as fact, but the particular passage for which I cited Herbert doesn't include his derogatory opinions about McCain.

Of course, Herbert is a prominent spokesperson, so it would be consistent with WP:NPOV to include a passage like, "McCain has been criticized (for example, by op-ed columnist Bob Herbert) for his opposition to the Webb bill...." For the mere factual report, though, no such attribution is necessary. JamesMLane t c 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Historically, opinion columnists don't get fact-checked the same way that regular newspaper reporters do. In recent years this has changed a bit, but not enough. Nor of course do they edited for fairness and balance the same way that regular newspaper reporters do. The same goes for the op-ed pieces at the WSJ, which are often slanted and biased up the kazoo. Regular news section stories from both publications, yes; op-ed pieces from both publications, no. And as a practical matter, if McCain has done what Herbert says he has done, you should have no trouble finding regular news sources to use as a cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's say you read a news article in a regular newspaper, albeit a local one, and the reporter, whose name you don't recognize, reports that McCain spoke in town on Monday and supported the Webb bill. Then you read Herbert's column in the Times saying McCain opposes the bill. If it is given that McCain for once hasn't flip-flopped, but has been consistent about the bill, and that one of these two sources is therefore incorrect on a matter of objective fact, which one would you consider to be more reliable?

In a case like this, I'd try to find a third source, and a fourth source, and figure out what was going on. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that intoning "op-ed" doesn't resolve the point. Some op-ed columns are more reliable than some regular newspaper stories by regular newspaper reporters. The point is actual reliability, not fitting a story into a predetermined category.

I thought of a right-wing analogy to Herbert's column: National Review magazine. No one would call it objective. It's even more slanted and biased than the Wall Street Journal. So I went to our National Review article, clicked on "What links here", skimmed the list for a political figure, and found Dan Quayle. National Review is the sole source for this sentence in our article: "While the Quayle family was very wealthy, Dan Quayle was less so; his total net worth by the time of his election in 1988 was less than a million dollars." Does your standard mean that the NR link should be removed and replaced with a demand for a citation?

NR sometimes publishes straight pieces of political reporting, which could be used ... this piece on Quayle veers back and forth between that and opinion, and I'd be queasy about using it as a source. The statement being cited is "While Newsweek in 1988 reported that Quayle had more than $50 million, his true net worth at the time was around $859,000, most of it in his house." I don't think this is new reporting from Ponnuru, the author; I'd try to find more sources on this, including the ones who originally reported it, and try to resolve the discrepancy. Does everyone agree that Newsweek was wrong at the time? Is there still disagreement about how to measure his net worth? Etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not accusing you of playing favorites. You don't edit the Quayle article, and you're not required to run around excising every substandard citation everywhere in Wikipedia. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. Note that I didn't have to hunt high and low for an example. I thought of a journal of conservative opinion, checked the links list, picked the first prominent politician on the list, and boom, I had my example. Wikipedia is rife with them. I don't edit Dan Quayle either, but if I did, and someone deleted that citation and replaced it with a "fact" tag, as you did here, I would revert. I consider that citation and this one to be proper under Wikipedia standards. JamesMLane t c 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the Herbert column, there are straight news pieces on this issue out there that cover the same territory. This one from the Daily Press looks good for starters. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are news stories. When I read Herbert's column, it merely reminded me that I'd seen the information in several other places. By contrast, you're right about the Quayle example; I didn't read the entire National Review article so I didn't notice that there was a genuine dispute. In the case of such a dispute, we have to be more careful about sources. If no other information could be found, we'd probably do best to say something like "Newsweek says X and National Review says Y."

I didn't get around to adding other articles about the Webb bill because I wanted to address the more general issue of sources. When a columnist like Herbert makes an assertion about a matter of fact (not opinion), as to which he could readily be called out for any error, I consider it reliable. The assertion and the sourcing should stand unless and until someone else demonstrates that there is such a dispute. JamesMLane t c 12:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Times has in recent years tried to base its opinions on mistruths. There was a recent story about an INS raid in Bedford, MA where the paper said babies were "forcibly weaned away from his mother's breast" and alleged that caused dehydration of the baby. Interestingly enough, Bill O'Reilly investigated and found that there were only two babies admitted in the local hospitals due to dehydration, and they were both due to pneumonia...not the "forcible weaning" the editorial page claimed.

Still, with that said, I think including a piece by Herbert is fine as long as it is attributed to him. We should make clear who it is giving the criticism. Arnabdas (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One example of inaccuracy does not completely discount The Times and all of its editors from being cited as sources on wikipedia. Do you honestly think none of your right wing publications has ever made a false statement? The link should be included. AzureFury (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See the bold print in WP:RS: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." It's a moot point, anyway; there are dozens of regular news reports on the Webb veterans bill and McCain alternative that can be, and are, used instead. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Immigration Issue

The Washington Times reported on May 6, 2008 (in a front page article) that "Sen. John McCain said yesterday that Republicans have shed support among Hispanic voters because of the party's get-tough approach to illegal immigration..." And that "Using a Mexican holiday,Cinco de Mayo, as a launching point, Mr. McCain's presidential campaign announced a Spanish-language Web site... and said the senator will speak to this year's National Council of La Raza convention in San Diego in July to try to court Hispanic voters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Including "liberal think tank" analysis and similar?

Since I've already made two reverts in a similar vein, I wanted to take this issue here, even though I think some of the above talk already makes the point I'm trying to make, specifically in the "Including criticism" section. The article currently quotes two different taxation estimates from a "liberal think tank" to counter McCain's economic policy. Is this warranted in a page about McCain's positions? I say no. From above:

• "I think most of the time, it's best just to say what these politicians' views are on these issues and leave it at that."
• "We shouldn't quote opponent's views, including views of Democratic party officials, nor the views of political supporters. If such views are making the news, they belong in the Wikipedia article about the presidential campaign, not this article." - I'd say that a "liberal think tank" is an opponent of McCain and we can treat this as if it's the Democratic party making these claims.

Therefore I think this material should go. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Without accurate analysis of the consequences of McCain's positions, quotation of McCain's political positions amounts to regurgition of the POV spin more comprehensively found on McCains's website. Example: If McCain were to say he would not raise taxes, then he is taking the positions that (1) he will not raise taxes, and (2) he will either reduce spending or run a deficit. Since McCain is running a campaign, he talks a lot about (1) but not a lot about (2). Wikipedia, as a NPOV site, should include all his positions, not just the ones he likes to talk about a lot.

Wikipedia also has an obligation to use reliable sources in an attempt to state the facts. Will his proposed spending cuts cover the cost of his proposed tax cuts? Neither McCain nor self-pulished sources (be they liberal or conservative) are reliable sources. The best Wikipedia can do, then, is to cite analyses by reliable sources, or (if no such analyses are available) then to cite reliable sources that report the statements of biased sources, and to include wikilinks or information on the biases of these sources. --Dr.enh (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this addresses the issue. One could produce criticisms in reliable sources of any position anybody in this race takes. But that's not what this article is for. This article is supposed to explicate McCain's positions, not reactions or analyses to them. Oren0 (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is about McCain's real positions (according to reliable sources), not his campaign's POV spin on his positions. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

McCain's positions are what he says they are, not what a liberal think tank says they are. And his positions certainly aren't analyses of his positions by liberal think tanks. Oren0 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope this position is only the remark of a single editor; declaring McCain the only acceptable source for this article is clearly POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well clearly, his votes in Congress are a source too. But by definition, every position he takes is opposed by somebody, often in several different ways. That's what politicians do, they take positions in areas of disagreement, and that's what Senators do, they cast votes on legislation that a bunch of other people will vote the opposite way on. We could easily double or quadruple the size of this article by including all the criticisms of his positions, but what would be the point?

The point would be NPOV. This page already includes analysis of McCain's positions in the form of "policy ratings". Under Foreign Policy we have this quote "McCain's 2006 foreign policy rating, compiled by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) , was 58% conservative, 40% liberal". As always, something controversial like this can be directly attributed to the source to remain impartial. We should include these kinds analyses. AzureFury (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Beach Boys Song

This article currently says:

At a VFW Hall in South Carolina in 2007, a veteran asked when the U.S. would "send an air mail message to Iran." McCain replied, "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" and began to sing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."[3] McCain then explained his stance further, saying "Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities. I totally support the president when he says we will not allow Iran to destroy Israel."[4]

There are a bunch of problems with this. Why include two refs, when the second ref is a more complete report? Also, both refs provide audiovideo, and I hear him saying "You mean that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" Additionally, the second cited article quotes Joe Biden as saying that McCain was joking around when he sang the Beach Boys song, and the second cited article explicitly says that McCain did not go so far as to endorse bombing Iran. Singing this song here was not a position statement, but rather was a controversial remark, and that's why it's covered at Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain#Controversial_remarks.

If you want to accuse McCain of supporting a bombing campaign against Iran, can't you come up with anything better than this???

Additionally, not only Fox News but also Associated Press reported that McCain was joking about the Beach Boys, and quoted McCain differently ("That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, 'Bomb Iran'"). See Hennessy, Kathleen. “McCain Message to Joke Critics: Get a Life”, Associated Press (2007-04-20).

I don't think that this is the correct article for McCain's jokes. This is supposed to be about his political positions.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I believe User:Zorodius and User:76.121.142.121 to be the same person, which would make one user supporting this who has been reverted by three different people. Using two different accounts does not exempt a user from WP:3RR but I'm reluctant to revert it again at this point because I've already done so twice. But to me it's clear that not every quote is a position. If we included every quote every candidate ever said on these position pages they'd be miles long and useless. We need to choose the quotes and paraphrases that are representative of the candidate's positions either according to the candidate's website or repeated statements or according to reliable sources. I've yet to see any source indicating that this is supposed to be his position on anything. Oren0 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. These "Political positions" articles are meant to convey just that, deliberate policy preferences. If a politician makes a stupid remark or dumbass joke, that's not a political position. If a politician makes a verbal blunder that's quickly corrected, that's not a political position. If a politician makes a deliberate policy statement that attracts a lot of heat and they weasel out of it a couple of months later, now that's something we do include here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If your argument is merely that it is not a "political position" of John McCain, why do you insist on removing all links to the page where the quote is covered? Who says that this page is merely for deliberate policy preferences? Which is more honest, something carefully planned and purposefully published, or a quote caught on a cellphone camera? It is not a wiki editor's job to decide that the public does not need to know something. If Obama joked about bombing Iran I would absolutely want to know. The title of the page where it is covered is not likely to be found by casual searching, so at the very least it should be referenced in this section.

The final edit including the "bomb bomb" quote included a complete explanation of his statements that day. Exactly what was cut out was the part that was most damaging. This is exactly censoring. Do not try to pretend this is about anything else. If you want to argue about exactly what was said, whether it was "You know..." or "You mean..." then include both quotes and who attributed them to McCain. Pretty simple journalistic decision making there.

Additionally, I think the accusations of vandalism are laughable. That he made this statement is fact, so you're calling TOO MUCH true information vandalism. Zorodius and I are not the same person. We're just both passionate about letting people know all the facts before they make a decision. I'm sure it's easy to form a consensus with other people who frequent this page on matters that arouse suspicion about John McCain. More people does not mean more correct. This quote will somehow be referenced on this page.AzureFury (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not vandalism. Nobody's saying the thing doesn't belong in Wikipedia. We're just saying it's a controversial remark, not a political position, and thus belongs in Cultural and political image of John McCain and not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If your thing about vandalism is directed at me, I didn't say it was vandalism. I said it was an edit war. Quite simply, not everything a candidate says is his position. There is a difference between a statement a candidate makes and a position they hold. Would you support a statement added to the Obama positions page that he believes that there are 57 states? Of course not. Oren0 (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll speak for my self, thanks. If Obama said there were 57 states while the statehood of 7 territories was in question, I absolutely would want to know about it. The difference between saying there are 57 states and parodying a song with the words "bomb Iran" is one might indicate the desire to start a war and one does not. This not an apt comparison.

Also, John McCain is the only major candidate with a seperate "Cultural and Political image" page. Neither his main page nor this page (now, thanks to you guys) even mentions this quote.

This page includes both actions and quotes by John McCain. Not simply quotes of him saying where he stands on something. The fact that he is joking about bombing Iran is worthy of mention. As is the interview in response to that joke where he says to people that don't understand it, "get a life."AzureFury (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Say it was a joke, if you have a reliable source for that - that's interesting; but include it - readers should know why we do not count something, or they will add it themselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this would be given serious consideration. This is an article concerning political positions of John McCain, not controversial jokes of John McCain. By all means, if that article ever gets started and avoids being deleted, include it. But bombing Iran is not a position of McCain, and this isn't an article for jokes. Trilemma (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That article does exist, Cultural and political image of John McCain#Controversial remarks. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's what I get for being sarcastic ;) Well, that's where it belongs, not here. Trilemma (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article includes the "bomb bomb" comment as well as how it relates to his position. Sorry guys but saying "it's not his position" doesn't cut it as a reason to remove the quote anymore. Follow the wiki guidelines and include both sides of any controversial issue fully and fairly. There is no guideline saying, "never repeat something that is in another article."AzureFury (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone could put up an WP:RFC on this it'd be helpful so we can build consensus and stop revert warring. I'd do it myself but I'm at work and don't have time until the end of the day. Oren0 (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Does the "Bomb bomb Iran" incident belong in this article?

Speaking to a group of veterans, McCain made a comment about a Beach Boy song called "Bomb Iran," and started singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." Some editors feel this is relevant to his political positions, as some believe suggests he advocates military action against Iran. Other editors feel that, since he was making a comment rather than stating a position, and since the comment does not appear to have been meant literally, that it belongs at Cultural and political image of John McCain#Controversial remarks, but not in this particular article.

(Full disclosure: I attempted to state the problem in an unbiased manner, but I belong to the latter group, i.e. against inclusion of the quote. So correct for potential bias as necessary)

We'd like previously uninvolved editors to weigh in on this. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just add that this page is for the political positions of McCain and not one reliable source I'm aware of has said this is a position of his, however many sources have said it was a joke. Oren0 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're intentionally or unintentionally missing the point. I don't dispute that McCain has denied it was a promise to bomb Iran. The question is whether or not it was an unconscious slip, that despite all his public posturing, he is personally committed to bombing Iran. Dictionary.com defines "position" as "a rationalized mental attitude". This "bomb Iran" comment may or may not reveal his position more honestly than his purposeful public statements. Leave it to the reader to decide.AzureFury (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, I think it's cute that in the talk page you call it the "Beach boys song" incident rather than the "Bomb bomb iran" incident. Interesting.AzureFury (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, you are picky. I changed it to "Bomb bomb Iran" incident. I really don't care. Anyway, from now on, I would please like to only hear from previously uninvolved editors on the RfC. We already know what your opinion, my opinion, and OrenO's opinion is, and that didn't get us anywhere. Let's here from some other folks, shall we, hmm? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "Bomb, bomb Iran" comment should be a part of this article. A candidate's attitude towards diplomacy is an important part of his or her political position. No one is arguing that Senator McCain wasn't trying to get a laugh when he said it. Nonetheless, it was revealing of his attitude towards the situation. I think that a visitor to the page who was interested in reading up on McCain's political position regarding Iran would certainly be interested in knowing that he said this.

I think both the comment, and McCain's later explanation of it should be a part of the "Iran" section of this article. If the purpose of the page was merely to repeat carefully-censored information published by McCain's campaign, you could save time by just replacing the entire thing with a link to his personal website. Zorodius (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of the identity of this editor. Also, I guess I'm not previously uninvolved, but just to restate it, I am absolutely against the inclusion of an off-the-cuff joke in an article about the political positioning of a candidate. Trilemma (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As an otherwise uninvolved editor, I believe that the remark is definitely germane to an encyclopedic treatment of a man running for president of the United States, most especially with so much strife ongoing regarding the situations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran. That being said, I do not believe this is the proper article to detail it. The purpose of a "Political positions" article is to detail a politician's stated political positions and to detail his voting record (whether be they congruous or incongruous with his stated position). This sort of remark, should it be properly sourced, is better suited in an article detailing controversies or criticisms than it is here. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the phrase doesn't present a unique political position by itself, but it certainly shows that McCain takes a very negative view of Iran. Karen Dolan, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C., seems to take the remarks seriously.([5]). Even Fox News thinks that he used the phrase to "make a point"([6]). But we should note anyone's view that McCain was perhaps joking. We should also not give this UNDUE weight.Bless sins (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. It should be included. The issue is very notable, and the quote is pretty heavily used. Not including it here would constitute a form of censorship. YahelGuhan (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a view that he was joking, it's a fact. Trilemma (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeating that doesn't make it true. He says it was just a joke, that's all that is fact. AzureFury (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The only fact here is that he said it. Nobody disputes that. But do we have reliable sources indicating that the quote represents a position? Oren0 (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment about Yahel Guhan's contention that not including it would "constitute a form of censorship" -- please read WP:CENSOR more carefully. This would constitute a form of editorial control. Note once again that the remark is already included at Cultural and political image of John McCain#Controversial remarks. Those of us who oppose its inclusion here are not trying to censor the remark from Wikipedia, no no no... we merely believe that it is extraneous here. We all agree that it is highly notable that a presidential candidate made such a controversial remark. But just because it's notable doesn't mean it belongs in every article. Or perhaps we should add the remark to Sloppy joe and Fawn-breasted and Doughnut as well? heh.. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First off I would ask if this article is about John McCain's positions on the issues, or John McCain's officially stated positions on the issues. If it is only on the latter, then the introduction to this article should state that, and I think this quote may or may not be appropriate. One could argue it's not an officially stated position, but on the other hand it was given by him at a speech, not recorded on some cell phone behind the scenes. If the article is on John McCain's actual positions, then I think the quote should be included because it speaks to his actual position (on the extreme side it indicates that he is interested in attacking Iran, on the less extreme side, it indicates that he may not feel he shouldn't joke about bombing a country, and on a positive note, it may indicate that even in the face of a serious issue he is relaxed). Furthermore, in my opinion, the fact that it was a joke doesn't disqualify it from being an indication of his position, e.g. if a politician made a racist joke in a speech, that would speak to his position on race; or if a democrat running for office said, in a speech, as a joke, "yeah sometimes i just want to shoot those republicans", and the crowd laughed, it would still speak to his position on bipartisanship. RobHar (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't made in a speech, but rather in a town hall meeting where he was responding to a question from a local citizen. A public setting, yes, but not a planned response. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by speech I simply meant public speaking event. RobHar (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, McCain's lousy at set speeches, where he reads the teleprompter badly and comes across as stiff, but good at town halls, where he just wings it and is more natural and his personality comes through. But when he's winging it, by his nature he sometimes says dumb or incautious things. Doesn't mean those things are part of his policy portfolio ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So, none of these comments actually contradict any of my points (and that was probably not the point of the comments, but I would like to make that clear). Just to be clear, i think that:

1) If this article is only about the "officially sanctioned" (past and) present positions of John McCain, then that should be made clear in the intro, and a link to possible dissent, should be provided (namely Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain#Controversial_remarks), though it seems like in many articles dissent is usually provided within the article in a separate section.

If this article is about trying to present McCain's actual position then:

2) That a comment was a joke doesn't make it irrelevant to the person's position.

And just to be clear, if some one wants to discuss this with me I am capable of changing my mind. Also, what McCain is lousy at or good at is rather irrelevant (unless on this position page, we'd want to add "position on political speeches" and say he'd rather risk saying dumb or incautious things than being stiff (j/k)). RobHar (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's #2 in general. If any reliable source says that something is his position, that's one thing. But it's original research for us to say that this joke represents his position without sources that say that. Oren0 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I buy that (and WP:OR has not been used in this discussion until now). Upon googling there are certainly a lot of people who say it's "not a joke", but none that I found that were "reliable sources". So I think my position is that, barring someone finding a reliable source (or three), it should not be included as per WP:OR. (On a side note, I think #1 should still be discussed, but perhaps at a later time). RobHar (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the claim that this violates WP:OR is a joke. I gave 4 citations in my last edit of people saying it was not just a joke. Admittedly, 3 of them were liberal leaning publications, but that doesn't change the fact that it someone else saying it and not the editor. Additionally, the edit was phrased "led to accusations," which is pure fact. Some people think it is his position to bomb Iran. That is fact which is and has been trivially demonstrated through citation.

I would not be opposed to a link in this section and others (such as Economy Policy) to seperate articles covering criticisms of his policy, as long as there was a short explanation as to what to expect there. AzureFury (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm convinced by your citations. The GlobalSecurity.org link doesn't even mention McCain in the article (it just links to the youtube video). And the other citations are really quite left leaning (like a political ad from moveon.org). Things that Obama has said and done have "led to accusations" (that I'm sure can be found on right leaning "news" websites) that he is a terrorist/secret (extremist) muslim/whatever far-stretched accusation. That does not mean that on his version of this article, under terrorism, it should read "It has been said that Obama actually is a terrorist and thus clearly supports terrorism."

Also, your phrasing, in your edit, implies that this article thinks that "bomb iran" is McCain's position. Indeed, you say "then explained his stance further" (italics added for emphasis). It seems clear that this article is at best unsure whether this is his stance, and thus the phrasing shouldn't in my opinion, subtly imply that it is his stance.

I'd be technical and say that his comment "led to accusations" is not "pure fact" but rather mostly fact, but with a good enough dose of ommission. Rather, it seems it led to accusations from the "left".

I'm not going to revert cuz I consider myself to only be participating in this request for comment as an outsider, and furthermore, I don't know the policy on editing a contentious part of a wiki article during an RfC. RobHar (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought an article describing in detail how to go about attacking Iran encircling a youtube link to the video of McCain singing was a heavy enough implication to include it as a reference, but if you feel that's too much of a stretch, I am willing to remove it, as I have 3 other sources.

As for your comparison of "McCain wants to bomb Iran" to "Obama is a terrorist", I would say that is not fair. People have suggested that he is MUSLIM, not a terrorist. Here is the difference; McCain has said he might bomb Iran, and Obama has never said he will do any terrorist activities.

You don't need to be a democrat to suspect McCain of wanting to bomb Iran after he sings that song. It is presumptive to say that ONLY people on the left are making that accusation. I wouldn't be surprised if people who call themselves "independents" also believe this. But if you want to add something like, "...have led politically left organizations to accuse him..." I'd be fine with that. AzureFury (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The youtube video in the GlobalSecurity.org article starts from the beginning of the audience member's question. This guy's question is entirely about how iran deserves to be bombed and when they hell is america finally going to "send an air mail message to Iran". The question alone is possibly good enough to include the video as relevant. McCain's answer (after the song) seems to make it clear that if Iran attacked Israel, he'd be in favour of bombing them. This clearly justifies the video being included in the GlobalSecurity.org article. The actual singing of "bomb iran" is not necessary for the relevance of the video to the article.

What about fox's "terrorist fist bump?" comment? What about [7]? (watch the video, it's ridiculous). In my opinion, in the past, the right has been much more successful on positioning their media outlets as being more in the center. It would be dangerous to start including left-wing "news" sites as sole citations, because the same would have to be true of right-wing news sites.

As for my opinion on what the song meant, after watching the clip many, many times over the last few days, I think it's entirely possible that he was just trying to be funny. The guy's question never mentioned "bombing iran", and he ended with "air mail". McCain could've easily said "Oh like bomb iran?" without singing, but he thought we has just too gosh darn funny to do that. And then he says, "anyways" (which is a pretty clear cut-off transition word), and gives his answer. I think that this point of view is a completely plausible, it may not be correct, but unless we know it's wrong, or unless many "centrist" "news" media outlets say it may be wrong, I think it shouldn't be included.

Furthermore, I think the most clearly interesting point in this exchange (in terms of McCain's Iran position) is that the questioner lists all sort of things that we "know" are true, and then basically calls for bombing iran now (as Bush did with Iraq when it had perceived threats), and all McCain answered was, well you know if they go for Israel we'll do something. McCain did not say, "you know those things you say are known to be true aren't", and he certainly did not say that the US should not bomb iran now. RobHar (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for verifiable facts, and as far as I'm concerned unless you have a quote from him or a reliable source indicating that he intends to bomb Iran, that is hearsay. Do I personally believe McCain wants to bomb Iran? Absolutely, as do many other people, but baseless belief and intuition are not the building blocks of a good encyclopedia. L'Aquatique[review] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My whole reason for including the citations for the accusations was to show that it was a popularly held belief, that not just I or my friends believed it. I was avoiding the claim of WP:OR. Of course no paper intending to be objective will say that McCain wants to bomb Iran.

Again, I've never claimed McCain has overtly said he will bomb Iran, nor that this song is a clear endorsement. My idea is that people coming to this article want to know more about John McCain and where he stands, and to simply say he "will bomb Iran if it attacks Israel" simply because he has publicly and deliberately stated that is not enough. Politicians lie or conceal truth, on both sides. We should absolutely describe in detail his actions consistent and inconsistent with his stated policies. This "joke" is worthy of noting since it could potentially reveal what he is thinking and not saying in regards to his position towards Iran.

A widely held belief is absolutely material fit for an Encyclopedia. My edit never says "McCain might bomb Iran if elected", it says "people believe McCain might bomb Iran if elected". If you need proof: I believe McCain might bomb Iran if elected. The fact is verified. As for the basis of this belief, not that it matters as people believe many things without reason, the joke itself gives basis. You could argue that other policies can add to the basis, such as his support for the Iraq war, or saying we might stay in Iraq for the next 10,000 years. I didn't think an indepth explanation of commonly held liberal views would be appropriate for this section. Of course, that sort of thing could always be referenced. AzureFury (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the major point is that no paper intending to be objective has said that McCain's singing indicates something about his position on bombing iran. So yeah you can say that your references get around WP:OR because they show some people think it meant he wanted to bomb iran, but i guess my point of view was that the WP:OR referred to saying that unbiased people thought his singing meant anything. RobHar (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is not a political position unless a WP:RS says it is. Otherwise, it may be a political position, or it may be an off-the-cuff joke. WP:CRYSTAL says we shouldn't try to speculate which. Absent a source that calls it such, the quote does not belong here; however discussion of the quote and the controversy generated probably does belong at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Roll call

So we can try to determine where consensus lies on this, let's get a head count of who stands where. I'm basing this on comments in the talk page regarding this and I apologize if I miscategorize you. The current count is 8-5 opposed. Oren0 (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion:User:AzureFury, User:Bless sins (?), User:Yahel Guhan, User:Zorodius, User:JCDenton2052
• Oppose inclusion:User:Oren0, User:Trilemma, User:Wasted Time R, User:Ferrylodge, User:Jaysweet, User:Blaxthos, User:RobHar, User: L'Aquatique

Added Zorodius and removed RobHar as he has not explicitly stated his position. This count is 6-4 opposed. AzureFury (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Add me as supporting it. However, if McCain has made a retraction, add that too so that it will be balanced. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:RobHar said: "barring someone finding a reliable source (or three), it should not be included." How that qualifies as "not having stated his position" is beyond me, given that he later said he doesn't buy the sources presented. Oren0 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my current position could be unclear, as i only said "I'm not sure I'm convinced by your citations", but I do agree that my position is currently "oppose" (and I don't agree with the reliability of the citations). 128.112.16.36 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Oops, I wasn't logged in. RobHar (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding my name to the list, but I'd like to remind you that voting is not a proper way to determine consensus! L'Aquatique[review] 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that. It's worht point out that User:Yahel Guhan's Support !vote, for instance, only made a case for the quote should be included on Wikipedia, not why it should be included in this article. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out where people stand. To me the consensus seems clear but AzureFury keeps re-adding the material (and replacing the whole Iran section with the joke, which I think we can all agree is ridiculous) anyway. Oren0 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You always say you have consensus even when you don't. You claimed to have consensus when 4 people were opposed to inclusion and 3 people supported it. Don't try to take the moral high ground, your removing the edit is exactly as bad as my replacing it. I've shown my willingness to compromise. Just because the page is specifically for his "positions" doesn't mean you can't include or reference quotes or actions that portray him unfavorably. This page doesn't even have a "See Also" section.

I like how you say "replacing the whole Iran section with the joke" when I never deleted what was already in the section. It is an addition, not a replacement. Great exaggeration though. AzureFury (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So add a "see also" section if you think there should be one. If you think that a "compromise" is that the first sentence about Iran is about the Beach Boys song, then we have very different definitions of compromise. If you were willing to turn this into one sentence at the end of the Iran section, that'd be compromise. And intentionally deceptive edit summaries and 3RR violations aren't exactly inspiring evidence of the "moral high ground" either. Furthermore, the consensus still opposes, and you still haven't addressed either of our major points: 1) It's original research to say that the joke has anything to do with McCain's policies unless reliable sources (read: not an op-ed or political blog) says it does. 2) This is adequately covered elsewhere. 3) WP:WEIGHT tells us that even if we include it its inclusion should be much more minor than his general policy in Iran (read: not first and not as long as the entire rest of his position). 4) The majority of editors still oppose its inclusion. If you work towards addressing these points, then we'd work towards inclusion. Oren0 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it at the top because I thought it fit more smoothly there. My edit was not deceptive, it just wasn't descriptive. I fixed the spacing *in my edit*. In response to your points... 1) It is not original research if other people have come to the same conclusion. I could argue that saying "he's joking" is just as unreliable because the original source to say it was just a joke was McCain himself, and he is obviously going to be biased on that matter. 2) It is standard in most articles (that I've read at least) to give a brief description and a link to something related. This was my second edit if I recall, but apparently "bomb bomb" was too much of an eye-sore. 3) The first edit was two sentences, but this wasn't enough to cover it fairly.

I'll see if I can't think up something more agreeable. AzureFury (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the whole Iran section, I tried to be as fair as possible while at the same time making it interesting. I included a reference to the article covering the joke but did not include the words "bomb bomb" in this edit. I'm just now realizing that I forgot to include the World Cup thing. Totally unintentional, I'd put it back but I'm waiting to see what everyone else thinks about the rest. AzureFury (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PP Lock

I've placed a partial lock on the page due to continued edits by an anonymous editor, who is insisting on going against the established consensus that McCain's 'bomb bomb bomb' joke does not reflect a position and does not warrant being on the page. Trilemma (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did not place a "partial lock", as you are not an administrator. You did request partial page protection, however that request has been denied. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, the latest one was declined. An earlier one was not ;) Trilemma (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Sorry for not paying closer attention to the dates. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by JamesMLane

I would like to discuss some specific edits user JamesMLane has been making. I feel that they create a situation of NPOV language and format. Specifically:

"McCain's stances on global warming and other environmental issues have often put him at odds with the Bush administration and other Republicans. has been removed twice. Each time I have added a new citation. Both are with major news organizations and both confirm the statement.

"In 2004, when McCain was asked, "Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?", he answered, "No."2004 National Political Awareness Test" continues to be added. I feel that this is not proper as I have supplied a direct quote explaining his full trade philosophy as supplied by his website. This survey would be answering a subset of specific issues that fall under McCain's general philosophy of not renegotiating trade agreements. It's about as worthy of including as if he answered the question, "do you support renegotiating trade agreements on behalf of the Illumanati. I feel that it's best to just let his overall, stated philosophy on this issue stand [00:22, June 24, 2008 Trilemma]

I'm against including the first. Trying to bring Bush into the equation is just a trouble magnet, let's stick to what McCain thinks. Significant McCain mavericknesses are already described in the bio articles.

On the second, we should give the fullest McCain position on trade agreements vs workers rights vs environmental concerns, with all possible context. Just putting in a "No" doesn't look like it gives the full context and details of what McCain thinks on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with the second point--that's why I think it's sufficient to remove that poll and let stand the point that McCain does not favor renegotiation of free trade agreements, period. On the second point, I think it comes down to whether we're having this as McCain's positions in a vacuum or in the broader context of McCain and his positioning relative to his party. I can understand where some of this belongs in the cultural image article, but I think at the same time, it may be relevant to note in this article the political positions and positioning of McCain. This can certainly open up a can of worms, though, I will grant that. Trilemma (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very important to note that McCain's opinions on environmental issues deviate from the party mainstream. That said, Wasted Time R makes an excellent point about bringing Bush into the conversation. (After all, while it may be unavoidable to talk about other people's political positions in relation to McCain's, the article we are discussing here is not Political positions of George W. Bush).

My suggestion would be to change the sentence to read: "McCain's stances on global warming and other environmental issues have often put him at odds with the GOP mainstream. "

Maybe "mainstream" is a loaded term here, but you get my gist: Rather than mention Bush directly, contrast it with the party instead. Make any sense? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Environmental issues: The article makes clear that, on environmental issues, McCain sometimes agrees with Bush and sometimes disagrees. McCain supporters, fearful of Bush's unpopularity, will emphasize the latter point; McCain's opponents will emphasize the former. I don't see how the reader's understanding is improved by quoting one side's spin.

Of course, in this instance, we don't even reach that question because no one has cited such an overall characterization. The disputed passage (with footnotes converted to inline citations for convenience) reads: "McCain's stances on global warming and other environmental issues have often put him at odds with the Bush administration and other Republicans.[8][9]" My explanation for removal read: "rm claim unsupported by articles, which mention only one environmental issue (global warming)". The cited sources don't support a characterization like "often". They don't even support the phrase "other environmental issues". (The Washington Post article mentions the Iraq War, which as the Sierra Club and others have noted has caused horrific environmental damage, but it's not primarily considered an environmental issue.) Jaysweet's proposed rewording resolves a different problem but still goes far beyond what the sources say.

Wasted Time R, in removing the passage, wrote: "doesn't matter whether it's true or not, this article should be about McCain's positions, not Bush's or other GOPers". In general, I'd agree, but I wouldn't lay that down as an absolute rule. There may be specific instances in which comparing McCain's position on an issue to Bush's (or to a major McCain donor's economic interest) might increase the reader's understanding. This particular passage, however, wouldn't meet the test, even if were sourced.

Trade agreements: The information about McCain's position on renegotiating trade agreements is perfectly proper and I have no problem with its addition. It doesn't replace the other information, though. The issue of labor and environmental protections is not a "subset" of the renegotiation question. Labor and environmental protections are sometimes included in an original agreement and sometimes omitted. When they're weak, or omitted entirely, their absence is cited by opponents as grounds for urging rejection of the proposed agreement in the first place, not its approval and subsequent renegotiation. See, for example, this letter from environmentalists urging rejection of the proposed U.S. - Columbia Free Trade Agreement ("Despite the inclusion of some essential environmental and labor safeguards, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement none-the-less contains provisions that encourage the relocation of industry in pursuit of the least stringent environmental and social standards and continues to prioritize the rights of private corporations over the public good."). McCain's express disagreement with this standard for evaluating FTA's is part of his position and merits inclusion.

If there is more "context and details of what McCain thinks on this", by all means let's include it. Unless and until that surfaces, though, his statement of his basic position is way, way better than nothing.

I took care to note that McCain's statement was in 2004, in case this is another issue on which he's flip-flopped. The Project VoteSmart website states: "Senator John Sidney McCain III repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff." It would certainly be reasonable for us to consider including more recent statements from him, as well as a reference to any elaboration he's given of his position. JamesMLane t c 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One trouble with the current text:

In 2004, when McCain was asked, "Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?", he answered, "No."[85]

is that it doesn't make clear that the context was a written survey in which a yes or no answer is required. That's different from if he said this in an interview and was so adamant about his response that he didn't follow it up with any further explanation. He had been able to, the full answer in this case might be 'Usually not, but there might be exceptions on a case-by-case basis.' Foreign policy positions (of everyone) are notorious for being adjusted as circumstances demand. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd recommend you avoid using terms like "flip-flop" in talk comments here. That's a term used in the daily idiotic back-and-forth of political campaign messaging battles, and by using it you give the impression you wish to join in such battles. Every politician has inconsistent positions over time, sometimes justified by changing circumstances or evolution of thinking, sometimes triggered by pure expediency, sometimes in between. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I also am a bit concerned with some of the partisan language. We have a broad explanation of McCain's trade policy, we don't need an old isolated survey. Trilemma (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I count three users against maintaining the edit, and one editor in favor of keeping it. Trilemma (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I respond to several points.

• Yes-or-no survey: Anyone who follows the supporting link will see the nature of the source. We don't include all detail from supporting sources -- that's why we link. I don't see this point as important, but if editors think that readers are getting a false impression, I wouldn't object to an addition like "in a Project VoteSmart survey" or whatever would be accurate and would convey the additional information that's supposedly important. I should note that the one-word answers to the exact same survey are the original source for the first few positions in the paragraph, and no one seems to have a problem there.
• "Flip-flop": My experience is that it's useful to employ some partisan terms on talk pages, to help partisans on the other side understand how the NPOV policy applies in a particular case. (Many editors understand only their own POV. Being exposed to another POV helps them find the NPOV phrasing.) In this instance, I agree with you that the media too often play "gotcha" about an alleged flip-flop, because the media will gravitate toward anything that saves them the difficult work of substantive analysis. Some instances of changed positions reflect a genuinely developed position. Of course, others represent cynical political pandering, so the "flip-flop" label, so readily applied to Kerry in 2004 and coming to be applied to McCain this year, will still be in vogue for years to come. Obviously, the term itself doesn't belong in our article, except in quotation, but what you consider to be "the daily idiotic back-and-forth of political campaign messaging battles" is part of the real world that we cover, and it helps shape what's important enough for inclusion in an article.
• Allegedly partisan language: The "broad explanation of McCain's trade policy" is worth including but is, indeed, broad. I doubt that any politicians have articulated opposition to McCain's broad statement that we should "level the global playing field and build effective enforcement of global trading rules". One actual flashpoint, as my May 2008 link demonstrates, is precisely the issue of labor and environmental protections in trade agreeements. Therefore, his position on that question is very much worth including. I don't consider 2004 "old". Note that the very next section includes a 1999 quotation from McCain about Social Security. As I said above, if McCain has addressed the labor and environmental protection issue more extensively or more recently, such information could certainly be considered for inclusion in the article. Absent such a source, however, the current language is not at all partisan.
• Editors' viewpoints: Before we go making a tally or starting another RfC, let's see if there's consensus language. I'm open to hearing what additional explanation of his 2004 statement, and/or reference to other sources, people would like to include.

JamesMLane t c 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of including these edits :). More information is always better than less. Let the reader decide. AzureFury (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is an additional cite for the inclusion of McCain's environmental policy placing him at odds with many in the GDP:[10]. James, the consensus language appears to be to exclude the survey. Politicians take plenty of surveys. Barack Obama once answered one saying he would favor banning all guns. That doesn't mean it warrants inclusion on a page explaining his political positions. When we establish that he is against renegotiating trade agreements, it becomes redundant to restate that same major premise on minor premises. It'd be akin to including in an anti-death penalty politician, "he is against the death penalty. He is against the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden. He is against the death penalty for child murderers." Such an edit would be easily construed as NPOV, semantically. Trilemma (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding surveys - at the risk of being accused of piling on, I'd also support excluding "Yes" and "no" (and similar) tick-the-box responses by candidates. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information; we don't need to record every opinion ever offered on every single issue. (I'd much rather that the Wikipedia article link to newspaper and magazine stories where the reader can read a fuller discussion of context and nuance. And this applies to yes/no votes in Congress - there is a great deal of value in citing an article where there is discussion of McCain voting one way or the other, rather than only mentioning a bill and linking to a roll call list.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This should've been separate threads because we're juggling unrelated issues here.

• McCain the alleged maverick: Trilemma simply isn't responding to what I wrote in this edit (see third paragraph of that addition, or search for the word "disputed" on this page). My previous ES on this point said, "rm claim unsupported by articles, which mention only one environmental issue (global warming)". The newly cited Politico article also mentions only one environmental issue (global warming). The farm bill has significant environmental implications, but Trilemma's new source says, of the farm bill and the Webb bill, "McCain didn’t vote, but he made it clear that he agreed with Bush’s positions on both measures." Similarly, McCain's opposition to higher capital gains taxes and his vow to appoint more conservative judges -- the other subjects discussed in the article -- don't constitute "other environmental issues" on which he's "often" differed from Bush.
• Protections in trade agreements: Trilemma, here again you appear not to have read my comment. I've provided an explanation (and citation) that the issue of labor and environmental protection is one of the key concerns in whether to give initial approval to proposed trade agreements. What is your support for your assertion that this issue is strictly a "subset" of renegotiation? John Broughton has at least read the comments, and I agree that "Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information". We have to make judgments about what's important. Our article currently has four citations to "John McCain on Free Trade", a page that has at least a dozen specific positions. Which of those are important? No political leader is calling for "ineffective enforcement of global trading rules", so McCain's support for "effective enforcement" isn't a big deal. By contrast, there's an important actual dispute about labor and environmental protections in trade agreements. That's a front-burner issue, one that it's worth informing the reader about.

JamesMLane t c 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

James, I would again encourage you to avoid using such language as "alleged maverick." You are coming off as a POV warrior, whether you intend to or not.

Anyway, ANWR is another issue that puts McCain at odds with many in his party. Example here [11].

I'm not going to debate you any further in regards to the inclusion of the poll. The consensus appears to be against including it. Trilemma (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

thx for re-org from section cleanup requester :)

Just wanted to say thx for the recent re-org of "Environmental" section, merger with energy. As the person who originally placed the cleanup tag on the session, I really appreciate seeing wikipedia in action! -- #$# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.205.125 (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gun Owners of America Rating

User:JamesMLane recently reverted my edit to the description of McCain's Gun Owners of America rating without justification (in fact, he hid the revert in a large edit simply described as "(replace expired link)"). In my description, i said "Can you really average letter grades?" and i think that without an answer to this the revert is unfounded (I realize that hidden in the footnote is an "explanation" that the stated D- is an average of two C-'s and two F-'s, and perhaps the statement of average is deemed to be for brevity, but a quick check on the edit diff shows that my edit subtracted 54 bytes from the article). The only reason I know of that you can give an average letter grade in college is that each grade has an associated "grade point" and then you take the average of the grade points, and then you convert that back into a letter grade. And of course, different colleges have different scales and grade point schemes. The GOA website [12] does not describe any grade point scheme, so it is not possible to take a meaningful average. An even better way of taking an average of grades is to go back to the original grading scheme, say out of 100, and average those grades, and for sake of argument let's assume that A+ is 95 and above, and the grades go down by 5 until F- is 45 and above (see [13] for which letter grades are allowed). Given that two of the grades are F-'s (the lowest grade given by the GOA), McCain may have twice scored 10, and the C- could be 69's, but his "average" would still be 38.5, which would be a clear F-. Even if his two C-'s were 69's, his F-'s could be 39's and his average would still be an F. The GOA has not given McCain "a lifetime 'D-'", they gave him two C-'s and two F-'s (in that order), and some user has (in an unfounded, and possibly just plain incorrect, way) called that a 'D-' average. Such a claim is original research.

Furthermore, I would contend that the average of a grade is not as relevant for a running politician as is his current grade (and the footnote does not mention what order the two C-'s and F-'s came in). If you had a 40 year old pitcher on your baseball team, would you look at his career ERA, or his ERA on the year to know whether you should put him in for the next game? To push this analogy further, perhaps the GOA thinks that McCain had extensive surgery on his pitching arm, and has not been the same since.

My edit thus provides a more precise and a more concise statement, so I am putting it back in there. I welcome discussion. RobHar (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you're making this argument in good faith, but I believe you're thinking way too much on this one. I'm the person who originally did this averaging and put in the "D-" back when this was in the main article. "D-" is clearly midway between "C-" and "F-", that's all I meant by it. It's important to give an average or midpoint or median or whatever you want to call it of these political ratings, because the sample size for each year is often small and any given year's result can easily be an outlier. In any case, it's a stretch to call this "original research". If I feel like doing original research, you'll know it ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

All that said, I don't care much about this issue or rating, so I haven't and won't revert any changes on it. I don't even know if the GOA rating is notable; most mainstream press sources just talk about the NRA rating (other editors put the GOA rating in originally; I just added the average). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I thinking way too much, or am I wrong? If you show me that I am wrong, that'll be fine. If someone would explain, given my argument, how "D-" is "clearly" between "C-" and "F-", then that'll be fine. If he had B's and D's, and you wanted to say an average of C, that would at least be an accurate statement, but I'm still unclear as to why giving more data points (in less space) is a worse thing to do (especially since these data points are completely indicative of the evolution of his grade, it's not like they were cherry-picked).

My claim to original research is that if you are able to compute this average, it's that you must know what these actual values are so that you can meaningfully take the average (i.e. show me the math you did to take this average without including information that you can't reference). My comment clearly states that I do not believe the average to be meaningful. We can discuss whether or not putting an average is preferable to the latest rating (or the span of ratings), but that's not even my point.

And for the sake of responding to your point concerning putting an average: I can certainly see your point that putting an average is more suitable than just one data point, it's a good point. But what one should do is attempt a clear description of the data. I think a clear description could contain the average, but would then also require a qualitative description of change. If the grade has oscillated, it's probably ok to omit that, but steady decline is a relevant attribute of the data that would be lost in putting just the average.

I find it hard to contest that my edit gives a fair and accurate description of McCain's GOA grades. RobHar (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your argument, that the lowest grade is unbounded on the low side and thus can't reliably be incorporated into an average. I just think that's overanalyzing a simple expression of a midpoint. But the question is moot now: your wording is in, mine is out, that's fine. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think putting just a D- is under-analyzing the situation. There are people in this world paid to analyze (or you may think over analyze) the meaning of mathematical statements (I happen to be one of them, but that's not the point). Actually, as soon as I saw the statement, it was immediately clear to me that it was meaningless and exactly why it was meaningless and the extent to which it was meaningless. I was not aware one could over-analyze something in less than one second. I provided, in my above comments, what might seem like a lengthy analysis, but that was simply for clarity's sake. RobHar (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was a math major in college and work in a somewhat related profession. Just defending my honor, not reopening the question ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to fix the section on minimum wage. I went back to an earlier version to obtain a citation that had been inexplicably deleted. I must have then accidentally edited that earlier version instead of the current one. It was not my intention to make any change concerning firearms policy -- sorry! JamesMLane t c 20:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. RobHar (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Having now looked at it, I disagree with both you and Wasted Time R. I don't agree with your dismissal of the earlier grade. Part of informing our readers about McCain's political positions is informing them about changes over time. (The article isn't titled "Current political positions of John McCain".) In addition, as Wasted Time R stated, one year's results can be less reliable, depending on which bills happened to come up for a vote. The question whether his edit is original research could go either way; the source doesn't say "D-", but I see his point that "'D-' is clearly midway between 'C-' and 'F-'". The reason I disagree with including the "D-" is precisely because of his "clearly". If we say that McCain got C- and then F-, our readers don't need us to tell them that D- is in the middle.

For these reasons, I think the best version is the one that gives the readers the 2000 rating and the 2006 rating, but letting them decide for themeselves whether they think D- is the best characterization. I'm restoring that information. JamesMLane t c 22:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, JamesMLane, you're opinion of which is the best version IS my opinion of which is the best version, you have simply looked at the wrong section. The edits discussed here were about the instance of this data in the section Political_positions_of_John_McCain#Assessments_by_political_groups, not in the section Political_positions_of_John_McCain#Gun_control. I did not dismiss the earlier grade, in the section under discussion, I replaced the mention of D- with from C- in 2000 to F- in 2006. And I completely agree that this article should attempt to describe changes over time, as I mentioned above. Of course, thank you for making the edit in the gun control section, since I had forgotten about its occurence there. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Minimum wage

JCDenton2052 has twice made this edit, offering no explanation other than a reference to WP:NPOV, with a similar templated comment on my talk page.

The issue concerns the description of the Allard amendment, which McCain voted for. JCDenton2052 changed Version 1 to Version 2:

• Version 1: "McCain believes that each state should decide its own minimum wage. On January 24, 2007 he voted Yea on legislation that would allow employers to pay less than the federal minimum wage if the state set a lower minimum."
• Version 2: "John McCain opposes the federal minimum wage. On January 24, 2007, he voted to repeal it."

Both versions cite to the same source, showing that McCain did indeed vote for the Allard amendment (SA 116).

There's not all that much practical difference between the descriptions. The amendment would have effectively repealed the federal minimum wage except with regard to any state that didn't have its own minimum wage. I suspect that all the states have their own, so that the difference is meaningless, but I can't be certain. I also don't know whether there'd be some practical difference if the federal minimum wage is applicable in the District of Columbia or American Samoa or some other place that isn't a state. Nevertheless, the bill was in fact framed as providing an (extremely broad) exemption to the federal minimum wage, not repealing it. That decision may well have been a fig leaf to protect Republicans from the charge of favoring outright repeal, but our article should follow what the text actually said. Version 1 does so and is NPOV. I'm restoring it.

Here's the text of the amendment, according to the Congressional Record of January 23, 2007, p. S932. It would have added this provision to the Fair Labor Standards Act: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to pay an employee a wage that is greater than the minimum wage provided for by the law of the State in which the employee is employed and not less than the minimum wage in effect in that State on January 1, 2007." (Link) JamesMLane t c 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In this article, generally the longer description is usually the better one, so (not knowing much about this particular matter) version 1 seems better. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The second version is blatant POV because it sugar coats his opposition to the federal minimum wage with an appeal to state's rights conservatives. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

JCDenton, I'd encourage you to reevaluate the philosophy with which you appear to be approaching editing. In regards to the edit, a broader explanation of votes is usually better. For instance, Barack Obama is currently being criticized for having voted against a bill in the state senate that would have protected the life of babies born after abortions, prematurely, etc. Now, we could simply add something with essentially that wording, or we could add something which includes his philosophy and objections concerning the bill. The latter is much better. Trilemma (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, I'd encourage you to reevaluate the philosophy with which you appear to be singling out editors. JamesMLane's edit was no more broad than mine and presented a POV that was very favorable to McCain. It tried to whitewash a position that the vast majority of voters in the United States would disagree with. JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The first version Version 1 is more favorable to McCain but that does not mean it is sugar-coated, nor does it mean it is not the more accurate version. The second version Version 2 is factually incorrect incomplete, for example, since McCain did not vote to repeal the federal wage, he just voted to make it pretty much useless (though not completely since it still sets a default state wage, that must be then be overruled by the state government). Maybe one could add something to that effect, since I don't think that is biased (one should provide references to experts that say this). Though it is clearly leading the reader. In the first version 1, all the facts are there, only interpretation is not there. If someone comes to this page and reads the first version, and doesn't realize the implications, then that is their bad. It is true that the first version 1 is somewhat misleading, but I think that that is not because of the editors of wikipedia, but rather because of the politicians that set the bill up that way. You should get out there and campaign! =) RobHar (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You made two false statements. First, the first version is mine--I initially added McCain's stance on the federal minimum wage to the article; later someone else changed it to a second version which whitewashed McCain's position. Second, McCain's vote would have repealed the federal minimum wage. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

By the first version, I mean what at the beginning of this talk section is called, by JamesMLane, "Version 1". Sorry if this causes confusion, I will avoid that in the future, and I will amend my previous comment to clarify. Secondly, in the comment I added below the above comment, 15 minutes later, I agree that McCain's vote would have repealed the federal minimum wage, but I mention that I think it should still be included that the amendment would still allow for a federal suggested minimum wage, which is a much weaker thing. I'll strikeout things in my previous comment to avoid confusion. And state now, in line with my below comment, that the first version is sugar-coated in that it repeals the federal minimum wage in favour of a federal suggestd minimum wage. RobHar (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to slightly add/amend my comments. Having thought about it more, I think that making a federal minimum wage a suggestion as opposed to an actual minimum, makes it no longer a federal minimum wage, and saying that is still does is biased. One could say it is rendered a federal suggested minimum wage. I think version 1 is better than version 2, but that version 1 is still not accurate, and should reflect the point I have just made. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

JCDenton, I only single out editors when they behave badly. Your belligerence is not conducive to fine tuning the article. Trilemma (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All I gotta say is, you guys are expending a lot of effort and heat over a no-hoper amendment that failed 28-69. Indeed, I usually like to include the final vote in mentions like this, so readers can see whether the thing ever had a hope of passing/failing or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

JCDenton, you have expressed the philosophy of a POV warrior. Assessing this is not a personal attack, only a recommendation to change your approach to editing. Trilemma (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)